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 admiralty or harbor or navigation returned 3147 results.

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

1000 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: This interlocutory appeal involves two questions: 1) whether we have jurisdiction of it. 2) whether an individual is precluded from being a
930 OPINION/ORDER
P.A. were on brief. Welte P.A. was on brief. P.A. were on brief. (
918 OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief. Were on brief. That the United States was negligent and/or breached warranties in the surveying of the Boston Harbor and the dissemination of nautical charts that failed to accurately depict the depth of the harbor. That the district court erred in: (1) finding that there is an implied discretionary function exemption in the Suits in Admiralty Act. Which are maintained by the Army Corps of Engineers (
879 OPINION/ORDER
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.
877 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Admiralty law is considered one of the most complex areas of American law. We are now asked to resolve some of the problems arising from the Supreme Court's holding problems that the Court itself recognized by ruling upon two distinct questions that the Court expressly declined to decide. Ltd. will be defined. Calhoun: Is Yamaha a Cry by the Judiciary for Legislative Action in State Territorial Waters? We will affirm in part and reverse in part. Holding instead that federal maritime law must govern the standards by which Yamaha's liability will be evaluated. Natalie died when the Yamaha1
761 OPINION/ORDER
Are the Contacts Such That Application of American Law Would Be Reasonable? 41 a. Was seriously injured when she was sucked into the propellers of a scuba diving vessel. Plaintiff was a member of the crew of the vessel. Which was in St. We first find American maritime law potentially applicable in this case because the plaintiff is an American citizen. We consider whether applying American law is reasonable under the circumstances. Lucia might have in this case are undefined and. By this we do not mean that the vessel involved here was unlike those in traditional. The activity here was non traditional. Which as we explain is an important consideration in non shipping contexts. One of the defendants is a corporation organized under the laws of St. Was registered in St. Are so threatened or so strong that America’s interests must be ignored. The significance of plaintiff’s American allegiance is an especially important factor. The relevance of the plaintiff’s having entered into her employment contract in the United States is also enhanced.
756 OPINION/ORDER
Once its hopper compartments were full. The dredge would secure itself to a pipe attached to the scots buoy which in turn was connected to the submersible line. When he was unemployed. 3 and that the shore gang was already in place when he arrived to work at Cape May. Testified that he was employed primarily on the navigable waters off Cape May. Oldham testified that Shade was on the water 90% of the time that he worked at the Cape May project. The scots buoy was in place. It was not able to pump the sand to the beach because of a hole in the submersible line. Contended that during poor weather he would work in the harbor which was protected from the rough seas. Great Lakes offered testimony that when the dredge was able to pump sand to the beach. While Oldham was operating the loader. Shade testified that even though doctors were able to reattach his thumb. Great Lakes filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that Shade was not a seaman. P. 50 for a judgment as a matter of law on the ground that the evidence did not establish that Shade was a seaman at the time of his injury.
725 OPINION/ORDER
While the decision was pending. Judge Schroeder was drawn to replace him. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal of a $5 billion punitive damages award arising out of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. This is not a case about befouling the environment. This is a case about commercial fishing. The jury was specifically instructed that it could not award damages for environmental harm. The reason is that under a stipulation with the United States and Alaska. Exxon had already been punished for environmental harm.1 The verdict in this case was for damage to economic expectations for commercial fishermen. The plaintiffs here were almost entirely compensated for their damages years ago. The punitive damages at issue were awarded to punish Exxon. Among the issues are whether punitive damages should have been barred as a matter of law and whether the award was excessive. Important aspects of this opinion are controlled by a 1 See Eyak Native Village v. Inc. 3 Facts Bligh Island and Bligh Reef have been known to navigators for a long time.
725 OPINION/ORDER
While the decision was pending. Judge Schroeder was drawn to replace him. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal of a $5 billion punitive damages award arising out of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. This is not a case about befouling the environment. This is a case about commercial fishing. The jury was specifically instructed that it could not award damages for environmental harm. The reason is that under a stipulation with the United States and Alaska. Exxon had already been punished for environmental harm.1 The verdict in this case was for damage to economic expectations for commercial fishermen. The plaintiffs here were almost entirely compensated for their damages years ago. The punitive damages at issue were awarded to punish Exxon. Among the issues are whether punitive damages should have been barred as a matter of law and whether the award was excessive. Important aspects of this opinion are controlled by a 1 See Eyak Native Village v. Inc. 3 Facts Bligh Island and Bligh Reef have been known to navigators for a long time.
722 OPINION/ORDER
Plaintiff appellant Russell Scott (
717 BUNGE CORP. V. FREEPORT MARINE REPAIR (1/30/2001, NO. 99-14019)

FACTS

717 BUNGE CORP. V. FREEPORT MARINE REPAIR (1/30/2001, NO. 99-14019)

FACTS

712 OPINION/ORDER
Bond and The Kaplan/Bond Group were on brief. Arnold LLP were on brief. Who was doomed to tell the same tale over and over again. Declare his floating work platform a dredge engaged in the excavation of a tunnel in the Boston Harbor to be a
711 OPINION/ORDER
I. FACTS Freeport manufactured and owned a casino vessel (
711 OPINION/ORDER
I. FACTS Freeport manufactured and owned a casino vessel (
630 OPINION/ORDER
Scheuring claims that he is a
618 OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: Page 2. William Shakespeare tells us in a famous passage from Romeo and Juliet that labels are not important. Rather that content is what counts.6 In more recent times. The BETTY F is thus a
607 OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief for appellants.

607 INBESA AM., INC. V. M/V ANGLIA (2/2/1998, NO. 96-5278)

The district court held that a contract between Inbesa and the charterer of in rem appellant M/V Anglia was wholly maritime. Contends that the contract is not subject to admiralty jurisdiction because the contract covers a variety of non maritime services. We must first establish whether we have admiralty jurisdiction over the contract from which the lien is purported to arise. See. The test we apply in deciding whether the subject matter of a contract is necessary to the operation. Or management of a ship is a test of reasonableness. the Anglia argues that a significant portion of the services provided by Inbesa under the contract were non
607 INBESA AM., INC. V. M/V ANGLIA (2/2/1998, NO. 96-5278)

The district court held that a contract between Inbesa and the charterer of in rem appellant M/V Anglia was wholly maritime. Contends that the contract is not subject to admiralty jurisdiction because the contract covers a variety of non maritime services. We must first establish whether we have admiralty jurisdiction over the contract from which the lien is purported to arise. See. The test we apply in deciding whether the subject matter of a contract is necessary to the operation. Or management of a ship is a test of reasonableness. the Anglia argues that a significant portion of the services provided by Inbesa under the contract were non
598 OPINION/ORDER
Bird & Hestres were on brief for appellants. Grafam & Lausell were on brief for appellees. The facts are undisputed. General Background
566 OPINION/ORDER
Was $2.2 million. The district court determined that the owner of the M/V Anne Holly and the employer of its crew were entitled to 1 The complete caption for these consolidated cases is available from the clerk's office. limit their liability to $2.2 million under the Limitation of Liability Act. The district court also determined that the captain of the M/V Anne Holly was competent in general but negligent in this instance and that the allisions resulted from his spontaneous navigational error. Was partially at fault due to its failure to shield or move the Admiral after repeated past allisions at the same location. Because Winterville was not an
556 OPINION/ORDER
L.L.P. were on brief. P.A. were on brief. P.S.C. were on brief. Was substantially destroyed.

525 OPINION/ORDER
The court determined that the parties were equally liable and apportioned damages accordingly. Was pushing four barges. The 95th Street Bridge is managed and maintained by the City of Chicago in trust for the general public. The bridge 2 The M/V Morgan is owned by Kindra Lake Towing. References to the M/V Morgan encompass all relevant defendants. 3 A winch is a mechanical device used for drawing in and loosening a line. Though the full distance from the eastern to the western side of the bridge is 206 feet. The navigable waterway spans only 200 feet and the portion of the bridge which houses the electrical cables on the western pier face is outside of the navigable channel. The recessed slot was also covered by a wooden fender.6 However. The City chose not to replace it.7 4 A dolphin is a pile cluster. The fender system is comprised of long planks of wood. The crew was inexperienced with the M/V Morgan. The four barges were tied two long and two abreast. The M/V Morgan was positioned behind the barges.
519 OPINION/ORDER
Ashley Bunch (Bunch) was injured aboard the M/V Sir Joseph (Sir Joseph). Concluding Bunch was not a
517 OPINION/ORDER
1995 is amended as follows: Bottom of page 8. Was on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellees. In the months before the Escape was lost. Giragosian's adverse experiences relating to the vessel were 1 The Giragosians also counterclaimed for violations of Mass. The engine stalled as Giragosian was entering Scituate Harbor after a pleasure cruise. He was unable to restart the engine. Someone noticed that the Escape was lying very low in the water and the Coast Guard was called to pump the boat out. The two planned to sail the Escape to the Bay Point Marina in Quincy to have it hauled for the season. Giragosian and Likely rowed to where the Escape was moored. That it was rainwater. Because the batteries were low. As the winds were light. He estimated that he was sailing at about six knots. Giragosian noticed that his floorboards were now covered with sloshing water and that they had begun to float. Could not find one as the water was now flooding the cockpit and the flashlight was underwater. Could raise noone. 4 It was getting close to sunset.
504 OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief for Perez y Cia. de Puerto Rico. That were begun but never completed. Perez argues that the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are erroneous. It contends that the district court erred in finding that it was negligent and in breach of its contractual obligations and argues both that the shipowner's contributory negligence caused the damages that are in issue here and that the ship was worthless when it first arrived at the shipyard. We note that LA ESPERANZA was sold at public auction by the U.S. Its argument on appeal is that the court erred in enforcing a
504 OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief for the Director. Were on brief for Bath Iron Works.


496 OPINION/ORDER
Reeves was in the process of cleaning with a hose the cutter head on the dredging ship. Reeves was thrown off the dredge onto a blacktop ramp four to six feet below. The Becky Beth was assigned to a non navigable lake entirely within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Reeves argues that under the
489 OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee. The retrofitted HUDDELL was towed to Simplex's facility at Newington. At which point three options were available for getting from the tank onto the 'tween deck floor: (1) holding onto a
486 OPINION/ORDER
P.C. were on brief. Capone LLP were on brief. Skeen LLP was on brief. Were on brief. There is no authority in law. Because the Coast Guard lacked the authority to remove the NORTHERN VOYAGER's master from his vessel against his will. The discretionary function exception relied upon by the government is inapposite.
474 OPINION/ORDER
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
457 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: The sole issue on appeal is whether we should construe or extend the United States Supreme Court's decision in Moragne v. He was actually employed by Tidewater Temps but worked on behalf of Mid Atlantic Coastings (MidAtlantic). Which was used to load sand for sandblasting. The crane operator's negligence and Norfolk's use of an inadequate communication signaling system were the reasons for her son's death. The Court noted that at common law there was no civil action for an injury that resulted in death and that English maritime law also had no cause of action for wrongful death on the high seas. The Court concluded that because it is now established that in the courts of the United States no action at law can be maintained for [wrongful death] in the absence of a statute giving the right. We are forced to the conclusion that no such action will lie in the courts of the United States under the general maritime law. Which originally was an obscure and rarely used cause of action for which many state wrongful death statutes did not account.
451 OPINION/ORDER
Claimants are the widow and son of a deceased diver and dockbuilder. Which held that the decedent's employer was not required to pay benefits under the Longshore Harbor Workers Compensation Act. The employer has filed a protective cross appeal solely to preserve its right to have this court examine the employment status of the decedent in the event that we reverse the Board on the release and credit issues. We will affirm the order of the Board that the decedent was a harbor worker. We hold that only when these two sections are applied together do they provide a credit to the employer where the apportionment of funds between prior settled claims is unknown. We will affirm the order of the Board. We will affirm its determination that the notice provision of § 933(g)(2) was satisfied by virtue of the employer's participation in the tort settlement. We will reverse the order of the Board that the claimants are not entitled to any benefits under the LHWCA and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
450 OPINION/ORDER
332 at 34
440 OPINION/ORDER
Extends to vessels that have not been arrested within the district court's jurisdiction. Extends to vessels that have not been arrested within the court's jurisdiction. Millennium Seacarriers was formed to hold the capital stock of various vesselowning subsidiaries (collectively
435 U.S. SHOE CORP. V. U.S.
422 OPINION/ORDER
Christensen is a longshoreman who was injured while helping to retie a ship that had broken free from the dock. The injury was not a foreseeable result of appellees' acts. The ship was longer than the 1601 dock. Arrived at the Georgia Pacific dock and tied two mooring lines to the same Georgia Pacific cleat to which Asian Hawk was tied. Christensen was sitting in his truck on his dinner break when the ship broke away from the dock and started drifting into Coos Bay. Claiming that the ship was negligent when it tied to the same cleat as Asian Hawk. The court held that Southern 1 The federal question jurisdiction was based on the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA). Holding that their acts were also not proximate causes of Christensen's injury. We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law. 3 A. That act allows a longshoreman who is injured during the course of his employment to be compensated by his employer.
414 OPINION/ORDER
We are required to interpret and apply various sections of the Restatement (Second) of Torts to a lawsuit arising from a tragic construction accident in the Virgin Islands. The primary issue is the viability of Restatement section 343A. We will affirm. The power lines were clearly visible. There is no dispute that everyone involved with the project knew about the lines and that any contact with them would be dangerous.[fn1] On November 8. A crane was being used to lift steel joists that would connect the columns of the building frame. The first joist was installed with the use of a
400 OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction over its timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Which is now owned by Rose Lee LLC (collectively
389 PALM BEACH ISLAND ASSOCIATES V. U.S.

On the brief were Lois J. Of counsel on the brief was Dorothy Boardman. Circuit Judge.

387 OPINION/ORDER
Finding that Congress could not have foreseen these discrepancies. The Moragne Court found that a claim for wrongful death based upon the unseaworthiness of a vessel was viable because the unseaworthiness doctrine had been extended to longshoremen as the principal vehicle for recovery of injury or death while performing work on a vessel. To the extent of that reliance Moragne was superceded and reversed by the 1972 amendments to the act. The panel opinion's reliance on this portion of Moragne is misplaced. The legislative history of the 1972 amendments to the Act are particularly relevant to our decision in this case. It is clear from this history that Congress intended to
387 OPINION/ORDER
These consolidated interlocutory cross appeals before us pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (1993) present an interesting and important question of maritime law: whether state wrongful death and survival statutes are displaced by a federal maritime rule of decision concerning the remedies available for the death of a recreational boater occurring within state territorial waters. [fn1] which are explicitly excluded from the reach of the Death on the High Seas Act. The remedies at issue are loss of society. Was killed in a boating accident in the waters off Puerto Rico. Fashioned a federal common law rule applicable to cases involving the death of a non seaman in territorial waters under which future earnings and punitive damages are not recoverable but damages for loss of society or support are. Each party sought certification to appeal the portion of the court's ruling that was unfavorable. Our analysis of the Supreme Court's maritime wrongful death jurisprudence reveals that there is no federal substantive policy with which state wrongful death or survival statutes conflict here.
386 OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.1 I. The current depth of the Columbia River navigation channel is 40 feet. Larger vessels with
385 OPINION/ORDER
The district court found that Arnold was not a
385 OPINION/ORDER
The plaintiff is John Serbin. As the sun was rising on December 28. Struggled to move a stuck piece of equipment — known as a
382 OPINION/ORDER
Perlmutter was on brief for appellant. Fox was on brief for appellee. By the time they extinguished the blaze the PROWLER was still afloat but burned almost to its gunnels. Panek also alleged that Concordia should have prevented the PROWLER from sinking by adequately securing it to the dock while it was still afloat. The case was tried to the district court with an advisory jury. It also found for Panek on his claims that Concordia was negligent and breached its contractual duty to secure the boat by 2 failing to remove the hull of the boat from the water when it was still floating. Was captioned
379 OPINION/ORDER
Wilburn (
371 OPINION/ORDER
Because we believe the District Court should have determined whether it had personal jurisdiction before ruling on Sinochem's forum non conveniens motion. An American company that is not a party to this action. The coils were required to be loaded for shipment to China by April 30. Triorient was required to submit a valid bill of lading stating that the coils had been loaded on or before April 30. To transport the steel coils to China.1 1 The Vessel was chartered from MISC to Progress Bulk Carriers. Was issued. On the back of the bill of lading were
365 OPINION/ORDER
A firm that was both his employer and the charterer of the barge. A K is immune from tort actions brought by covered employees like Morehead. As the bare boat charterer of the barge on which Morehead was injured. A K is deemed also to be the statutory vessel owner. It was in this capacity that A K was sued. 2 2 The case raises difficult questions of first impression in this circuit as to the liability of a so called dual capacity employer under the LHWCA. Or rather was in its capacity as
354 OPINION/ORDER
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > In re Amtrak </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="354"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept97/96-6833.opa.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>In re Amtrak </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="343"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/07/013334P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was constructed in 1907. The construction of the Clinton Bridge was authorized by and constructed in accordance with permits issued by the United States Coast Guard. Appellant is the owner and operator of the Clinton Bridge. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/921500E7C5A64E0A882571C30048F0C9/$file/0256256.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs are current or former residents of Bougainville. Who allege that they or their family members were the victims of numerous violations of international law as a result of defendant mining corporation Rio Tinto. Which provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F31BC7CFC2E61F36882572BA0076FFCD/$file/0256256.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ORDER Rio Tinto's petition for rehearing and for rehearing en banc is granted in part. Are hereby withdrawn. A superseding opinion and dissent will be filed concurrently with this order. Plaintiffs are current or former residents of Bougainville. Who allege that they or their family members were the victims of numerous violations of international law as a result of defendant mining corporation Rio Tinto. Which provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2113.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.S.C.</SPAN> were on brief. Ruled that the Puerto Rico Ports Authority (the Authority) was. The sockdolager here is that the statutory power to license and regulate harbor pilots does not imbue the Authority with the level of control necessary to make it their employer for ADEA purposes. All harbor pilots are required to be licensed. The Authority moved for summary judgment on the ground that it was not Camacho's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011680.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. There were no eyewitnesses to the accident and no survivors. Who was probably steering the boat at the time of the collision. Was thrown overboard on impact and drowned shortly thereafter. The call was received by Petty Officer Shelley. Was unsuccessful. Another call from a similar voice was received. Nor did he inform his supervisor of the Mayday calls until after the boys' bodies were found. Gerald Lucas of the Charleston Harbor Pilots Association was piloting the M/V PEARL ACE when he was told that a boatswain onboard had heard someone screaming for help off the starboard side near buoy 22. The Pilots' Office told Shelley someone was heard yelling for help in the waters near buoy 22. A pilot boat was returning to the area to search.2 (Id. Requested a call back with whatever information was found. This is Petty Officer Shelley speaking. This is the Pilot Office. Pilots' Office: How are you doing? The boatswain on ship radioed to the bridge that he heard somebody yelling for help and the pilot boats have gone. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EB99F45A041054A388256FCB007AD2E1/$file/0316129.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on the briefs. Were on the brief. Their boat was buffeted by harsh wind and waves. Nahid was tossed overboard. Monazzami washed up on an island and was stranded for three days before he was rescued. He was hospitalized for several days. While the couple was still in the foundering kayak. The Kiska conducted a brief Because we are reviewing a grant of summary judgment. The relevant facts are not in dispute for purposes of this appeal. 1 3450 TAGHADOMI v. At about seven o'clock that evening the search was called off. In subsequent amended complaints the estate and Nahid's parents were each added as separate plaintiffs and the United States was added as a defendant.2 The plaintiffs (collectively. They allege that the Coast Guard was negligent both in carrying out its rescue operation and in failing to contact local authorities who had access to better rescue equipment that might have been able to save the couple. Holding that the survivors' claims are not cognizable. Is liable in court only when it has waived its sovereign immunity. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="313"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5030o.html">PALM BEACH ISLES ASSOCIATES V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> On the brief were <u>Lois J. Of counsel on the brief was <u>Dorothy Boardman</u>. The court (1) held that there was a categorical taking of the 50.7 acres at issue. (2) stated its understanding of the law that when there is a categorical taking. Assuming that protection of navigation was the purpose for the Government </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044335p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a negligence suit under the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jun2004/Jun16/03-30069-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This appeal is by Paul C. Karim was brought to New Orleans upon being injured but was deported to Bangladesh prior to the judgment registry. in his favor being paid into the district court's At issue is whether. I. The underlying litigation involving Karim and Finch Shipping Company is addressed in Karim v. While a seaman AFFIRMED. that extensive litigation are relevant. aboard a vessel owned by Finch. Karim (a Bangladeshi national) was injured on the vessel while it was off the coast of Bermuda. He was debarked in New Orleans. 2 Karim's claims were presented by Miniclier in the limitation of liability proceeding filed by Finch in 1996. Miniclier's percentage was to be calculated based on the gross recovery that is. Before expenses were deducted. Karim was to be responsible for court costs and other expenses. Miniclier was permitted to advance them. The damages were: 3 $13. Long before his judgment was affirmed. Are protected. That will be charged against [Karim's] judgment. As well as the net amount that will be conveyed to [Karim] after all costs. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/53EE1C88927D5D9D88256F23005032D0/$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-3.gif" ALT="306"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/08/001415P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Webber moved to dissolve the injunction on the grounds that the federal jurisdiction granted by 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1) is limited by the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1721.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to review the dismissal of three separate causes of action by the district court. Two of the lawsuits were dismissed for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3) motions. 03 1722 & 03 1723 mandated that the plaintiff should have filed elsewhere. Was dismissed because the statute of limitations had run on the statutory claim before filing. The district court did not indicate which Rule 12(b) motion it was granting when it dismissed the third case on statute of limitations grounds. Each bill of lading for each of the three shipments included three contractual provisions relevant to the present appeal: (a) Burns Harbor was designated as the port of discharge. This was necessary because the April 7 deadline under the COGSA statute of limitations was quickly approaching. Such extensions are commonly used in the industry to avoid litigation by providing more time for settlement negotiations. The documents were incomplete. This survey was available to Continental approximately one week prior to the April 27. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="300"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2141.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. Final judgment was entered on November 22. An appeal was taken but. That the Athens St. property was used for parking in connection with the operation of the commercial building throughout the period of Rosengard's ownership. A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/46A86B6AEC9F810488256A41005B4515/$file/9955487.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held there was no admiralty jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333 over the disputed marine insurance policy because La Reunion failed to prove that the insurance contract was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F547F6A71410AAC888256E5A00707B19/$file/9955487.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held there was no admiralty jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333 over the disputed marine insurance policy because La Reunion failed to prove that the insurance contract was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1536.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellants. Appellants challenge the constitutionality of Dartmouth's usage fees which are assessed on boats that the appellants keep moored in the town's harbor. 2 to support 1 Capobianco is the president and treasurer of LCM which was created to hold ownership of one of Capobianco's boats. 2 Mass. The fund is financed by a waterways use fee (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-5150.html">JOHN H. BANKS V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <u>Thomas L. DC.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb97/95-9425.opa.html">AMBASSADOR FACTORS V. RHEIN-, MAAS-, UND SEE- SCHIFFAHRTSKONTOR<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Ambassador Factors v. The court held that the Topgallant to Ambassador assignment was valid.<p> According to the complaint in the instant proceeding. 000 in unpaid freights is due under the contract. Claiming that the fact that Ambassador is the assignee of the right to collect on a shipping contract </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb97/95-9425.opa.html">AMBASSADOR FACTORS V. RHEIN-, MAAS-, UND SEE- SCHIFFAHRTSKONTOR<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Ambassador Factors v. The court held that the Topgallant to Ambassador assignment was valid.<p> According to the complaint in the instant proceeding. 000 in unpaid freights is due under the contract. Claiming that the fact that Ambassador is the assignee of the right to collect on a shipping contract </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/80D30AD0ABD8D5A7882572B5005A498F/$file/0535323.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that Kelly Ryan is not entitled to indemnity from Royal under the Marine Coverage Endorsement ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0F8BAB60CD4FB75388256C310059A67B/$file/0135768.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Opinion by Judge Hall *This panel unanimously agrees that this case is appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to Fed. Circuit Judge: This case requires us to determine whether triable issues of fact exist as to whether a seaworthy fish processing barge that is towed across navigable waters twice a year can qualify as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="288"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2003/02-14258.opn.html">ANDERSON V. UNITED STATES (1/7/2003, NO. 02-14258)<BR></A><BR> He asserts that (1) his claim against the United States did not arise in admiralty and thus was properly brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). We affirm.</SPAN></P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="288"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2003/02-14258.opn.html">ANDERSON V. UNITED STATES (1/7/2003, NO. 02-14258)<BR></A><BR> He asserts that (1) his claim against the United States did not arise in admiralty and thus was properly brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). We affirm.</SPAN></P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1997/97a1728p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> In part: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2002a/014101.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (said names being fictitious as their identities are presently unknown). (said names being fictitious as their identities are presently unknown) Christian Joseph Gibbs. This minimum one year time bar is tolled. The Gibbses and Carnival disagree as to when (or whether) Suzanne Gibbs was appointed guardian ad litem of Christian in order to serve as his </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972639.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Emery was hurt while sandblasting inside a ship. Which is extremely heavy and physically demanding labor. He was concerned about the possibility of reinjury. 2 With return to his old job thus precluded. For which medication was unnecessary. Most notably when his arm was fully extended. Emery felt that his symptoms were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1997/97a1728p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> In part: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510110.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Superior was the general contractor for the Florida Department of Transportation's project to widen and expand the Blanding Boulevard Bridge (the Bridge) over the Cedar River in Jacksonville. For use of (1) a 128 An allision is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1959.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hoch & McHugh were on brief for appellant. P.A. was on brief for Portsmouth Harbor Towing. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND The Sea Hawk is a forty five foot Hatteras sport fishing boat built in 1974. Atlantic eventually went into receivership and was taken over by the Resolution Trust Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTQwMDg0IHcgRXJyYXRhLnBkZg==/03-40084%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTQwMDg0X29wbi5wZGY=/03-40084_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="283"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1681_012.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is a sequel to Harkins v. We held that the members of the operating crew of a gambling boat that is most of the time moored rather than sailing are nevertheless </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="281"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991018.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1291. I. UHP is a company that cleans tanks and holds for ocean vessels with ultra high pressure water jets. Was moored at Cargill South Terminal in Chesapeake. The pump and hoses used to operate the ballast tank were owned by UHP. Chisholm was aboard the ULTRAMAX as a first assistant engineer. As UHP employees were preparing to begin cleaning one of the ballast tanks. The loose hose veered and struck Chisholm who was standing approximately 10 to 15 feet away from the ballast tank. This amount was $200. This exact amount was then tendered by UHP to Sealift as indemnity on or about December 11. The district court concluded that Chisholm did not have a right to a jury trial but impaneled a jury anyway to function as an advisory body.1 See id. at 929 30. The admiralty claim pro 1 The fact that the district court ruled that Chisholm did not have a right to a jury because he presented no viable negligence claim rebuts the dissent's assertion that UHP's liability was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="279"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19959425.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Judge Kravitch was in regular active service when this matter was originally submitted but has taken senior status effective January 1. The court held that the Topgallant to Ambassador assignment was valid. 000 in unpaid freights is due under the contract. Claiming that the fact that Ambassador is the assignee of the right to collect on a shipping contract rather than an original party to the contract deprived the district court of admiralty jurisdiction. DISCUSSION The Supreme Court and this court have held that the nature of the disputed contract. Is the crucial inquiry in determining whether a contract is in admiralty. The Court noted that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="274"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A08B13527C87654C882571680058C890/$file/0435724.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court found that the two vessels were operating in concert according to agreed maneuvers. Therefore determined that several substantive provisions of the COLREGS at issue were inapplicable. While the Allegiance was still two to three miles away. The pilot and helmsman aboard the Allegiance realized that the tug boat was also closing the lateral distance between the vessels. Are you ok? </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="274"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/june96/95-7050.wpd.html">TEW V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> The structure was a roadway and low water dam constructed by a private citizen without governmental approval. The Department of the Army Corps of Engineers ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="273"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19954765.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The M/V INAGUA TANIA is an ocean going Senior Circuit Judge. Freighter of Honduran registry whose crew was composed of aliens from Central and South America. The vessel was arrested on March 1. At the time of the arrest the vessel was engaged in the carriage of international trade for hire. * It was arrested in Port Everglades Honorable Gerard L. Sitting by designation. but shortly after the arrest a substitute custodian was placed in charge and the vessel was moved to an offshore anchorage. The vessel had been on charter and was scheduled to commence a new charter two days after its arrest. The shipowner's motion for relief was heard by a Magistrate Judge who set a release bond in the approximate amount of $300. The bond was to be for the benefit of Isbrandtsen alone. Isbrandtsen sought an immediate sale of the vessel claiming that it was a wasting asset. (Actually the greatest cause of waste The owner was the substantial cost of the substitute custodian.) opposed this application advising the Court that it was attempting to obtain security in accordance with the Court's order and that it was also attempting to settle the claims of Isbrandtsen. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="273"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1995/95a1036p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to decide. No such forfeiture has occurred and we will thus affirm the district court's judgment. Francis Deisler is a seaman who is a member of International Union of Operating Engineers. Deisler injured his back while he was working on a dredge and he was disabled for about six months. While Deisler was working as a dredgeman for another boating company. That application included the following question: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/07/021284P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellants) were convicted of knowingly discharging raw sewage in violation of 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a) and 1319(c)(2)(A). Templeton were also convicted of conspiring to discharge raw sewage in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="270"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/984150.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Kerry Ellis and Seawitch Salvage (collectively Ellis) were found guilty of violating the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts by improperly removing and disposing of asbestos during the breaking of Navy surplus vessels. Failing to notify the appropriate environmental agency that asbestos removal was occurring at the site. Ellis was convicted of making a false statement to the Department of Defense regarding the extent of asbestos removal from a ship. Ellis challenges these convictions arguing: the indictment was constructively amended when the judge instructed the jury on too broad a definition of friable asbestos. Defense counsel was ineffective. I. Kerry Ellis was owner and president of Seawitch Salvage. The scrap was then sold to interested parties. Before the ships were sold. EPA and FBI agents executed a 1 Asbestos handling is regulated under the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) contained in 40 C.F.R. part 61. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="267"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2215.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="262"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-2198.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Pitts with whom Pitts & Pitts was on brief for appellants. Was on brief for appellee. Were on board under the auspices of a sailing program run by the American Sail Training Association ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="260"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200610685.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The issue in this appeal is whether the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="259"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1E1C3AFF936829B4882572F1007D223B/$file/0535916.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Robert Lesman1 is the owner and captain of the Sunset Charge and was Gruver's direct supervisor during the time Gruver worked on the boat. Gruver was owed some wages. While the check was in transit. Gruver demanded the money and warned that he would hurt Lesman and damage the Sunset Charge if he was not paid. Gruver again called Lesman and left a message threatening Lesman and his property if the full amount of wages owed to him was not paid. Gruver was lying in his bunk on the Adventurous. Lesman claims he was attempting to give Gruver a check for the remainder of his wages and that Gruver attacked him. Lesman eventually was arrested. Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="256"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug96/95-4765.man.html">ISBRANDTSEN MARINE SERVS. V. M/V INAGUA TANIA<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Isbrandtsen Marine Servs. v. The M/V INAGUA TANIA is an ocean going freighter of Honduran registry whose crew was composed of aliens from Central and South America. The vessel was arrested on March 1. At the time of the arrest the vessel was engaged in the carriage of international trade for hire. It was arrested in Port Everglades but shortly after the arrest a substitute custodian was placed in charge and the vessel was moved to an offshore anchorage.<p> The vessel had been on charter and was scheduled to commence a new charter two days after its arrest. The shipowner's motion for relief was heard by a Magistrate Judge who set a release bond in the approximate amount of $300. The bond was to be for the benefit of Isbrandtsen alone. Isbrandtsen sought an immediate sale of the vessel claiming that it was a wasting asset. (Actually the greatest cause of waste was the substantial cost of the substitute custodian.). The owner opposed this application advising the Court that it was attempting to obtain security in accordance with the Court's order and that it was also attempting to settle the claims of Isbrandtsen. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="256"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug96/95-4765.man.html">ISBRANDTSEN MARINE SERVS. V. M/V INAGUA TANIA<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Isbrandtsen Marine Servs. v. The M/V INAGUA TANIA is an ocean going freighter of Honduran registry whose crew was composed of aliens from Central and South America. The vessel was arrested on March 1. At the time of the arrest the vessel was engaged in the carriage of international trade for hire. It was arrested in Port Everglades but shortly after the arrest a substitute custodian was placed in charge and the vessel was moved to an offshore anchorage.<p> The vessel had been on charter and was scheduled to commence a new charter two days after its arrest. The shipowner's motion for relief was heard by a Magistrate Judge who set a release bond in the approximate amount of $300. The bond was to be for the benefit of Isbrandtsen alone. Isbrandtsen sought an immediate sale of the vessel claiming that it was a wasting asset. (Actually the greatest cause of waste was the substantial cost of the substitute custodian.). The owner opposed this application advising the Court that it was attempting to obtain security in accordance with the Court's order and that it was also attempting to settle the claims of Isbrandtsen. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="254"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992035.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which were lost off the shores of present day Virginia in 1750 and 1802 respectively. LA GALGA and JUNO are covered by the 1902 Treaty of Friendship and General Relations between the United States and Spain. The reciprocal immunities established by this treaty are essential to protecting United States shipwrecks and military gravesites. I. LA GALGA ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="253"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972139.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was in drydock at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard for repair. Xeno was to remove and replace the ventilation ductwork (including vent covers) and the computer cables. The ductwork and computer cables were attached to the computer room's ceiling. Xeno had full control over the repairs and Xeno's employees were not supervised by the United States. One particular cable was difficult to dislodge. Which was attached 2 to the ventilation ductwork running along the ceiling about 10 to 15 inches above Deyerle's head. This duty extends at least to exercising ordinary care under the circumstances to have the ship and its equipment in such condition that an expert and experienced stevedore will be able by the exercise of reasonable care to carry on its cargo operations with reasonable safety to persons and property. To warning the stevedore of any hazards on the ship or with respect to its equipment that are known to the vessel or should be known to it in the exercise of reasonable care. That would likely be encountered by the stevedore in the course of his cargo operations and that are not known by the stevedore and would not be obvious to or anticipated by him if reasonably competent in the performance of his work. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/62716009BC4364EE88256A38005B827A/$file/9935588.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Orsini's job was to untie the crab pot when brought onboard and hold open the pot door when the catch was mechanically shaken out. While he was performing these duties. Orsini reported to Norton that his right wrist was swollen and hurt. His right arm was sore. Orsini gave a personal injury report describing numbness and pain from his fingers to elbow and stating that he was injured on January 19th holding open the door to a crab pot. 1 Many facts herein are set forth in Orsini's affidavit opposing summary judgment. Most are undisputed. To the extent facts are disputed. 313 (1996). 5123 Orsini was treated at a health clinic in Ulalaska by a physician's assistant who Orsini thought was a doctor. Orsini was given a limited work release for an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept95/94-6650.opa.html">MOREWITZ V. WEST OF ENG. SHIP OWNERS MUTUAL PROTECTION AND INDEMNITY ASSOC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Morewitz v. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1996/96a1317p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Coastal filed a counterclaim against Nautilus alleging that Nautilus was solely responsible for the grounding. We are asked to determine whether the district court erred in admitting opinions and conclusions contained in a Coast Guard Report of the incident into evidence. We will affirm the ruling of the district court. I. We need only briefly set forth the underlying facts as they are detailed in the district court's opinion. The approach to the berth was unsafe. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961209.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The COYOTE was sailing downwind at 5 to 8 knots. While the LADY OLIVE MARIE was drifting at 1 to 1.5 knots with her engines in neutral. The wind was from the northeast at 25 to 35 knots with seas of 10 to 15 feet. The night was clear with stars visible in the sky. Scully was sailing the COYOTE alone. The LADY OLIVE MARIE's captain and six member crew were working the vessel on a lay share agreement with Yarmouth. When the catch was landed. The crew of the LADY OLIVE MARIE were waiting for dawn and subsiding weather to begin fishing. Gordon Gray ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/387A3189960A913888256E5A00707B02/$file/9935588.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Orsini's job was to untie the crab pot when brought onboard and hold open the pot door when the catch was mechanically shaken out. While he was performing these duties. Orsini reported to Norton that his right wrist was swollen and hurt. His right arm was sore. Orsini gave a personal injury report describing numbness and pain from his fingers to elbow and stating that he was injured on January 19th holding open the door to a crab pot. 1 Many facts herein are set forth in Orsini's affidavit opposing summary judgment. Most are undisputed. To the extent facts are disputed. 313 (1996). 5123 Orsini was treated at a health clinic in Ulalaska by a physician's assistant who Orsini thought was a doctor. Orsini was given a limited work release for an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1850.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom McConnell Valdes was on brief. With whom Bird Bird and Hestres was on brief. Wakefield & Spedale were on brief. Were allowed to intervene. Suit was originally brought in rem against the vessel. Were also held liable on two of the judgments (for the original charterer and another intervening charterer). The proceeds of the sale are insufficient to satisfy even these four successful claims. Were not allowed to intervene. Arguing that the district court's entry of judgment against them is in error. They argue that the two charterers were awarded excessive damages. These four appeals were consolidated. I. The underlying facts are not now in dispute. The M/V VASILIA EXPRESS was owned by Royal United Shipping. Was registered in the West Indies. During this litigation it was established that. The vessel was actually 1. A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="249"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept95/94-6650.opa.html">MOREWITZ V. WEST OF ENG. SHIP OWNERS MUTUAL PROTECTION AND INDEMNITY ASSOC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Morewitz v. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr98/95-3201.man.html">HALE CONTAINER LINE, INC. V. HOUSTON SEA PACKING CO. (4/3/1998, NO. 95-3201)<BR></A><BR> </EM> and the amount of damages it was awarded against Hale. </P> <P><CENTER>I. Owner shall have the option of terminating this agreement and Charterer shall forthwith surrender possession of said vessel to Charterer. Owner shall have a lien on all cargoes and subfreights for all charter payments and general averages.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr98/95-3201.man.html">HALE CONTAINER LINE, INC. V. HOUSTON SEA PACKING CO. (4/3/1998, NO. 95-3201)<BR></A><BR> </EM> and the amount of damages it was awarded against Hale. </P> <P><CENTER>I. Owner shall have the option of terminating this agreement and Charterer shall forthwith surrender possession of said vessel to Charterer. Owner shall have a lien on all cargoes and subfreights for all charter payments and general averages.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="244"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981962.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was a secretary at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for a short time in 1972. During several public appearances and on a world wide web site Liddy stated that the burglars' objective during the Watergate break in was to determine whether the Democrats possessed information embarrassing to John Dean.1 More specifically. Liddy asserted that the burglars were seeking a compromising photograph of Dean's fiance that was located in Wells's desk among several photographs that were used to offer prostitution services to outof town guests. The district court determined that Wells was an involuntary public figure who could not prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. Because we determine that Wells is not a public figure for purposes of the ongoing public debate regarding Watergate and we also conclude that Louisiana law does not apply to two of Wells's defamation counts. We reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1 John Dean was legal counsel to President Richard M. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="239"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1659.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 12. Delete </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="233"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug97/93-3291.ma3.html">UNITED STATES V. GECAS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Is a Lithuanian national who has lived in the United States as a resident alien for thirty four years. Claiming that his silence is protected by the constitutional privilege against self incrimination. Held that Gecas was entitled to the equitable relief provided by the privilege because he had a real and substantial fear of conviction under foreign law.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="233"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A5D1F88B10778A5C882573210056CD54/$file/0516173.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that our review of Ordinance 1221 is limited by the Nevada Supreme Court's decision in McCarran Int'l Airport v. A portion of the property was zoned as Rural Estates Residential (R E). The County partially conditioned approval of the Landowners' rezoning request on the Landowners' granting of the following avigation easement: [The County] is to have a perpetual right of flight. It is further understood and agreed that the grantor himself. The parties did not complete the rezoning and the First Easement was not recorded. The Landowners filed another rezoning request with the County to have the R E property reclassified as H 1. The County conditioned its approval of the Landowners' rezoning request on the Landowners' granting the following avigation easement: It is understood and agreed that [the County is] to have perpetual right of flight. It is further understood the GRANTOR does hereby agree for himself to release Clark County. 47 foot casino and three 76 foot hotel buildings would penetrate the approach slope for proposed Runway 1R and thus </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="233"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/93-3291.ma3.html">UNITED STATES V. GECAS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Is a Lithuanian national who has lived in the United States as a resident alien for thirty four years. Claiming that his silence is protected by the constitutional privilege against self incrimination. Held that Gecas was entitled to the equitable relief provided by the privilege because he had a real and substantial fear of conviction under foreign law.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="233"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043938p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A federal employee's recovery against the United States for injuries that he sustains on the job is limited to the fixed benefits to which he is entitled under the statutory compensation scheme. Bar contribution claims against the United States by third parties who are sued by such a federal employee. The District Court held that these contribution claims against the United States were barred because the substantive right to contribution in the maritime law is unavailable where the party against whom contribution is sought enjoys statutory immunity from liability to the injured plaintiff. We agree with the District Court and will therefore affirm.1 McAllister also appeals the District Court's dismissal of its contract based claims for indemnification. The USNS MOHAWK was assigned to do most of the towing. The relevant portion of the statute provides: The liability of the United States or an instrumentality thereof under this subchapter or any extension thereof with respect to the injury or death of an employee is exclusive and instead of all other liability of the United States or the instrumentality to the employee. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="233"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1519.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is unclear. \ we refer to both defendants simply as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="233"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E1AD8CF1047CF7138825733300551050/$file/0516173.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2007 at slip op. 8849 is hereby AMENDED as follows: Delete the paragraph at slip op. 8861 beginning </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="232"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2377.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Feldstein & Peirce and Dennis Roberts were on brief for appellees. Although plaintiffs obtained default judgments against the operator of the boat in which they were riding at the time of the accident. Was moored in Newport Harbor for the 1990 charter season. She was crewed by Captain Gordon Percy. Percy instructed Pannell that he was not to bring guests aboard the yacht. The DOLPHIN's 12 foot inflatable tender was to be left on deck. The public launch service (for which the DOLPHIN held a season's pass) was to be used for conveyance between the yacht and shore. As fate would have it. By this time it was after midnight and the public launch service was no longer operating. Default judgments were obtained by Favorito ($250. P. 50(a)(1) is subject to plenary review under the same stringent standard incumbent upon the trial court in the first instance: [W]e must examine the evidence and the inferences reasonably extractable therefrom in the light most hospitable to the nonmovant. Negligent Retention The first cause of action we address is a variant on the traditional tort of negligent hiring: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="232"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-2137_016.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Coverage was barred as a matter of law. Sustained burns over sixty five percent of his body after his clothes ignited while he was cleaning paint equipment with flammable thinner on Corn Island's premises. Fremont was responsible for both Williams's medical expenses and the 1 A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="226"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1637.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Umpierre Solares is an officer of Divers Service Center. Inc. \ Milton Andrews Figueroa is the sole shareholder of Milton Andrews\ Crane Service Center. The only filings in which Soto LaCourt\'s name appears are Plaintiffs\' motion to remand and the\ joint discovery report. Were brought solely by the PRPA. </p>\ </span>' var WPFootnote4 = '<span class= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="226"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012227.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These orders were entered after the court discovered RMST's plans to sell some of the artifacts and confirmed that the court's earlier orders prohibiting the sale of artifacts </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="226"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982071.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Two actions filed by the families of fishing boat crewmen who were lost at sea and one limitation of liability action filed by the boat's owner with respect to the other two actions. We are required to enforce the mechanism specified by the Shipowner's Limitations of Liability Act that all other actions against the owner </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept98/97-3182.opn.html">WILKINS V. COMMERCIAL INV. TRUST CORP. (9/4/1998, NO. 97-3182)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges.</P> <P>PER CURIAM:</P> <P> This is an appeal concerning admiralty jurisdiction. We conclude that admiralty jurisdiction is lacking.</P> <P><CENTER><STRONG>I. Which planned to operate the <EM>Sun</EM> as a cruise ship.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1713.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bond</SPAN> and <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1462.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1995 is corrected as follows: On page 11. Tinkle was on brief for appellants. Are as follows. 857 of which were grouped off shore in arrangements referred to as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2366.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C. were on brief. Mahoney & Miller were on brief. Have a difference of opinion as to nomenclature. Although the parties vigorously debate the exact content of this war of words appellant may or may not have been cashiered then and there it is undisputed that the RESOLUTE turned back. The captain either told or reminded appellant that he was fired and. 2A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1898.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.A.</U> was on brief for appellants.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept98/97-3182.opn.html">WILKINS V. COMMERCIAL INV. TRUST CORP. (9/4/1998, NO. 97-3182)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges.</P> <P>PER CURIAM:</P> <P> This is an appeal concerning admiralty jurisdiction. We conclude that admiralty jurisdiction is lacking.</P> <P><CENTER><STRONG>I. Which planned to operate the <EM>Sun</EM> as a cruise ship.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="220"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2000/99-13117.man.html">INT'L AIRCRAFT RECOVERY V. UNIDENTIFIED, WRECKED, AND ABANDONED AIRCRAFT (7/17/2000, NO. 99-13117)<BR></A><BR> The plane flew </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="220"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/67681A6140748CF988256C62007C6857/$file/0116447.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Is the legal owner of the Fierce Packer. Ellis was put in touch with Skagvik. Additional crew were hired to work on the Fierce Packer. He initialed the same document that was initialed by Mallars. The first trip was from December 21. The second trip was from January 13 to 27. The final trip was from February 4 to 17. They told Hansen that Ellis was behind on payments to the crew and that shippers were beginning to complain about Ellis. He was owed $3. He was given a draw of $1. Was still owed $2. Skagvik learned that IMAR was in bankruptcy and that they had been fired for (allegedly) consuming alcohol while on the Fierce Packer. Schultz The district court found that this difference in the parties' factual accounts was attributable to confusion surrounding IMAR's bankruptcy and that there was no evidence of any deliberate dishonesty. (2) Hansen could not have expected the crew to wait on the ship without compensation. (3) a crew was needed on the ship to keep it protected and maintained and to continue exploring the possibility of further cargo voyages under Hansen's operation. 2 MADEJA v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="220"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1998/98a2031p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. At issue in this case is the application of regulatory provisions of the Waterfront Commission Compact ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="220"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2000/99-13117.man.html">INT'L AIRCRAFT RECOVERY V. UNIDENTIFIED, WRECKED, AND ABANDONED AIRCRAFT (7/17/2000, NO. 99-13117)<BR></A><BR> The plane flew </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="219"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1794.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Peral</U> were on brief for appellant.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="219"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051837p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge Appellant Ferrostaal claims that steel coils belonging to it were damaged in transit from Tunisia to New Jersey. We hold that the District Court correctly analyzed the choice of law question and that the fair opportunity doctrine is inconsistent with COGSA. We will. 000 a day.1 The Sea Phoenix was to be delivered into TST's control on or about November 24 or 25. The shipper was Tunisacier International S.A. The shipment was to be discharged at the Novolog terminal in Philadelphia and consigned to the order of Ferrostaal Inc. The total cost of the shipment was $171. Ferrostaal's German parent The Charter Party is a standard New York Produce Exchange time charter form modified with extensive strikeouts and an additional seventeen pages of terms. The Bills of Lading are clear and concise. No such date was provided. No charter party was named. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="219"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1784.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. Is a houseboat a house or a SELYA. Is the enigma posed by this case. I I La Parguera is a bay in Puerto Rico acknowledged by all interested agencies and groups to have great beauty and ecological value. There are. The Corps informed the owners of these houseboats that they were subject to 2 the permitting requirements of section 10. Their applications were denied. For they are resisting the agency's effort to obtain a determination of legal enforceability by arguing that the agency lacked jurisdiction over their vessels. Although exhaustion of administrative remedies is often a prerequisite to judicial review of administrative action. Jurisdictional questions are generally not waived. Because an action taken by an agency lacking jurisdiction is a nullity. To the navigable capacity of any of the waters of the United States is prohibited. Non exclusive enumeration of things that are presumed to constitute obstructions. Included in this list is the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="219"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTIyMzBfc28ucGRm/05-2230_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="212"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1759.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> L.L.P.</U> was on brief. Were on brief. These new constructions are located in the San Antonio Channel. So are subject to the Rivers and Harbors Act. The case should have been dismissed because the government of Puerto Rico was an indispensable party to the case. It also says that under the lease any </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="212"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2000/98-5729.man.html">POLO RALPH LAUREN, L.P. V. TROPICAL SHIPPING & CONSTR. CO. (6/21/2000, NO. 98-5729)<BR></A><BR> An owner of goods lost at sea has against the carrier when the owner of the goods is not a named party to the bill of lading. We also address the novel issue of what cause of action is afforded under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. The container containing Polo's cargo was lost overboard in rough seas. The district court granted the motion as to the contract claim on the ground that Polo did not have standing because it was not named in the bills of lading. Challenging both the district court's conclusion that COGSA provides an exclusive remedy and that Polo is barred from seeking redress under COGSA.</P> <P><CENTER>II. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="212"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/03/024121P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Belterra appeals the district court's1 determination that Missouri Barge is entitled to a limitation of liability for the collision. Passing agreements were made using whistles. Believing that he was still communicating with the Eileen Bigelow. Cummins assumed he was approaching a construction site. Rich realized that the Elizabeth Ann was not moving to starboard fast enough. A passing agreement is a communication made between two approaching vessels whereby they agree in advance on which side of the river each will be when the vessels meet and pass. This communication is usually made by marine radio. 43 contributed to the collision by not being far enough to the right descending bank of the river to make the passing. Missouri Barge cross appeals arguing that the district court misinterpreted Rule 14 and that the court's findings that Cummins made a starboard to starboard passing agreement with the Miss Belterra was clearly erroneous. When two power driven vessels are meeting . . . so as to involve risk of collision each shall alter her course to starboard so that each shall pass on the port side of the other. 4 The court found. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="212"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/99/99-3777.TXT">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Events were set in motion in August and September 1991. The old tunnels have found new uses. Deterioration could have been stopped if the damage had been detected during inspections and the roof shored up pending repairs. Navigation on the River was halted for about a month while the tunnel was repaired. As part of a settlement the City of Chicago and a class of injured parties have succeeded to Great Lakes' rights under the policies. Insurance coverage could have been simple. At the beginning of August 1991 Great Lakes was the beneficiary of three relevant policies: a primary policy with a cap of $1 million and two excess policies purchased by its corporate parent Itel Corporation. On which Great Lakes was an additional insured: a first excess policy providing $40 million in coverage. Both of these excess policies were underwritten by a consortium that for convenience we call the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="212"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2000/98-4455.man.html">COASTAL FUELS MKTG. V. FLORIDA EXPRESS SHIPPING CO. (3/28/2000, NO. 98-4455)<BR></A><BR> Because the court failed to determine whether the amount of attorney's fees requested by Defendant Florida Express Shipping Co. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="212"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2000/98-4455.man.html">COASTAL FUELS MKTG. V. FLORIDA EXPRESS SHIPPING CO. (3/28/2000, NO. 98-4455)<BR></A><BR> Because the court failed to determine whether the amount of attorney's fees requested by Defendant Florida Express Shipping Co. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="212"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971394.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Waggoner was injured while riding on the jet ski and sued. The district court dismissed the suit on the grounds that it was barred by the waiver. Is governed by principles of maritime law. Where States have a strong interest in applying their own tort law. Or was not on all fours with the maritime shipping and commerce that has traditionally made up the business of most maritime courts </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="212"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1619VOL1.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C.</SPAN> were on brief. Capone LLP</SPAN> were on brief. Skeen LLP</SPAN> was on brief. Were on brief. Affirming the judgment only if there is no genuine issue of material fact and if the appellee is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="212"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2000/98-5729.man.html">POLO RALPH LAUREN, L.P. V. TROPICAL SHIPPING & CONSTR. CO. (6/21/2000, NO. 98-5729)<BR></A><BR> An owner of goods lost at sea has against the carrier when the owner of the goods is not a named party to the bill of lading. We also address the novel issue of what cause of action is afforded under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. The container containing Polo's cargo was lost overboard in rough seas. The district court granted the motion as to the contract claim on the ground that Polo did not have standing because it was not named in the bills of lading. Challenging both the district court's conclusion that COGSA provides an exclusive remedy and that Polo is barred from seeking redress under COGSA.</P> <P><CENTER>II. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="212"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19984455.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the court failed to determine whether the amount of attorney's fees requested by Defendant Florida Express Shipping Co. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="212"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19984455.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the court failed to determine whether the amount of attorney's fees requested by Defendant Florida Express Shipping Co. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="203"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1208.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was David E. With him on the brief was Devon H. With him on the brief were Peter D. Because there was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="198"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTA1MDAtYWdfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0500-ag_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Holding Rocco Morganti ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="198"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5031.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Kelly A. The Corps project limited the ability of 1 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="198"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/07/021531P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lawson and Mary Burford (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="198"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B1E6416438C95FF3882572E300839DF0/$file/0435182.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> IN RE: THE EXXON VALDEZ 6039 ORDER IT IS ORDERED THAT: The opinion in In re Exxon Valdez. 472 F.3d 600 (9th Cir. 2006) is amended as follows: On page 621. Delete the first full paragraph commencing with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2479.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Graffam & Lausell were on brief for defendant Crowley Towing. Sarraga were on brief for plaintiffs Berend J.D. Were forced to abandon her moments before the collision and were rescued several hours later. As the Rule 59(e) motion was not served until August 11. It was summarily denied. That the special jury verdict on liability is contrary to the evidence on comparative fault. a. An order denying a new trial will be reversed only if the verdict was against the clear weight of the evidence. A federal court may not set aside a jury verdict and direct the entry of a contrary verdict unless no reasonable jury could have returned a verdict adverse to the moving party. Testified that the GLORIA followed proper col lision avoidance procedure.3 Captain Rivera stated that the GLORIA was placed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2188.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellee. He alleges that his prosecution was invalid. That the evidence was insufficient. Conclude that the evidence adduced was insufficient to establish that Rivera knew that the vessel's condition was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="182"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510862.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We consider whether United States law was properly applied to govern a transaction between a Liberian shipowner and a Greek travel agency for travel services benefitting a Greek flagged cruise vessel while it was in a United States port. We find that Greek law­not United States law­should have been applied. Background Aktina is a Greek travel agency. Claiming that it was entitled to a maritime lien under the Commercial 3 Instruments and Maritime Liens Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="182"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9EA6645FBBA6B29B88256B59000308AC/$file/9916194.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="182"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1217.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 15. A pretrial conference was held in which defense counsel stated: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="182"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTQwNjYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-4066-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was severely damaged when the train carrying the cargo derailed in Texas. The bills of lading were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="182"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/10/002767P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The bridge was damaged when the Arkansas River Co.'s pushboat. The district 2 court1 found that the Arkansas River Co. was liable to the Commission for the damage to the bridge. The district court further found that the Arkansas River Co. was entitled to 100% contribution from the United States because the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Failed to tender the barge to the Hines' captain in a condition that would have permitted it to pass safely under the bridge. A time charter is a maritime contract providing that the chartered vessel's owner navigates. The chartering party directs the work the vessel is to perform. Including the routes it will take. A dragline is an excavating machine that has a bucket attached by cables to the end of a long boom. The bucket is filled by using the cables to draw the bucket toward the machine. The boom's tip is 75 to 80 feet above the water. The tip is 110 to 120 feet above the water. The Corps' employees in Greenville were preparing the Odum for transport under the direction of Walter Fuquay. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="182"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1124.html">SEA-LAND SERVICE INC V. DANZIG RICHARD J<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief was <U>Michael A. Of counsel on the brief was <U>James P. With him on the brief were <U>David W. Of counsel was <U>Daniel Wentzell</U>. This is a government contract case. The contract at issue was between the Navy s Military Sealift Command (MSC) and Sea Land Service. After performance of the contract was completed. Because Sea Land s rates for transporting that cargo were greater than the rates Sea Land charged private shippers to transport like goods. The McCumber Amendment was first enacted as a proviso to the Cargo Preference Act of 1904. If the President finds that the freight charged by those vessels is excessive or otherwise unreasonable. The purpose underlying the Cargo Preference Act was to help U.S. carriers meet foreign competition by giving them a preference in transporting military goods. <U>See</U> <U>Curran v. Congress was concerned. Two provisions were added to the statute to guard against that possibility. The first authorized the President to disregard the statutory preference if he found that domestic carriers were imposing excessive or unreasonable charges for transporting military freight. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="181"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981256.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 98 1256 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Admissible evidence to demonstrate that George was negligent. The Feltons were married at the time but had been living apart for approximately 18 months.1 While the Feltons dined across the bay at Mears Marina in Kent County. The weather was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="181"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/679D33FA3FF9F01588257321006FB13E/$file/0535477.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Golden Pisces and OneBeacon are not entitled to attorneys' fees absent statutory authorization. Because the parties' contract was void. Which at the time this action arose was based in Newport. It was never signed by the ship's manager. Nor was it signed by a representative of Fred Wahl. It was towed back to Dutch Harbor and missed the remainder of the fishing season. Fred Wahl raised the affirmative defenses that Golden Pisces was comparatively negligent. The parties stipulated to several facts but disputed whether Golden Pisces was comparatively negligent and whether the terms of the form contract controlled. It further found </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="181"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0831990EEA712D45882573470051BA3C/$file/0574592.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2321 and 2342(5). I. A The STB is a successor to the Interstate Commerce Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="181"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1493.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Calvesbert & Brown was on brief for appellant. Palou & Miranda were on brief for appellees. As we conclude that it was improper for the recused judge to revisit the recusal order in these circumstances. No claims were made on the policy until after the JOHANNY's final voyage two years later. Set off from the Cangrejos Yacht Club in 1The material facts underlying the merits dispute are recited in the light most favorable to the judgment. To have the boat drydocked for repair. Concluded that it was safe to pro ceed. Varona noticed that the JOHANNY was riding abnormally low in the water. Was unable to contact either the United States Coast Guard or his yacht club in San Juan. The source of the leak was not located and. Marine salvage survey ors have never been able to locate her. Proffered opinions to the effect that the incursion of sea water into the engine compartment could have resulted from the failure of a stuffing box. Vaello's opinion was based largely on perceived irregularities in the manner in which Varona had pursued the insurance claim. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="181"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-2361.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jr.\ (former Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of\ Environmental Protection) have been substituted with Deval Patrick\ and Arleen O\'Donnell (Acting Commissioner of the Massachusetts\ Department of Environmental Protection) in both No. 06 2361 and No.\ 06 2362. <span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="181"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200015305.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are not subject to the Limitation of Vessel Owner's Liability Act. The question of whether the United States' claims brought pursuant to PSRPA are subject to the Limitation Act is one of first impression. If the limitation is granted. The vessel owner subsequently is found liable. It was entitled to all damages due to injuries to resources in the National Park as a result of the grounding.3 The relevant provisions of the PSRPA include: 16 U.S.C. § 19jj 1(a): [A]ny person who destroys. Or injures any park system resource is liable to the United States for the response costs and damages resulting from such destruction. As limitation is based on the post accident value of the vessel and its freight. Especially in cases in which the vessel sinks or the freight is lost. Or injury to the same extent as a person is liable under subsection (a) of this section. 16 U.S.C. § 19jj(c): </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="168"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1813.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A</U> and <U>Calvesbert Law Offices PSC</U> were on brief for appellent. </FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="168"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2004/023828p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The longshoreman's theory is that the shipowner was negligent because it failed to provide him with a safe place to work. The appellant Ronald Jackson ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="168"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2001/00-13886.opn.html">NATCO LTD. PARTNERSHIP V. MORAN TOWING OF FLORIDA (9/28/2001, NO. 00-13886)<BR></A><BR> BACKGROUND</STRONG></CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="168"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2000/98-2734.man.html">FREDERICK V. KIRBY TANKSHIPS, INC. (3/8/2000, NO. 98-2734)<BR></A><BR> Cure was excessive. Cure is not supported by the evidence. We have consolidated the appeals.</P> <P><CENTER><EM>II. This court </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="168"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan96/94-2782.opa.html">LARUE V. JOANN M.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Larue v. Larue was a seaman employed as deckhand on a tug owned and operated by Moran Towing. When the tug's duties were completed she commenced retrieving from the deck of the Joann M. the 200 pound tow line that she had provided to the vessel. This required crewmen of the Joann M. to lift the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="168"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2001/00-13886.opn.html">NATCO LTD. PARTNERSHIP V. MORAN TOWING OF FLORIDA (9/28/2001, NO. 00-13886)<BR></A><BR> BACKGROUND</STRONG></CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="168"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1452.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellee. (a)(7) and 18 U.S.C. 981(a)(1)(A).1 The government alleged that this property had been used by claimant Torres Colon as a meeting place to discuss an illegal drug distribution scheme and that he bought it with proceeds traceable to his drug transactions for the purpose of laundering the money.2 Torres Colon subsequently was prosecuted for his alleged involvement in the drug distribution scheme. A bench trial was held in the civil forfeiture action against the defendant property. 121 U.S.C. 881(a)(6) and (a)(7) are part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Control and Prevention Act. Provide for forfeiture to the government of property connected with illegal drug transactions. 18 U.S.C. 981(a)(1)(A) is part of the Money Laundering Control Act. Also provides for forfeiture of property traceable to money laundering transactions. 2Torres Colon was alleged to have participated in three separate schemes with one or two partners whereby one of the partners would order controlled substances through legitimate drug wholesalers in Miami. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="168"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1044.html">THOMSON MULTIMEDIA INC. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant in 03 1044.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Robert B. New York.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Richard K. Argued for plaintiff appellant in appeal 03 1137.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief was <u>Daniel G. Argued for defendant appellee in appeals 03 1044 and 03 1137.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the briefs were <u>David M. Assistant Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel on the briefs </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="168"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan96/94-2782.opa.html">LARUE V. JOANN M.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Larue v. Larue was a seaman employed as deckhand on a tug owned and operated by Moran Towing. When the tug's duties were completed she commenced retrieving from the deck of the Joann M. the 200 pound tow line that she had provided to the vessel. This required crewmen of the Joann M. to lift the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="168"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200002/99-7017a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whalen argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellees/cross appellants. Was not the real party in interest under Fed. LP </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="168"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-3624.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The plaintiffs in this suit for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act are 21 former employees of the defendant. 14 of the 21 also claim that they were fired in retaliation for making overtime claims. Which likewise is forbidden by the Act. The boat's home port is East Chicago. Both because it is considered as a less intrusive means of operation within a community. Is a real ship despite its outlandish name and is considered a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="168"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jul1998/98a1902p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that the search of the Venture Pride at issue in this appeal was authorized by 14 U.S.C. S 89(a) (1994) since the Venture Pride was situated in U.S. territorial waters while undergoing repair. We will reverse the order of the district court and remand for further proceedings. The Venture Pride is owned by Varlack Ventures. Who was not on board. Who was then on board. Thomas informed him that the Venture Pride was in the north branch of Cruz Bay. Janssen noticed that a large amount of oil had been removed from the bilge. 3 Fredericks and Varlack Ventures were indicted for knowingly discharging oil into U.S. waters in violation of 33 U.S.C. Varlack Ventures also was indicted for violating 33 U.S.C. Were admissible. We will exercise plenary review of the district court's legal determinations and applications of law to facts. We will review the district court's factualfindings for clear error. We have no need to decide this issue in the instant case. No warrant was needed for the search. 4 A. Fredericks's reasonable expectation of privacy can only arise from his position as captain of the vessel.2 Third Circuit precedent is inconclusive regarding whether the captain of a ship can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the public areas of his vessel such as the engine room. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="168"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021016.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Who are creditors of Hawkspere. Because we conclude that the bulk of the bunker fuel aboard the NOBILITY was not the property of Hawkspere at the time of attachment. I. The facts in this case are largely undisputed but require rather detailed recitation. The company against whom attachment was sought. Hawkspere is not a party to this case and appears to now be defunct. While the NOBILITY was in St. The Sellers shall have a right of lien over the Marine Fuels delivered. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="168"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2000/98-2734.man.html">FREDERICK V. KIRBY TANKSHIPS, INC. (3/8/2000, NO. 98-2734)<BR></A><BR> Cure was excessive. Cure is not supported by the evidence. We have consolidated the appeals.</P> <P><CENTER><EM>II. This court </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="160"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1994/94a0888p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This personal injury action was filed with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the Jones Act. The plaintiff was a scuba diving instructor who received injuries from a diving accident that took place in the coastal waters of St. [fn1] the district court reduced the verdict in favor of the plaintiff on the theory that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. Because we will reverse the order of the district court which concluded there was subject matter jurisdiction. Neely was offered a position at the Club Med resort. On board the vessel was Neely (who was acting in her capacity as a dive instructor). The guests were instructed to put on their diving gear and await the signal from the Dive Master before entering the water. Defendants insist that the signal was never given. While (unknown to the captain of the Long John) Neely was in the water. She reappeared on the starboard side of the boat and was rescued by the other dive instructor. B. Procedural Background Plaintiff Neely is a United States citizen who resides in Pennsylvania. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="160"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1253.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lyons was on brief for appellant. Longshoreman Joseph England was seriously injured when a mooring line. Binding a barge to the pier on which he was working. Following the jury's verdict that all three parties were partially negligent. Was overseeing a gang of twelve longshoremen unloading and then loading cargo onto a barge. The line handlers were employed by Hale for the limited purpose of assisting with the mooring and unmooring of the barge. Were not on site during cargo operations. Just before the longshoremen were to begin unloading the barge. The jury was not. Asked to specify what duty or duties it found each party to have breached. Reinauer was prevented from introducing evidence that England received workers' compensation and medical benefits during his unemployment. That the evidence was insufficient to establish that it owed England any duty and that the court had erred by excluding evidence of England's collateral source benefits. Reinauer also filed a post judgment motion for disclosure of the terms of a settlement agreement that was reached by Hale and England after the close of all evidence but before the jury's verdict. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="160"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-5055.html">DEL-RIO DRILLING V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="160"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/May2004/May18/03-60131-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. * injury was covered by the LHWCA. Holding that We the platform was not a covered situs under 33 U.S.C. § 903(a). have jurisdiction pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 921(c). Which was used to transport employees from Venice. Is accessible only by vessel. above. Thibodeaux injured himself after observing that a discharge line located five feet below the deck of the platform was leaking oil. Upon determining that he could better inspect the line from There are docking areas for the two water craft noted a small wooden platform below the deck and adjacent to the line. An ALJ held Thibodeaux was covered by the LHWCA as he was a maritime employee and his injury occurred on a pier. Reasoning that the oil production platform was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="160"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/01/022639P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court1 found that venue for Mike's limitation proceeding was proper only in the Southern District of Illinois and dismissed the case without prejudice. Venue lies </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="160"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216691.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleging that it did not contribute to the allision for it was not in violation of Navigational Rules. The appellees shrimp boat was caught in a fog en route to a fishing trip. The dis trict court's legal con clusions are subje ct to de no vo revie w. 649 (11th Cir. 1990) but the district 2 court's fa ctual find ings w ill not be d isturbed unless th ey are clear ly errone ous. There are four issues on appeal. Moored Anchoring is a subset of mooring. The traditional distinguishing factor of a moored vessel versus an anchored vessel has been that the former is moored to a permanent object su ch as a do ck or a p ier while the anch ored ve ssel is anch ored in o pen w ater. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="160"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/362C986B927C85CA882570F40007E278/$file/0455024.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Will & Emery. Carson Harbor argues there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether it substantially complied with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (National Contingency Plan). UNOCAL CORP. 511 was properly authenticated and that the district court abused its discretion in not considering late filed declarations. Facts BACKGROUND Carson Harbor is a limited partnership owned by James Goldstein and his corporation. Of which he is the sole shareholder and president. When the Property was converted into a mobile home park. Included within the Property boundaries are about seventeen acres of marshy wetlands. The tar like material was visible at the surface and covered an area about twenty feet by thirty feet in the wetlands. Was most concentrated near the tar like material. Carson Harbor asserts that the area is a federally protected wetlands. That contention is not relevant to the outcome of the issues presented to this court and need not be decided. 1 512 CARSON HARBOR VILLAGE v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="160"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=07&date=01&year=02">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="155"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200706/06-5133a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was E. Green was on the brief for amici curiae American Medical Association et al. in support of appellant. With her on the brief were Jeffrey S. Circuit Judge: The issue in this case is standing to challenge a regulatory safe harbor where the direct cause of injury is the independent action of a third party. The same issue was before this court in National Wrestling Coaches Ass'n v. Though the factual context there was very different. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="154"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A425BE6D0796D64288256E0F005D1CB6/$file/0256213.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="153"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/18FFEF170766D6AC88256AEF005A703E/$file/9855056.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Will & Emery. We are called upon to determine whether. Those cleanup costs were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="153"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E81DBF41AAD2A0F188256E5A00707D25/$file/9855056.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Will & Emery. We are called upon to determine whether. Those cleanup costs were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="152"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-5117.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is. Appeals from the district court's dismissal of his complaint asserting a slander of title claim against the Tax (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. I. McNeil and his wife are the owners of a parcel of land located in Rogers County. McNeil asserted that it was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="152"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1776.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellant. United States Attorney was on brief for appellee. Claimant Claire Soule seeks costs and attorneys' fees incurred in recovering $2450 in cash which was seized in a drug raid on her home. United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents received information that 1500 pounds of marijuana were to be delivered to Jeffrey Soule at 255 Broadway in Hanover. Search warrants were obtained for the premises. 500 in cash found in a gym bag beside the bed in which John Jeffrey Soule was sleeping. Only this last item is at issue in this appeal. By reason of any act or omission established by that owner to have been committed or omitted without knowledge or consent of that owner. 3 3 seized cash.3 Claire Soule responded on June 14. A default judgment of forfeiture was entered against the lots of $874. The district court held a hearing at which the government was asked to show probable cause for the forfeiture of the money found in the five envelopes inside the hutch. The warrant and monition in this case was issued pursuant to these Supplemental Rules. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="152"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2398.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLC</SPAN> was on brief. Will &. Were on brief. No permit was forthcoming. I. While the suit was pending. We hold that the Fish Pier is a non public forum. That the leafletting ban which is content neutral and reasonable in light of the uses to which the pier is put is a valid exercise of governmental authority. We hold that Massport's permit requirement is valid on its face: the neoteric regulations sufficiently limit official discretion and the restrictions imposed are both content neutral and narrowly tailored.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="152"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19942782.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Larue was a seaman employed as deckhand on a tug owned and operated by Moran Towing. When the tug's duties were completed she commenced retrieving from the deck of the Joann M. the 200 pound tow line that she had provided to the vessel. This required crewmen of the Joann M. to lift the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="152"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200013886.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND Natco is engaged in the marine construction and dredging business. The crane was a landbased. 55 ton crawler crane that was to be secured to a barge named the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="152"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5098.html">EL-SHIFA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES COMPANY, ET AL. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Timothy J. Ambrose</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel was <u>Christopher J. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Thomas L. Line height:200%'><span style='mso tab count:1'>            </span>The complaint states that Idris is a highly successful Saudi banker who was born and raised in Sudan.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>The chain of events leading up to the instant lawsuit began in March 1998. El Shifa was the sole and exclusive owner of a manufacturing facility located in Khartoum. ).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>The appellants allege that El Shifa was the largest pharmaceutical manufacturing company in Sudan and that it used the Plant to supply drugs sorely needed by the impoverished people living in that country.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>    </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoBodyText style='text indent:.5in'><span style='mso bidi font size: 12.0pt. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="152"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr97/96-6015.wpd.html">TOWERRIDGE, INC. V. T.A.O., INC.<BR></A><BR> 1997 Please be advised of the following correction to the captioned decision: The identification of the attorneys for Defendants Appellants and Cross Appellees is incorrect. I. BACKGROUND This action was brought by Towerridge. T.A.O. was the prime contractor on a construction project for the Oklahoma Air National Guard in Oklahoma City. Because the project was federally funded. T.A.O. was required under the Miller Act to post a payment bond to protect subcontractors and materialmen.(1) Co defendant Mid Continent Casualty Co. was the surety on the bond. The total subcontract price was $448. The subcontracted work was broken down into four line items: (1) concrete paving. T.A.O. was to make monthly progress payments to Towerridge for work satisfactorily completed. The appropriate percentage of each line item's scheduled value to which Towerridge was therefore entitled. T.A.O. was to pay Towerridge twenty percent of that line item's scheduled value. When Towerridge had completed ninety percent of a line item it was entitled to ninety percent of the scheduled value. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="152"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2379.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While our reasons are not identical to those offered by the district court. We conclude that the result was correct. I Douglas Schadel was employed as a conductor by the Iowa Interstate Railroad (IAIS). He was working on the morning of December 31. As part of a two person crew assigned to relieve an eastbound IAIS crew who were expected to come through the Joliet. Schadel's crew was to meet the train at an at grade railroad crossing west of Joliet. The one they chose was at Bush Road. Engineer Eddie Brown was the other crew member. Which were equipped with bells and flashing lights. Who was then standing behind the car. He was taken to a local emergency room. (This case was proceeding before the magistrate judge by consent of the parties. It was not permitted to consider 4 No. 02 2379 Kowalewicz's role. It found that he was 50% contributorily negligent. Of using a pro tanto approach (that is. IAIS argued that the court should have used a proportionate share approach. The jury would have allocated responsibility among all three parties and imposed damages on IAIS only to the extent of its share of the liability. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="152"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0036n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Appellant maintains the district court's ruling on its motion for summary judgment was in error. Rafael DeLaCruz was a passenger on a vessel owned by the Appellant. Was capable of carrying 149 passengers. Cruises were conducted along the Clinton River in Mt. Was acting as master of the vessel. There were also two crewmembers aboard Carl Saad and Susan Bremer along with Carol DeLaura. The M/V CLINTON FRIENDSHIP was chartered on June 3. Was in attendance along with some of his friends. The decedent was described as a good athlete and a marathon runner who had military training. Saad was working on the upper deck and Bremer on the lower level. The vessel was returning to its berth when DeLaCruz and others gathered at the stern. DeLaCruz's companions were unconcerned and returned to their dancing and socializing. As she was emptying trash. As the men were purposefully swimming away from the boat and out of range of the life rings. It is undisputed that DeLaCruz was not intoxicated by Michigan's legal standards and that he jumped into the water voluntarily. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="152"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0081p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> If the court is correct that there is an implied private right of action. I believe there is no private right of action. Although the law under which the earlier contracts had been made was changed thereby as to future contracts. Had advised the Village of Roseville in 1957 that its attempt to impose a franchise fee on Ameritech was invalid given the latter's existing state franchise. V For the foregoing reasons the judgments of the district court in each case are AFFIRMED. OPINION 3 require its own consent to the establishment of a telephone system within the city: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="152"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B74DA6722D74865B88256E5A00707B28/$file/9935910.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm in part because we hold that (1) the economic damages findings are sufficiently detailed for appellate review. (2) the noneconomic damage awards are sufficient. We reverse and remand in part because we hold that Simeonoff was not contributorily negligent for responding to a cry for help. Simeonoff was the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="152"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2004/031146p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> USVI 00820 and motion seeking to amend the judgment in Selkridge I to indicate that the grant of summary judgment was without prejudice to filing a new lawsuit. We determine that we are without jurisdiction to hear an appeal of the grant of summary judgment in Selkridge I because an appeal was not timely taken. While we conclude that Judge Moore should have recused himself before entering the order granting summary judgment in Selkridge II and the order denying Selkridge's Rule 60(b) motion in Selkridge I. Given that our independent plenary review convinces us that the results reached were required as a matter of law. We will affirm both December 23. I. Background Selkridge was enrolled in a group insurance plan with Omaha during the period in which she was employed by the Virgin Islands Telephone Company and its successors. The motion contended that all of Selkridge's claims arose </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="152"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7CB1646302D65C3688256A46005D0DEC/$file/9935910.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm in part because we hold that (1) the economic damages findings are sufficiently detailed for appellate review. (2) the noneconomic damage awards are sufficient. We reverse and remand in part because we hold that Simeonoff was not contributorily negligent for responding to a cry for help. Simeonoff was the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="152"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200404/03-1129a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002324A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The facts underlying this dispute are as follows. At the center of this case is Rule 11(c)(1)(A). Or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected. The requirements of the rule are straightforward: The party seeking sanctions must serve the Rule 11 motion on the opposing party at least twenty one days before filing the motion with the district court. Sanctions may be sought only if the challenged pleading is not withdrawn or corrected within twenty one days after service of the motion. Motions have been disallowed as untimely when filed after a point in the litigation when the lawyer sought to be sanctioned lacked an opportunity to correct or withdraw the challenged submission. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="151"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200407/03-1269a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="150"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1536.html">CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <U>Robert E. With him on the brief were <U>David W. Was a comprehensive statute designed to improve the nation s ports and harbors. (Title XIV of the Act was separately entitled the Harbor Maintenance Revenue Act. It was intended to help fund the harbor improvement programs under the Water Resources Act. There is hereby imposed a tax on any port use.</P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="149"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1111.html">ADMIRALTY V. DALTON<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="146"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E750FCD4A46536CA88256EEB0078A2E0/$file/0335207.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case involves contract related claims against energy wholesalers by a public utility which contends it was forced to pay exorbitant prices for electricity. The utility's case was dismissed by the district court because its claims were found to be preempted. Washington ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="142"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2001/97-2591.opn.html">DIESEL "REPOWER", INC. V. ISLANDER INVESTMENTS LTD. (11/9/2001, NO. 97-2591)<BR></A><BR> To </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="142"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19972591.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> To </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="142"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2001/97-2591.opn.html">DIESEL "REPOWER", INC. V. ISLANDER INVESTMENTS LTD. (11/9/2001, NO. 97-2591)<BR></A><BR> To </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="140"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200608/05-1237a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Paul Glist. With him on the 2 brief were Thomas O. Schwartz was on the brief for intervenor Consumer Electronics Association. The FCC declined to rescind a rule that will preclude cable operators from offering set top converter boxes that bundle both security (descrambling) and non security (e.g. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="140"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011191.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P. 11 is a non waivable rule of jurisdiction. We hold that it is not a jurisdictional rule and affirm the district court's assessment of sanctions. Approved concedes that it </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="138"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/042737P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The main stem dams and reservoirs are Fort Peck Dam (Fort Peck Lake) in Montana. Environmental groups have attempted to force the Corps to operate the system to produce more </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="136"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-1092b.html">ACTION CHILD TV V. FCC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19964931.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The complaint in each case was dismissed on the ground that the safe harbor provisions of the Annunzio Wylie Anti Money Laundering Act. I. THE LOPEZ CASE We will discuss the two cases separately. A. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Because this case is before us on appeal from a Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim. Which we are required to accept as true. For now the factual boundary of this case is marked by the metes and bounds of the complaint. The FedWire Fund Transfer System is an electronic funds transfer system which permits large dollar fund transfers by computer to computer communications between banks. First Union is a bank within the FedWire Fund Transfer System and uses </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="135"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19964931.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arise out of plaintiffs' claims that their banks improperly disclosed information authorities. relating to their checking accounts to federal The complaint in each case was dismissed on the ground that the safe harbor provisions of the Annunzio Wylie AntiMoney Laundering Act. I. THE LOPEZ CASE We will discuss the two cases separately. A. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Because this case is before us on appeal from a Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim. Which we are required to accept as true. For now the factual boundary of this case is marked by the metes and bounds of the complaint. The FedWire Fund Transfer System is an electronic funds transfer system which permits large dollar fund transfers by computer to computer communications between banks. First Union is a bank within the FedWire Fund Transfer System and uses </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="134"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov97/96-4931.man.html">LOPEZ V. FIRST UNION NAT'L BANK OF FLORIDA<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lopez v. The complaint in each case was dismissed on the ground that the safe harbor provisions of the Annunzio Wylie Anti Money Laundering Act. THE LOPEZ CASE</b><p> <p> We will discuss the two cases separately. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY<p> <p> Because this case is before us on appeal from a Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim. Which we are required to accept as true. For now the factual boundary of this case is marked by the metes and bounds of the complaint.<p> The FedWire Fund Transfer System is an electronic funds transfer system which permits large dollar fund transfers by computer to computer communications between banks. First Union is a bank within the FedWire Fund Transfer System and uses </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="134"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov97/96-4931.man.html">LOPEZ V. FIRST UNION NAT'L BANK OF FLORIDA<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lopez v. The complaint in each case was dismissed on the ground that the safe harbor provisions of the Annunzio Wylie Anti Money Laundering Act. THE LOPEZ CASE</b><p> <p> We will discuss the two cases separately. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY<p> <p> Because this case is before us on appeal from a Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim. Which we are required to accept as true. For now the factual boundary of this case is marked by the metes and bounds of the complaint.<p> The FedWire Fund Transfer System is an electronic funds transfer system which permits large dollar fund transfers by computer to computer communications between banks. First Union is a bank within the FedWire Fund Transfer System and uses </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug95/94-5106.html">SCHUSTERMAN V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> That the prevailing market interest rate in September 1980 was eleven and one half percent. That is. 551 which is $3. Taxpayers and the United States stipulated </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="133"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/06/99-3393.htm">99-3393 -- COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE CO. V. SEA HARVEST SEAFOOD CO. -- 06/11/2001<BR></A><BR> 000 pounds of decomposed frozen shrimp. <p> <p> <u> </u>This appeal is taken from an order granting summary judgment to Plaintiff Appellee Commercial Union Insurance Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/06/022133P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The United States Army Corps of Engineers is charged with the responsibility of managing this river and its attendant reservoirs. The Corps is forced to make hard choices. The Missouri River Basin was in the midst of just such a prolonged drought. Where Lake Oahe is located. The Corps is charged. The Act also laid out certain substantive interests that it was to serve. The dominant functions of the Flood Control Act were to avoid flooding and to maintain downstream navigation. The Act's dominant functions were expressed repeatedly in three Congressional Documents: Senate Documents 191 and 247 and House Document 475. These responsibilities are not at issue in this case. 7 1 and wildlife. Which explains how the Corps is to go about managing the River system. The most recent version of the Master Manual was promulgated in 1979. Section IX lays out the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200312/02-1298b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2004/031695p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that fishing history could not be </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991681.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lincoln was injured while loading Reksten's ship. Lincoln was employed by Stevens Shipping and Terminal Company (Stevens) as a longshoreman. Stevens is a stevedore and was hired to load the GREEN TUNDRA. The charter party agreement included provisions that Reksten would provide a ship that had decks capable of holding up to five tons and that was fit in every way for the loading of frozen food packed in cartons. The stevedore is required to lower pallets full of boxes of frozen chicken with a crane through the cargo hatches into the cargo holds. Lincoln was working on deck B.1 The floor of deck B consists of wooden deck boards bolted to supporting steel I beams. The deck boards in deck B are approximately ten inches wide and two to three inches thick. There is an approximately one and a half inch space between each of the boards that allows refrigerated air to circulate between decks B and C. There is no other barrier between decks B and C. Inspected the holds to ensure they were safe and ready for loading. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2148.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Z were convicted of entering onto the Camp Garcí. Each was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. . The four cases (along with four others) were consolidated for trial in the district court on July 6. Appellants were convicted and sentenced to thirty days' imprisonment.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012434.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sergeant Paul Quill of the Maryland State Police stopped a Lincoln Town Car with Kansas tags as it was traveling west on Interstate 70 near Frederick. The installation job was of professional quality. He had seen many such secret compartments and knew they were routinely used by drug traffickers to transport large quantities of drugs as well as the cash proceeds from drug transactions. Mondragon was arrested for driving on a revoked license. Her purse was then searched. 900 in cash was found. She was released. Was turned over to the U.S. Seeking forfeiture of the currency on the ground that it was the proceeds of drug trafficking. Was involved in a money laundering transaction. Stating that she was without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the charging allegations. The government made a motion for summary judgment that was not opposed. Satisfies the particularity requirement of Rule E(2)(a) is a legal question that we review de novo. Rule E(2)(a) requires the complaint to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov95/95-4708.opa.html">ISBRANDTSEN MARINE SERVS. V. M/V INAGUA TANIA<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Isbrandtsen Marine Servs. v. Senior District Judge.<p> <p> PER CURIAM:<p> <p> Appellant Zuki Teria is a Panamanian Corporation. Zuki Teria also failed to pay for the consulting fees sought by IMS.<p> IMS executed on its maritime lien and the M/V INAGUA TANIA was arrested on March 1. There was no dispute that the vessel thereafter sailed from Fort Lauderdale and is no longer in the court's jurisdiction.<p> Appellant Zuki Teria brought this Interlocutory Appeal challenging the Order setting the bond amount. The Orders from which appellant Zuki Teria appeals are not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062099p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sullivan immediately noted that the vessel was traveling faster than appropriate and he attempted to slow the vessel in order to perform the docking maneuvers. It concluded that: (1) the collision was caused solely by the negligence of the Astro Libra's pilots. 1 (2) the negligent pilots were not employees of Moran. (4) the John Turecamo was seaworthy. (5) the Claimants were liable for damages caused to the John Turecamo. All of which they contend are subject to plenary review. We may do so only if we conclude that the court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous or its conclusions of law are erroneous. The District Court found that Sullivan was an independent contractor who was under the control of the Master of the Astro Libra. The court concluded that Sullivan was not an employee of Moran. 3 1 P. 52(a). The Claimants challenge the District Court's conclusion that the negligence of the Astro Libra's pilots was the sole cause of the collision. This claim has two components: (1) that Sullivan was a Moran employee. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1727.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jones & Houston were on brief for appellant. Ltd. were on brief for appellee C&G Excavating. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND El/Cap and Henry Marine were two of several companies that participated in towing C&G equipment to a dredging project in Saco. C&G's negligence claims were brought before the district court of 1 This suit initially surfaced against the backdrop of a variety of legal disputes between contractors and the Transamerica Premier Insurance Company. All claims were settled before trial with the exception of the crossclaims between C&G and El/Cap and Henry Marine that are before us now. 2 Maine under both diversity jurisdiction. Many of the facts essential to a finding of negligence were vigorously contested by the parties at trial. Henry Marine was ultimately given the towing job. Arranged to have Henry Marine leave the intracoastal waterway and meet El/Cap's tug. In the open seas outside of Hereford Inlet.2 None of the equipment was damaged while towed by Henry Marine in the period prior to El/Cap's involvement in the tow. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep21/03-61028-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was seriously injured during the construction project. Reasoning that Tarver's injury did not occur on a situs that is covered by the LHWCA. We must uphold BRB decisions that are supported by substantial evidence and are in accordance with the law. The BRB's legal determinations are reviewed de novo. Tarver contends that he is entitled to relief under § 903(a) because the Bo Mac construction site would. Such a claim is without merit. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/05/982142P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Reed is a longshore worker who was employed by American Grain Trimmers. As Reed was walking down the vessel's gangway. Reed argues that there are genuine issues of material fact that preclude summary judgment and that considering the facts in the light most favorable to him. Supports his theory that ULS was negligent. Reed argues that ULS failed to conduct a reasonable inspection which would have revealed the defect in the step that caused his injury. ULS argues that the record is insufficient to establish that it was negligent. Summary Judgment is mandated where depositions. Discovery responses and affidavits show that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F3615F6674BD8D5288256E1C00053F59/$file/0272578.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Facts and Procedural History Johnston Atoll is a United States possession. Located about 700 miles west southwest of Hawaii in the Pacific Ocean.1 It is only two miles long and one half mile wide. Gambling and fighting are prohibited. The hip injury is the subject of the instant claim. Which is one of several authorized social clubs on Johnston Atoll. OWCP 463 There are conflicting accounts of precisely what transpired at the AMVETS. It is undisputed that Ilaszczat fell and injured his hip there. None of the soldiers was interested. He described his second encounter with the soldiers as follows: [T]here was a couple of the military guys sitting at the bar and somehow the subject got around to martial arts. . . . [Burum] said he was really good at it and I said. [H]e was pretty insistent upon showing me how he could lift my [sic] leg over my head without touching me. . . . I went to the back of the room where the pool table and that picnic table [were] and I put my drink down on the picnic table and when he went to kick me. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2142.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arroyo</U> were on brief for appellee.</FONT></P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1909.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Associates</SPAN> was on brief. Solicitor were on brief. Knott's Riverdale Mills Project ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-31072.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. The judgement of the district court is affirmed. Norman Sanamo was working as a casing crew pusher for the Sladco casing crew that had been assigned to perform services aboard ENSCO RIG 67.3 On February 9. Sanamo and his crew were transported to the jack up rig via the M/V CIMARRON RIVER. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=03&date=01&year=04">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov95/95-4708.opa.html">ISBRANDTSEN MARINE SERVS. V. M/V INAGUA TANIA<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Isbrandtsen Marine Servs. v. Senior District Judge.<p> <p> PER CURIAM:<p> <p> Appellant Zuki Teria is a Panamanian Corporation. Zuki Teria also failed to pay for the consulting fees sought by IMS.<p> IMS executed on its maritime lien and the M/V INAGUA TANIA was arrested on March 1. There was no dispute that the vessel thereafter sailed from Fort Lauderdale and is no longer in the court's jurisdiction.<p> Appellant Zuki Teria brought this Interlocutory Appeal challenging the Order setting the bond amount. The Orders from which appellant Zuki Teria appeals are not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-2369.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C. were on brief. Because the district court found that the City's failure to maintain a fendering system on the damaged side of the bridge was also a proximate cause of the damages. Appellants challenge the district court's findings that appellants were negligent and that their negligence was a proximate cause of the damages claimed. District court determinations of negligence and proximate cause are reviewed for clear error. The district court's finding that appellants were negligent is not clearly erroneous. The undisputed evidence was that the two tugs were preparing to guide the barge through the draw span and had properly lined up the barge to enter the span when one of the tugs. Who was aboard the barge when it struck the bridge. Who was in command of the entire flotilla. Testified that the exercise of judgment aboard the TIBBETTS was negligent and that it was negligent of the flotilla to fail to properly direct the TIBBETTS. The district court's finding that the course change was negligent can hardly be described as clearly erroneous. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1181.html">US V. COUNTY OF COOK, ILLINOIS<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were David M. While detailed mastery of the facts and procedural history are not necessary to understand and resolve the legal issues presented in this appeal. We briefly set forth those details necessary to put the present dispute into context. <p> The office buildings at issue were constructed in the early 1970s pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 602a. The United States filed suit in federal district court seeking a declaration that the buildings were exempt from state taxation and an order vacating the sales of the buildings. A panel of the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's declaration that the buildings were not subject to taxation because Illinois law exempted from local taxation property </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTYzNzMtY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/04-6373-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. The subpoenas were issued by an arbitration panel presiding over an arbitral proceeding to which neither Stolt nor its former counsel is a party. We have previously stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C740557C88F27A1888256D3A00540B8C/$file/9956762.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the briefs. Were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Were on the brief for cross appellees Jack Lawn. Were on the brief for amici curiae International Human Rights Organizations and International Law Scholars. That Alvarez </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5025.html">W. FRANK BOLING, ET AL V. USA<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief was <u>Carey T. Of counsel on the brief were <u>H.F. With him on the brief were <u>Lois J. </p> <p ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTYzNzMtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-6373-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. The subpoenas were issued by an arbitration panel presiding over an arbitral proceeding to which neither Stolt nor its former counsel is a party. We have previously stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D0166213044EFCAC882570F9005E377F/$file/0555014.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Shonafelt were on the briefs. 736 SPRINT PCS v. Angelica Arias were on the brief. I Sprint PCS is a wireless telecommunications company seeking to install two wireless telecommunications facilities in the city of La Cañada Flintridge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200304/02-1021a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1804.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for Maritime Overseas Corporation and Cambridge Tankers. Were on brief for Eric Wilson. Was injured during a voyage as he attempted to repair hydraulic fluid lines that were leaking inside one of the main cargo holds. Was employed as a chief mate by Maritime Overseas Corporation on the M/T OVERSEAS BOSTON. Which was owned. The OVERSEAS BOSTON was approximately 75 miles off the western coast of Mexico on its way to Valdez. The plaintiff was in a Zodiac inflatable raft in the vessel's No. 2 center cargo tank ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/08/972512P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The tug was towing the barge from Carteret. Both the tug and barge were owned by Central Barge & Boat Co. It was aground and leaking gasoline through a gash in its hull. The Maya eventually lost control and was stranded with the barge. Both the tug and barge were eventually freed and the cargo of gasoline was transferred to another barge for completion of the voyage. 875 F.2d at 1353. Late a United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 21 Both Apex Towing and Apex Oil were insured for this voyage by Plaintiff/Appellant American Home Assurance Co. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1153.01A">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-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5030d.html">PALM BEACH ISLES ASSOCIATES V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Of counsel were <u>Nancie G. On the brief were <u>Lois J. Of counsel on the brief was <u>Dorothy Boardman</u>. The court invited response from the appellants was filed. </p> <p ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="131"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3D534390583B882F88256C380004FE18/$file/0056603.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Total Myanmar was appointed Operator of the Gas Production Joint Venture and the Gas Transportation Company. Total Myanmar was responsible. For </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/03/011683P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The genesis of the case presently before the Court is a 1972 suit brought in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri by Nichols and others. The suit was resolved with a Settlement Agreement and a Final Decree (collectively. A tract of land along the Missouri River was to be preserved as green space. We will refer to as Harbor Venture). The district court granted Horseshoe Casinos' motion to dismiss on the ground that the case was not ripe for review because the official authorization for operation of a gaming facility was not yet in place. Harbor Venture's motion to remand to state court was denied. Having determined that the case was ripe for decision. Damages was malicious prosecution and an abuse of process under Missouri common law. The court determined that Nichols is seeking. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june96/95-2272.opa.html">BEISWENGER ENTER. CORP. V. CARLETTA<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Beiswenger Enter. Contending that the amended stipulations filed by the damage claimants are inadequate. Parasailing is a recreational boating activity in which the riders. Are pulled aloft by a parachute. BEC asserted that it was not at fault for the accident. Has the right to litigate the issue of whether it is entitled to limit its liability under the provisions of the Limitation of Liability Act. That the Petitioner has the right to have this Court determine the value of the M/V Skyrider Express immediately following the incident at issue. That the Respondent/Claimants will not seek a determination of the issues set forth in paragraphs (1) and (2) above in any state court. Rulings or judgments of any state court might have on those issues.<p> <p> 4. That the Respondent/Claimants will not seek to enforce any judgment rendered in any state court. In the event this Court determines that the Petitioner is entitled to limit its liability. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june96/95-2272.opa.html">BEISWENGER ENTER. CORP. V. CARLETTA<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Beiswenger Enter. Contending that the amended stipulations filed by the damage claimants are inadequate. Parasailing is a recreational boating activity in which the riders. Are pulled aloft by a parachute. BEC asserted that it was not at fault for the accident. Has the right to litigate the issue of whether it is entitled to limit its liability under the provisions of the Limitation of Liability Act. That the Petitioner has the right to have this Court determine the value of the M/V Skyrider Express immediately following the incident at issue. That the Respondent/Claimants will not seek a determination of the issues set forth in paragraphs (1) and (2) above in any state court. Rulings or judgments of any state court might have on those issues.<p> <p> 4. That the Respondent/Claimants will not seek to enforce any judgment rendered in any state court. In the event this Court determines that the Petitioner is entitled to limit its liability. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2000/99-4017.man.html">BELUGA HOLDING, LTD. V. COMMERCE CAPITAL CORP. (5/24/2000, NO. 99-4017)<BR></A><BR> We are presented with a final judgment within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994) and therefore have jurisdiction over this appeal.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2000/99-4017.man.html">BELUGA HOLDING, LTD. V. COMMERCE CAPITAL CORP. (5/24/2000, NO. 99-4017)<BR></A><BR> We are presented with a final judgment within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994) and therefore have jurisdiction over this appeal.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19952272.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Contending that the amended stipulations filed by the damage claimants are inadequate. Parasailing is a recreational boating activity in which the riders. Are pulled aloft by a parachute. BEC asserted that it was not at fault for the accident. Myers was also survived by two other minor children: George Edward Myers. Carter (who was later renamed Tiffany Myers). Beiswenger is the sole officer and shareholder of BEC. 73 L.Ed. 613 (1929) (holding that the stockholders of a corporation owning a vessel are entitled to invoke the Limitation Act). Has the right to litigate the issue of whether it is entitled to limit its liability under the provisions of the Limitation of Liability Act. That the Petitioner has the right to have this Court determine the value of the M/V Skyrider Express immediately following the incident at issue. That the Respondent/Claimants will not seek a determination of the issues set forth in paragraphs (1) and (2) above in any state court. Rulings or judgments of any state court might have on those issues. 4. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="130"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200312820.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are satisfied that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict beyond a reasonable doubt on all counts. All in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (Count 14).1 Paragraphs 2 and 3 The unlawful activities whose proceeds were concealed or promoted were mail fraud. Also charged with conspiracy in the indictment were John Mamone. That charge was dismissed before trial. Is not relevant to this appeal. 2 1 of Count 14 explained that the purposes and objects of the conspiracy were: (a) to conduct financial transactions involving the proceeds of mail and wire fraud. Silvestri was charged in 30 substantive counts with money laundering. The essential facts in this complex fraud case are these. Buccinna and Weiss were also charged in the same substantive counts. Was sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment. 3 3 2 opportunities. Tang was left with a small clerical staff. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="129"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2637_012.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The plaintiff was playing a slot machine when the stool she was leaning against collapsed and she fell. The boat was stationary when the accident occurred rather than rocking back and forth in the wash of a passing boat. The defendant moved to dismiss the suit on the ground that it was not within the admiralty jurisdiction. There would be no argument that the plaintiff's claim was an admiralty claim. Since the boat was moored indefinitely. An accident occurring on landfill adjacent to navigable waters is not within the admiralty jurisdiction unless (as we'll see) the accident involved the boat's colliding with or otherwise damaging something on the land. The accident in our case had nothing to do with the fact that the casino was on a boat afloat on a navigable stream rather than sitting on dry land. So whatever distinctive rules of liability admiralty courts have developed would be no better suited. There is. Common sense appeal to the district court's ruling that the suit is not within the admiralty jurisdiction. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200006/98-1420a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were John L. Were on the brief. With him on the brief were Jonathan Jacob Nadler. We think the Commission's ban on integrated devices is premised on a reasonable interpretation of section 629 of the Communi cations Act. Converter boxes are the most common instrument ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="128"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200315321.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Thus is strictly liable for crew member assaults on passengers. The jury trial focused on whether the plaintiff consented or was sexually battered by the crew member. The district court sua sponte raised an entirely new issue regarding which of the four defendants actually employed the errant crew member and whether that employer was a common carrier. Concluding that the plaintiff failed to prove any single defendant was both a common carrier and the employer of the crew member Honorable Richard Mills. Sitting by designation. 2 * and therefore that no defendant was liable for the crew member's assault. A cruise line is strictly liable for crew member assaults on passengers during the cruise. Inc. is the operator of the M/V ZENITH. Zenith Shipping Corporation is the owner of the vessel. Contending that they are not liable for Aydin's intentional misconduct. Defendants argued that they are liable (1) only for their own breach of reasonable care under the circumstances and (2) only for their employees' intentional conduct while acting within the scope of their employment and in furtherance of the defendants' business purposes. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="127"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0065p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Complaint states that Keego Harbor is a small community of approximately 3. The licenses granted to Goose Island by the MLCC were in effect at the time this action was filed. Arthur Nance and David Hofmann).2 The individuals were sued in both their individual and official capacities. Relevant to this appeal are Goose Island's claims that the Defendants violated its rights to due process by way of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="125"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan96/94-6200.opa.html">MARINE COATINGS OF AL. V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Marine Coatings of Al. v. Contending that it was substantially justified in contesting the subcontractor's claim. It will be helpful to review the events surrounding the enactment of the statute.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="125"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1059.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kaplan and The Kaplan/Bond Group were on brief for appellants. Dana & Gould were on brief for appellee. The district court held that the remedies were preempted. Discerning the law in this area is far from easy. We are constrained to reverse in part and to remand for further proceedings. The basic facts of the case are not in dispute. The captain and owner 2 2 were fined a total of $30. 000 of which was to be available to compensate individuals. The claimants in the present appeal are a group of shellfish dealers who allege severe economic losses arising from the two week hiatus in shellfishing activities. Which held that compensation for economic losses standing alone is unavailable in admiralty cases. The dealers assert that their businesses were injured 4 4 when the World Prodigy spill prevented local fishermen from harvesting shellfish in Narragansett Bay and thereby precluded the dealers from purchasing the shellfish and reselling them to restaurants and other buyers. The dealers' maritime law claims are thus purely for economic losses. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="125"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan96/94-6200.opa.html">MARINE COATINGS OF AL. V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Marine Coatings of Al. v. Contending that it was substantially justified in contesting the subcontractor's claim. It will be helpful to review the events surrounding the enactment of the statute.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2001/00-12858.man.html">RICHARDSON V. PALM HARBOR HOMES (6/28/2001, NO. 00-12858)<BR></A><BR> (The Richardsons have not invoked our pendent appellate jurisdiction to cross appeal. The part of the order compelling arbitration is therefore not before us.). It would not bar arbitration of the specific claims that the Richardsons have made against Palm Harbor. It is content to supplement state law implied warranties only by prohibiting their disclaimer in certain circumstances. (3) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTU0ODgtY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/04-5488-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the district court erred by concluding (1) that a warranty that individual loans were eighty percent secured by real property had </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2001/00-12858.man.html">RICHARDSON V. PALM HARBOR HOMES (6/28/2001, NO. 00-12858)<BR></A><BR> (The Richardsons have not invoked our pendent appellate jurisdiction to cross appeal. The part of the order compelling arbitration is therefore not before us.). It would not bar arbitration of the specific claims that the Richardsons have made against Palm Harbor. It is content to supplement state law implied warranties only by prohibiting their disclaimer in certain circumstances. (3) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F281E7BD9F53A0FD88256C6B0060029B/$file/0135219.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 765 (1985) (states are permitted to tax Indians </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1240.html">DALTON V. SOUTHWEST MARINE<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="123"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTU0ODgtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5488-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the district court erred by concluding (1) that a warranty that individual loans were eighty percent secured by real property had </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="122"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2002/004205.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the District Court's judgment in favor of the defendants. Ltd. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="122"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982329.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The contractor on the project was required to install additional piles. Seeking a declaratory judgment that Travelers is required to provide Harbor East with a defense and with coverage for the claims alleged in the underlying suit. Installed proprietary </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="122"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2000/98-5704.man.html">SHULTZ V. FLORIDA KEYS DIVE CTR. (8/30/2000, NO. 98-5704)<BR></A><BR> Concluding that the district court correctly held that the liability release is not invalidated by an admiralty statute. We conclude that it is not invalidated by the admiralty common law.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="122"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2000/98-5704.man.html">SHULTZ V. FLORIDA KEYS DIVE CTR. (8/30/2000, NO. 98-5704)<BR></A><BR> Concluding that the district court correctly held that the liability release is not invalidated by an admiralty statute. We conclude that it is not invalidated by the admiralty common law.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="121"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DFF1A2A891123E3B88256A6A0056891E/$file/9956865.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court determined that it did not have admiralty jurisdiction but nonetheless adjudicated both the federal admiralty claims and a supplemental state law claim in favor of Marlineer. The district court did not have supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The entire case should have been dismissed on purely jurisdictional grounds. Told Littell that the asking price for the Teddy Bear was $850. Littell told Tate that he was interested. That he could not complete the transaction right away because his financial situation was uncertain. Littell handed over a deposit of twenty dollars but no other terms were agreed upon at that time. The findings of fact and conclusions of law include two pages of legal analysis titled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="121"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19985704.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concluding that the district court correctly held that the liability release is not invalidated by an admiralty statute. We conclude that it is not invalidated by the admiralty common law. The facts are as follows: The day before her dive. Because it was waiting for other divers still in the water to reboard. Patricia Shultz became unconscious before she was picked up by a boat. Unless the liability release signed by Patricia Shultz is invalidated under either 46 U.S.C. app. § 183c(a) or admiralty common law. The release is unquestionably valid and bars plaintiff's claim. 46 U.S.C. app. § 183c(a) provides: It shall be unlawful for the manager. Or agreement are declared to be against public policy and shall be null and void and of no effect. There are no federal appellate cases. The release was upheld as not meeting the requirements of § 183c(a) in the case at bar and in Cutchin v. The one case holding that § 183c(a) did apply to invalidate a scuba diving liability release involved a scuba diver who was struck by the propeller of another boat. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="121"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19985704.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concluding that the district court correctly held that the liability release is not invalidated by an admiralty statute. We conclude that it is not invalidated by the admiralty common law. The facts are as follows: The day before her dive. Because it was waiting for other divers still in the water to reboard. Patricia Shultz became unconscious before she was picked up by a boat. Unless the liability release signed by Patricia Shultz is invalidated under either 46 U.S.C. app. § 183c(a) or admiralty common law. The release is unquestionably valid and bars plaintiff's claim. 46 U.S.C. app. § 183c(a) provides: It shall be unlawful for the manager. Or agreement are declared to be against public policy and shall be null and void and of no effect. There are no federal appellate cases. The release was upheld as not meeting the requirements of § 183c(a) in the case at bar and in Cutchin v. The one case holding that § 183c(a) did apply to invalidate a scuba diving liability release involved a scuba diver who was struck by the propeller of another boat. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="121"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/42FF379465E3964588256E5A00707B91/$file/9956865.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court determined that it did not have admiralty jurisdiction but nonetheless adjudicated both the federal admiralty claims and a supplemental state law claim in favor of Marlineer. The district court did not have supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The entire case should have been dismissed on purely jurisdictional grounds. Told Littell that the asking price for the Teddy Bear was $850. Littell told Tate that he was interested. That he could not complete the transaction right away because his financial situation was uncertain. Littell handed over a deposit of twenty dollars but no other terms were agreed upon at that time. The findings of fact and conclusions of law include two pages of legal analysis titled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="121"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1460.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Palou & Miranda were on brief for appellant. Roberto Boneta and Mu oz Boneta Gonz lez Arbona Ben tez & Peral were on brief for appellee. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="119"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200004/99-5125a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs was Philip B. Honberg was on the brief for amicus curiae The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill. Stano was on the brief for amici curiae the Health Insurance Association of America. Because the employer adopted the plan prior to the ADA's enactment and because circuit prece dent holds that such plans are protected by the statute's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="119"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-5125a.html">EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION V. ARAMARK CORPORATION, INC.<BR></A><BR> With her </p> <p>on the briefs was Philip B. Honberg was on the brief for amicus curiae The </p> <p>National Alliance for the Mentally Ill.</p> <p>Ronald S. Stano was on the brief for amici curiae the </p> <p>Health Insurance Association of America. Because the employer adopted the </p> <p>plan prior to the ADA's enactment and because circuit prece </p> <p>dent holds that such plans are protected by the statute's ". The </p> <p>plan limits disability payments to twenty four months if the </p> <p>disability is caused by a mental condition but continues </p> <p>payments until at least age sixty five if the disability is </p> <p>physical. The two cases were </p> <p>consolidated. Was therefore unprotected by Title I of the </p> <p>ADA. It is not regulated by Title III.</p> <p>EEOC and Fennell appeal. Even if those benefits had </p> <p>been earned when she was a ". Our review is de novo. Cir. 2000).</p> <p>II</p> <p>Our sister circuits are divided on both issues that formed </p> <p>the basis of the district court's grant of summary judgment </p> <p>for Aramark and Aetna. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="119"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-31036.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances * We dismiss this interlocutory appeal for want of jurisdiction. 1. The plaintiff must have brought his claim in admiralty. See id. § 1292(a)(3) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="118"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2001/99-14563.opn.html">JOHNSON V. K MART CORP. (11/21/2001, NO. 99-14563)<BR></A><BR> We consider the question whether a former employee as against a current employee or an applicant is eligible to file suit under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="118"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2001/99-14563.opn.html">JOHNSON V. K MART CORP. (11/21/2001, NO. 99-14563)<BR></A><BR> We consider the question whether a former employee as against a current employee or an applicant is eligible to file suit under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="118"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199914563.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We consider the question whether a former employee as against a current employee or an applicant is eligible to file suit under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). Robinson mandates the conclusion that Gonzales is no longer good law and must be deemed overruled. Appellant is eligible to file suit under Title I. Who was then the manager of a K Mart store in Tampa. Employees who are disabled due to a mental illness may receive salary replacement benefits for two years. After which K Mart responded by filing a motion to dismiss on two grounds: (1) that appellant was not within the protective ambit of § 12112(a) because. He was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></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-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1995/95a1084p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was killed when an Asplundh aerial lift in which he was working fractured (Benton Harbor having manufactured the component part of the aerial lift which allegedly failed). Benton Harbor's principal argument on appeal is that the district court erred in permitting Asplundh to adduce lay opinion testimony pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 701 regarding what appear to be complex technical issues concerning the cause of the metal failure. Was primarily designed to allow lay individuals to express opinions that are in reality only a shorthand statement of fact. To testify about technical matters that might have been thought to lie within the exclusive province of experts. The proponent of technical lay opinion testimony must show that the testimony is based on sufficient experience or specialized knowledge and also show a sufficient connection between such knowledge or experience and the lay opinion such that it may be fairly considered to be </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="116"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4977ADC55983CE5D8825714F006B2150/$file/0470575.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="115"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19984818.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND According to the complaint our only source of the facts the defendant Ivax Corporation is a manufacturer of generic drugs. Ivax was profitable in 1995. The full text of the release is found in Appendix I to this opinion. P. 12(b)(6) unless it was attached to the complaint. A document central to the complaint that the defense appends to its motion to dismiss is also properly considered. Provided that its contents are not in dispute. Which are [sic] not subject to material dispute. The usual rules for considering 12(b)(6) motions are thus bent to permit consideration of an allegedly fraudulent statement in its context. 3 2 Appendix II contains the full text of this release. 2 million of which was a reduction in the carrying value of the goodwill ascribed to certain of Ivax's businesses. There are two theories of liability: first. That Ivax's economic projections were fraudulent. The plaintiffs argue that the district court should have granted them leave to amend the complaint. Corporations and individual defendants may avoid liability for forward looking statements that prove false if the statement is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="115"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july99/98-4818.man.html">HARRIS V. IVAX CORP. (7/27/1999, NO. 98-4818)<BR></A><BR> Background</CENTER> </P> <P> According to the complaint our only source of the facts the defendant Ivax Corporation is a manufacturer of generic drugs. Ivax was profitable in 1995. $104 million of which was a reduction in the carrying value of the goodwill ascribed to certain of Ivax's businesses. There are two theories of liability: first. That Ivax's economic projections were fraudulent. The plaintiffs argue that the district court should have granted them leave to amend the complaint. Corporations and individual defendants may avoid liability for forward looking statements that prove false if the statement is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="115"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july99/98-4818.man.html">HARRIS V. IVAX CORP. (7/27/1999, NO. 98-4818)<BR></A><BR> Background</CENTER> </P> <P> According to the complaint our only source of the facts the defendant Ivax Corporation is a manufacturer of generic drugs. Ivax was profitable in 1995. $104 million of which was a reduction in the carrying value of the goodwill ascribed to certain of Ivax's businesses. There are two theories of liability: first. That Ivax's economic projections were fraudulent. The plaintiffs argue that the district court should have granted them leave to amend the complaint. Corporations and individual defendants may avoid liability for forward looking statements that prove false if the statement is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="115"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/08FBB64A028909358825707E004BBBC9/$file/0356547.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is withdrawn and replaced by the amended opinion filed concurrently with this order. The petition for panel rehearing is denied. The vessels were arrested pursuant to maritime procedure. The district court determined that in rem jurisdiction was lost because there was no res against which to enforce an eventual in rem judgment. The district court held that it was powerless to order the Owners to reinstate the security. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The Original District Court Action Ventura Packers is a corporation that provides stevedoring services in Ventura. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="115"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19984818.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND According to the complaint our only source of the facts the defendant Ivax Corporation is a manufacturer of generic drugs. Ivax was profitable in 1995. The full text of the release is found in Appendix I to this opinion. The full text of such a release would not be part of the record under review for a dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) unless it was attached to the complaint. A document central to the complaint that the defense appends to its motion to dismiss is also properly considered. Provided that its contents are not in dispute. $104 million of which was a reduction in the carrying value of the goodwill ascribed to certain of Ivax's businesses. There are two theories of liability: first. That Ivax's economic projections were fraudulent. The plaintiffs argue that the district court should have granted them leave to amend the complaint. moreover. Which are [sic ] not subject to material dispute. The usual rules for considering 12(b)(6) motions are thus bent to permit consideration of an allegedly fraudulent statement in its context. 3 Appendix II contains the full text of this release. 15 U.S.C. § 78u 5(c). 15 U.S.C. § 78u 4(b). 4 5 Both the defendants' motion to dismiss. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="113"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1002.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sulloway & Hollis were on brief. With whom Seufert Professional Association was on brief. THE ERISA ISSUE The curtain raiser question in this case involves whether the program under which Johnson sought benefits is subject to Title I of ERISA. We 3 scrutinize the record and test the district court's conclusion that the program is within the safe harbor. Preemption is triggered. Or may determine whether a jury trial is available. We are uncertain which of these boggarts has captured the minds of the protagonists in this case. Given the marshalled realities the parties agree 4 that the ERISA difference is of potential significance here. It is entirely plausible under the circumstances of this case that the applicability vel non of ERISA makes a meaningful difference we refrain from speculation about the parties' tactical goals and proceed directly to a determination of whether the court below correctly concluded that state law provides the rule of decision. 256 (8th Cir. 1994) (explaining that the existence of an ERISA plan is a mixed question of fact and law). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="113"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9B0A55634A78267788256E35007C151D/$file/0255797.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The USENET.1 Because AOL provides its subscribers access to the USENET is an abbreviation of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="113"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0359p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. * The dismissed complaint was styled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="113"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1827.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. The district court's order striking appellant's claim for failure to answer interrogatories was premature. One of the vehicles involved was a 1987 BMW operated by claimant appellant John Tenaglia. The BMW and the cash 1The interrogatories were served with the complaint pursuant to Adm. Which provides in pertinent part: The claimant of property that is the subject of an action in rem shall file a claim within 10 days after process has been executed . . . . In actions in rem interrogatories may be so served without leave of court. 3 were declared forfeit. He is precluded from relying on the rule at this juncture. The government asserts that Civil Rule 37 is inapposite in respect to interrogatories propounded pursuant to Adm. The district court's order is supportable. That this is a distinction bereft of any meaningful difference. Although in many cases the upshot of dismissal is more grievous than the upshot of an order to strike. Dismissal and the striking of a claim are quintessentially synonymous in the forfeiture context. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="113"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044716p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He presses three arguments: (1) his conviction must be vacated because his confessions should have been suppressed as evidence because they were made outside the six hour period in 18 U.S.C. § 3501(c) and after the arresting officials violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(a) by unnecessarily delaying in bringing him before a federal magistrate judge. (2) remand is required because (a) he was sentenced prior to the United States Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Because we believe that the first contention is governed by our decision in Government of the Virgin Islands v. We discern no error in the District Court's determination that Corley's confessions were voluntary. The delay in presenting him to a federal magistrate judge beyond that provided by 18 U.S.C. § 3501(c) will not result in suppressing his confessions. He is not entitled to a remand because the District Court did not treat the Guidelines as mandatory. Federal officials identified Johnnie Corley as a suspect in the robbery and were later informed of an outstanding bench warrant from a state court for him on a matter unrelated to the robbery. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="113"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1674p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is before this court on appeal from the district court's order exonerating the Consolidation Coal Co. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="111"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/042204P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND Lake Sakakawea is a reservoir in North Dakota formed by the enclosure of the Garrison Dam. Also released today. 32 1 The CWA is a federal law that directs the states to adopt state law waterquality standards. Holding that the CWA preserves sovereign immunity from suit for the Corps when the Corps' authority to maintain navigation is at issue. The district court's interpretation of the CWA is reviewed de novo. This waiver of sovereign immunity is further limited by 33 U.S.C. § 1371(a). Judicial inquiry is complete. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="111"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200012858.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (The Richardsons have not invoked our pendent appellate jurisdiction to cross appeal. The part of the order compelling arbitration is therefore not before us.). It would not bar arbitration of the specific claims that the Richardsons have made against Palm Harbor. Richardson to arbitrate because she is not a party to the arbitration agreement. Richardson is a third party beneficiary of the arbitration agreement. The provision of a federal claim for breach of some warranties and this strong preference for nonbinding informal dispute 2 The MMWA provides in pertinent part: (1) Congress hereby declares it to be its policy to encourage warrantors to establish procedures whereby consumer disputes are fairly and expeditiously settled through informal dispute settlement mechanisms. (2) The Commission shall prescribe rules setting forth minimum requirements for any informal dispute settlement procedure which is incorporated into the terms of a written warranty to which any provision of this chapter applies. Unless the named plaintiffs (upon notifying the defendant that they are named plaintiffs in a class action with respect to a warranty obligation) initially resort to such procedure. 15 U.S.C. § 2310(a). resolution. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="111"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/11/002206U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Her application was denied. An administrative law judge (ALJ) found in June 1997 that Harbor did not have a severe impairment. We review the ALJ's decision to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole that is. We do not find substantial support in the record for the ALJ's conclusion that Harbor's psychosis was feigned. We do not detect in them any implication that Harbor's earlier diagnoses were wrong. The ALJ could not conclude that Harbor was feigning mental illness based upon his own opinion. Harbor's testimony was not inconsistent with her medical records. 648 (8th Cir. 1984) (claimant with good record is entitled to substantial credibility when claiming she is unable to work). Carried a diagnosis of bipolar disorder with 2 depressive symptoms but appears not to have credited her testimony in his findings. The ALJ's finding that Harbor had no severe impairments is not supported by substantial evidence. 431 (8th Cir. 1996) (holding sequential evaluation analysis may be terminated at step two only when impairment or combination of impairments would have no more than minimal effect on claimant's ability to work). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="111"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200012858.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (The Richardsons have not invoked our pendent appellate jurisdiction to cross appeal. The part of the order compelling arbitration is therefore not before us.). It would not bar arbitration of the specific claims that the Richardsons have made against Palm Harbor. Richardson to arbitrate because she is not a party to the arbitration agreement. Richardson is a third party beneficiary of the arbitration agreement. The FTC's regulations 2 The MMWA provides in pertinent part: (1) Congress hereby declares it to be its policy to encourage warrantors to establish procedures whereby consumer disputes are fairly and expeditiously settled through informal dispute settlement mechanisms. (2) The Commission shall prescribe rules setting forth minimum requirements for any informal dispute settlement procedure which is incorporated into the terms of a written warranty to which any provision of this chapter applies. Unless the named plaintiffs (upon notifying the defendant that they are named plaintiffs in a class action with respect to a warranty obligation) initially resort to such procedure. 15 U.S.C. § 2310(a). 6 written warranty. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="111"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200316575.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A Cayman Islands corporation whose sole enterprise is the upkeep and management of the vessel M/V Sweet Pea ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="110"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BFAAB41BECD5F8438825708C0018B5B7/$file/0316532.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Holgates alleged that the defendants' actions related to the home's financing violated their civil rights and were otherwise in violation of state and federal law. The timing of the service and filing of each defendant's motion for Rule 11 sanctions against Levinson are central to this determination. The district court cautioned Levinson that it was retaining jurisdiction over him for any future Rule 11 motions. The District Court Did Not Err in Finding the Complaint Frivolous [1] An attorney is subject to Rule 11 sanctions. A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="110"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2002/014144.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The ship was returning home fully loaded with seventy cages of clams. The Beth Dee Bob was owned by PMD Enterprises. Which was transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and then consolidated with the wrongful death suit. McLaughlin filed a separate wrongful death action against Peter Lamonica alleging that his negligence was the cause of Captain McLaughlin's death. This action was consolidated with the limitation action and the wrongful death action against Cape May Foods. The case was assigned to a magistrate judge. Claiming that shipowners were barred from suing employees for negligence under the Jones Act and the Federal Employers' Liability Act. The District Court found that there were genuine issues of fact regarding the cause of the ship's sinking. Are generally not appealable except as interlocutory appeals under 28 U.S.C. 584 (3d Cir. 1995) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="110"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3818.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Players II was permanently moored to the dock at all times pertinent to their claims. The question we must decide is whether this fact is enough to defeat any claim under the Jones Act. It certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) the following question for interlocutory review: whether Players II was a vessel </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="110"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/11/991346P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. 1 This is a federal admiralty case involving an underlying Jones Act personal injury action brought in Illinois state court by James F. Lewis & Clark argues that the district court abused its discretion in dissolving its restraining order and staying the federal admiralty action because (1) the federal district court has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate Lewis & Clark's right to exoneration from or limitation of liability and (2) Claimant's Illinois state court action was properly enjoined under the circumstances of the present case. Jurisdiction Jurisdiction in the district court was proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1333. Jurisdiction in the court of appeals is proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. Background Lewis & Clark is a Missouri corporation with its principal place of business in Granite City. Lewis & Clark was the owner or. Claimant was purportedly injured while working for Lewis & Clark as a deckhand aboard the M/V KAREN MICHELLE. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="108"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-1778a.html">NATL ASSN REG UTIL V. SEC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="108"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1916.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="108"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034168p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that the City is not preempted from requiring parties receiving tax increment financing to sign a labor neutrality agreement. The URA is one of Pittsburgh's redevelopment authorities that serves as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="108"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1996/96a1300p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Holding that plaintiff Elizabeth Fedorczyk did not provide any evidence to support her claim that Royal Caribbean's failure to provide adequate abrasive strips in its bathtub was the proximate cause of her injuries. Which is an essential element of the tort of negligence. We will affirm the June 26. I. The following facts are not disputed. The tub in her cabin was about five and one half feet long and two feet. Fedorczyk has no recollection whether her feet were on or off the abrasive strips at the time of her fall. The tub was also equipped with a grab rail which Fedorczyk made a failed attempt to reach when she fell. She re entered the tub and discovered that there was sufficient space between the abrasive strips so that her feet could just fit in between them. She does not know where her feet were at the time of the accident. There were seven as opposed to four abrasive strips. This standard specifies that for any surface that is textured or treated with appliques. There is no definite way of preventing slips altogether. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="108"></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-1.gif" ALT="108"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021058.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The shippers have appealed. Are international metal traders. Both are incorporated in Switzerland and both are engaged primarily in the purchase and sale of aluminum. In order to have the aluminum transported to the United States. ICTS is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="106"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-3189A.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs contend that the $43 price was the result of materially misleading projections on November 5. Was that during 2002 the business would yield revenue growth in the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="106"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-3189.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs contend that the $43 price was the result of materially misleading projections on November 5. Was that during 2002 the business would yield revenue growth in the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="106"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200515383.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The central issue in this interlocutory appeal is the proper reach of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="106"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1136.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C. were on brief for appellant. Allen & Snyder were on brief for appellees. Was fraudulently induced to discharge six consignments of frozen scallops. The discharged scallops were seized by appellees Fleet National Bank and Cooper ative Centrale Raiffeisen Boerenleenbank B.A. (hereinafter. Glouces 1An order bill of lading is a negotiable instrument. Issued by the carrier to the shipper at the time goods are loaded aboard ship. As documentary evidence of title to those goods. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="106"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AA1F55BD132160858825705A000016EA/$file/0356547.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The vessels were arrested pursuant to maritime procedure. The district court determined that in rem jurisdiction was lost because there was no res against which to enforce an eventual in rem judgment. The district court held that it was powerless to order the Owners to reinstate the security. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The Original District Court Action Ventura Packers is a corporation that provides stevedoring services in Ventura. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="106"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/04/032213P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Michael was pronounced dead upon arrival. The coroner's report indicated that the probable cause of Michael's death was suffocation and cardiac arrest. All administrative remedies were exhausted. Was employed by J. Was insured by an accidental death and dismemberment insurance policy provided through Continental. The policy was in full force and effect on April 29. The district court determined that parachuting fell within the exclusion to the policy because Michael was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="104"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4C29C0B08A852E4088256BDD00724A6B/$file/0156228.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing that the complaint was factually misleading and legally without merit. The dispute was submitted to an arbitrator. Among the stipulated documents were two </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="104"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-1152a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Freeman was on brief. <span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="104"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1652.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Garcia & Fernandez were on brief. Sidley & Austin were on brief. We did so because the antitrust verdict may have included damages for the monopolization claim. There was a reasonable possibility the jury had awarded plaintiff too much. Because we were remanding for a new trial on damages. The entire price discrimination damages case was retried and the second jury returned a verdict on the price discrimination claim which was three times larger ($4.5 million before trebling) than the initial verdict. $2 million was for going concern damages. As the parties have agreed. CAPECO's refinery was the only one nearby. CAPECO was the only local source of bunker fuel. CAPECO was. Coastal was a new entrant to the bunker fuel market in San Juan. Coastal was not profitable during this period. Was between 2.5 and 4.0 million barrels per year. The actual average price advantage given by CAPECO to Coastal's competitors was $.48 per barrel in favor of Harbor and $.37 per barrel in favor of Caribbean. The tax was repealed in December 1993. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="104"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept96/94-3370.opa.html">ALDERMAN V. PACIFIC NORTHERN VICTOR, INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Alderman v. Was docked in navigable waters in southern Florida where it was undergoing a conversion from an oil drilling vessel to a fish processing vessel. Was assisting in the installation of an elevator aboard the Northern Victor. The cause was removed to federal court based upon the diversity of the parties and upon admiralty jurisdiction. The district court determined that this was a maritime tort.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="104"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept99/98-5034.man.html">SEA LANE BAHAMAS LTD. V. EUROPA CRUISES CORP. (9/17/1999, NO. 98-5034)<BR></A><BR> Alleging that Europa Cruise Line's redelivery of the Europa Jet was in breach of the charter agreement. Before an answer was filed. Defendants raised the defense that Sea Lane was not the real party in interest. Sea Lane maintains that it is the registered owner of the vessel and that it retained legal title to the vessel while transferring only </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="104"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept96/94-3370.opa.html">ALDERMAN V. PACIFIC NORTHERN VICTOR, INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Alderman v. Was docked in navigable waters in southern Florida where it was undergoing a conversion from an oil drilling vessel to a fish processing vessel. Was assisting in the installation of an elevator aboard the Northern Victor. The cause was removed to federal court based upon the diversity of the parties and upon admiralty jurisdiction. The district court determined that this was a maritime tort.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="104"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept99/98-5034.man.html">SEA LANE BAHAMAS LTD. V. EUROPA CRUISES CORP. (9/17/1999, NO. 98-5034)<BR></A><BR> Alleging that Europa Cruise Line's redelivery of the Europa Jet was in breach of the charter agreement. Before an answer was filed. Defendants raised the defense that Sea Lane was not the real party in interest. Sea Lane maintains that it is the registered owner of the vessel and that it retained legal title to the vessel while transferring only </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053496np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Police officer Keron Craig Only three of the five plaintiffs in this lawsuit are named </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2002/01-15456.opn.html">FISHER V. STATE MUT. INS. CO., N. AM. FIN. SERVICES, INC. (5/7/2002, NO. 01-15456)<BR></A><BR> Yancey III were. Ann Rogers was State Mutual's corporate secretary. Who was neither an officer nor a director of State Mutual.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/10EC24771E0FA76F8825733D004C6A36/$file/0556654.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Defendant appellee South Coast Air Quality Management District ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan96/94-4093.man.html">DIETRICH V. KEY BANK<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Dietrich v. 46 U.S.C.A. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2000/99-11778.opn.html">ALL UNDERWRITERS V. WEISBERG (8/18/2000, NO. 99-11778)<BR></A><BR> Underwriters filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida seeking to have the contract deemed void </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2000/99-11778.opn.html">ALL UNDERWRITERS V. WEISBERG (8/18/2000, NO. 99-11778)<BR></A><BR> Underwriters filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida seeking to have the contract deemed void </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-7128a.html">HARBOR INS CO V. STOKES ET AL<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1413.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Miranda Gutierrez and Figueroa Morales & Chaves Caraballo Law Offices were on brief for appellant. Rodriguez Marxuach and Goldman Antonetti Ferraiuoli & Axtmayer were on brief for appellee. I Jurisdiction Burgos argues that the district court did not have jurisdiction to enter a judgment against him. He adds that there was no diversity jurisdiction. 252 (1868) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/993877.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are called upon to address the applicability of the ADEA when an employer offers its Medicare eligible retirees health insurance coverage allegedly inferior to the coverage offered to retired employees not eligible for Medicare. Accordingly will reverse and remand the case for further proceedings. Would remain eligible only if they fell into one of four groups: employees unable to continue their employment due to a disability and who otherwise were eligible for a disability retirement pension. The plaintiff class in this action is composed of retirees who are aged 65 or older and thus eligible for Medicare who remain eligible for retiree health coverage under these restrictions. Pressure to reduce costs was enhanced when Highmark announced that it would increase the County's premiums for medical insurance coverage by an average of 48%. The district court described SecurityBlue as follows: SecurityBlue is a coordinated health care plan provided through Keystone Health Plan West. SecurityBlue is available to persons who have Medicare Part B Medical Insurance and who live in the SecurityBlue `service area' [which includes most of western Pennsylvania]. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971685.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We agree and hold that when the predominant purpose of a maritime or land based contract is the rendering of services rather than the furnishing of goods. The U.C.C. is inapplicable. Attached to both GE Quotations were GE's terms and conditions. Were to govern the contract. Good metal was removed from the rotor. It was undisputed. Judgment as a matter of law is proper </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2002/01-15456.opn.html">FISHER V. STATE MUT. INS. CO., N. AM. FIN. SERVICES, INC. (5/7/2002, NO. 01-15456)<BR></A><BR> Yancey III were. Ann Rogers was State Mutual's corporate secretary. Who was neither an officer nor a director of State Mutual.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan96/94-4093.man.html">DIETRICH V. KEY BANK<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Dietrich v. 46 U.S.C.A. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200206/01-1152a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Freeman was on brief. Was on brief. That the Affirmation and Determination are arbitrary. Capri cious and otherwise unlawful and that the substantive find ings underlying them are unsupported by substantial evi dence in the administrative record. I. The following factual recitation is divided into two sec tions the first explaining the regulatory regime of the FAA and the second detailing how BFI's landfill proposal was (or was not) processed within that regime. The FAA is authorized to determine whether a proposed construction or alteration project will present a hazard to air navigation. Of a structure or sanitary landfill when the notice will promote ... (1) safety in air commerce. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19985651.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A copy of the opinion is annexed hereto. The allegedly infringing work is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052023np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> DRS is a company in the business of removing metal containers of cargo from ships and placing them on trucks at the terminal on shore. Goldsmith was a longshoreman employed by DRS. DRS was unloading containers from the Tundra Consumer using two of the ship's cranes. Goldsmith was picking up discarded corner locks. That were lying on the deck. While a DRS crane operator was moving a container from its position on deck. Goldsmith was knocked over the side of the ship. DRS Ship Boss William Collins ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1775.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whose main deck was fitted with a crane and a vibratory pile driving hammer. Traylor moved the BETTY F to various other aquatic locations where it 1The district court's opinion is published. Was moored alongside the BETTY F. Steady the implement as it moved into position over the metal piles that were to be driven. DiGiovanni was seriously injured and received workers' compensation benefits from Traylor under LHWCA 904. His complaint noted that Traylor was not only his employer but also the owner pro hac vice of both the BETTY F and the supply barge. He asseverated that Traylor was liable in negligence 3 pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 905(b) in its capacity as vessel owner. It was against that backdrop that we granted en banc review. Morehead is controlling here. It suffices to say that we are not persuaded by the distinctions that our dissenting brother raises. We need go no further. 2The appeals in this case and in Morehead could not be treated in a single en banc opinion because a senior judge who had sat on the Morehead panel was eligible to participate in the en banc decision in that case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar97/95-4944.opa.html">ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Royal Caribbean Cruises. FACTS<p> <p> The material facts in this case are not in dispute. These stopovers are of a short duration and do not last overnight.<p> Royal Caribbean ordinarily does not collect taxes under </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-4022.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case was originally brought in federal district court in the Eastern District of Missouri (hereinafter </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-5108.html">DOLORES WALCEK 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-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199914328.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because there was a substantial question as to whether the Federal Employees' Compensation Act. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar97/95-4944.opa.html">ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD. V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Royal Caribbean Cruises. FACTS<p> <p> The material facts in this case are not in dispute. These stopovers are of a short duration and do not last overnight.<p> Royal Caribbean ordinarily does not collect taxes under </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1740.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On cover sheet. Mergen was on brief. Karen Antrim Raine were on brief. They did not object when the vessel's logbook was introduced into evidence. They suggested that the tail perhaps belonged to a black marlin.4 The administrative law judge (ALJ) found that the fish had been snagged in Caribbean waters frequented by the blue (but 2Former section 644.7(d) is now recodified as 50 C.F.R. 644.7(e) (1993). 3To be precise. Appellants do not dispute that the F/V EAGLE EYE is a vessel subject to 50 C.F.R. 644.7(d). They do not dispute that San Juan Harbor lies within this nation's EEZ. 4The black marlin is an unprotected species indigenous to the Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean. 4 not the black) marlin. (4) Agent Pickering's opinion that the fish seemed to have been caught only a day or two before the ship had docked. Appellants were barred from advancing it because they had not raised it before the ALJ.6 5Logbooks of this type must be kept as a matter of course by all regulated fishing vessels. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1692.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Wainwright & Wainwright were on brief. Smith & Cohen were on brief. Is this: Can a Massachusetts based court. Assert jurisdiction over a California resident who is alleged to have made a defamatory comment during an unsolicited telephone interview with a staff reporter for a Massachusetts newspaper? Alioto is an attorney practicing in California. Alioto is pressing a class action in the California courts against Ticketmaster Southern California. Is affiliated with Ticketmaster New York. Both Ticketmaster entities are engaged in the business of selling ducats to entertainment events. The record is equally barren of any showing that Alioto solicited the inquiry2 or that more than one call occurred. It is clear. Who was in California. At no point does the article refer by name to either T NY or T SC. 2Although there is a passing allusion in the record to a press release issued by Alioto regarding the lawsuit against T SC. There is no indication that he forwarded this release to Massachusetts or that it sparked the Globe's story. 3 gouging in New York and California. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/17B48B1EAEF3D07288256E5A00707D2A/$file/0035280.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Rodriquez was injured on July 12. Whose sight was obscured. Rodriquez's big toe and second toe were amputated as a result of the accident. Rodriquez was directly employed by Barrett Business Services ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F56B5589348AAB3E88256B0300799704/$file/9917154.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Mudgetts were the owners and operators of Marin Tug and Barge. Because the diesel engines that power the receiving ships are highly sensitive to abrasives. Bunker fuel must meet certain specifications regarding aluminum and silicon oxide content. 15727 (Aluminum and silicon oxide are used as catalysts in the refining process.). The Tenor was loaded with marine fuel oil at Shell's Martinez refinery. It turned out that there were large amounts of alumina and silica in Shell's delivery line. The oil loaded onto the Tenor was substandard. Marin Tug learned that the fuel delivered to the Direct Eagle was contaminated. Believing the Tenor was the source of the contamination. Two flushing voyages were completed. The Tenor was sold to a third party. After the civil action was filed. Shell refused to have further business dealings with Marin Tug and prohibited Marin Tug from loading fuel at Shell's Martinez refinery. The effect of Shell's refusal to deal was not only that Shell would no longer contract with Marin Tug but also that Marin Tug could no longer do business with third party fuel brokers and consumers who otherwise would have hired it to transport Shell oil. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981196.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 2 the crossreference is corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19954708.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PER CURIAM: Appellant Zuki Teria is a Panamanian Corporation. IMS executed on its maritime lien and the M/V INAGUA TANIA was arrested on March 1. There was no dispute that the vessel thereafter sailed from Fort Lauderdale and is no longer in the court's jurisdiction. The Orders from which appellant Zuki Teria appeals are not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/91B469B4249DF25188256C4C007B1EF9/$file/0035871.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That equitable factors have no place in the district court's consideration of a § 914(f) penalty.2 I. Hanson incorrectly stated that his address was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept95/94-6650.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept95/94-6650.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9BFCC98B625BF90588256F3B007B5118/$file/0216619.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The appeal was not submitted as NRG Energy. Which was in bankruptcy proceedings. Argued the case for the appellant and was on the briefs. Were also on the briefs. Argued the case for the appellees and was on the joint briefs of the appellees. Hixson were also on the joint briefs as attorneys for the same parties. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the brief of amici curiae State of Washington and State of Oregon in support of plaintiff. 2004 is hereby amended as follows: At page 8863 of the slip opinion. Delete the parenthetical quotation and add the following two sentences at the conclusion of footnote 17 as follows: At issue are not state regulatory schemes for employment discrimination. Which might indirectly and unintentionally have some possible effect on energy prices. The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Circuit Judge: We must decide whether federal removal jurisdiction lies over California state court actions alleging that several power companies fraudulently failed to deliver reserve energy that might otherwise have helped to avert the state's energy crises of 2000 and 2001. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7F136D63A6CB7D5988256AF1005733CA/$file/0035280.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Rodriquez was injured on July 12. Whose sight was obscured. Rodriquez's big toe and second toe were amputated as a result of the accident. Rodriquez was directly employed by Barrett Business Services ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1444.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Beaulieu was on brief. With whom Schacht & McElroy was on brief. The third time is not the charm: because the record shows beyond peradventure that the parties entered into a subsequent written contract. The text of which is reproduced in the appendix. Since the case was decided below on summary judgment. The foreclosure proceedings have been consummated. 3Because this appeal is susceptible to resolution on the ground that the letter exchange extinguished any oral agreement. The district court reasoned that whether an oral agreement existed was of no consequence. As any such agreement was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-2193.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Bradley & Savasuk was on brief for appellants JUNO SRL. With whom Dickerson & Reilly was on brief for appellees S/V ENDEAVOUR. The first issue is what weight private rules and procedures should have in determining the liability of sailing vessels that collide while engaged in the sport of yacht racing. The second issue is what forum shall assess the damages that result from such circumstances. The district court decision is reported. That court ruled that the S/V CHARLES JOURDAN was liable to the S/V ENDEAVOUR after a collision between the two vessels. Found that the ENDEAVOUR was 40% at fault in causing the encounter. Was racing in the La Nioulargue Regatta. Also competing in this Regatta on a different course was the ENDEAVOUR. While the ENDEAVOUR was required to finish its course at Mark A. Was on a similar tack. Was the burdened vessel and was required to keep clear of LA POSTE. Who was sailing slower at seven knots and was to windward of CHARLES JOURDAN converging on a course approximately 40 from that of CHARLES JOURDAN. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=08&date=01&year=01">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7BD3F8D6A62D994588256DE2005C863B/$file/0215635.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1094.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Zelle and Zelle & Larson were on brief for St. Were on brief for Ferrara & DiMercurio. The commercial fishing vessel F/V TWO FRIENDS was destroyed by fire on July 3. Was expressly excluded from policy coverage. Paul's refusal to pay was a breach of the insurance contract and constituted </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-30657.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We reject Irvin's contention that summary judgment was improper because genuine issues of material fact exist regarding Pursuant to 5TH CIR. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * No. 03 30657 2whether the grease was an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTAyNjctY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-0267-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> J.) dismissing the admiralty claim of carrier against shipper upon the finding following a bench trial that the carrier was responsible for a fire aboard ship caused by hazardous cargo. Ltd. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F1E00D3A54B62AA288256EC90056C8FF/$file/0216619.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The appeal was not submitted as NRG Energy. Which was in bankruptcy proceedings. Argued the case for the appellant and was on the briefs. Were also on the briefs. Argued the case for the appellees and was on the joint briefs of the appellees. Hixson were also on the joint briefs as attorneys for the same parties. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the joint PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA v. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the brief of amici curiae State of Washington and State of Oregon in support of plaintiff. Circuit Judge: We must decide whether federal removal jurisdiction lies over California state court actions alleging that several power companies fraudulently failed to deliver reserve energy that might otherwise have helped to avert the state's energy crises of 2000 and 2001. Perhaps the culmination of this rethinking was California's decision in 1996 to initiate an aggressive market experiment to deregulate and to restructure its electricity markets. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1256.html">NATIONAL STEEL CAR, LTD. V. CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY, LTD, ET AL.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>David P. Illinois.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel was <u>Alexandra DeNeve</u>. Argued for defendants appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Marc S. Addresses a particular type of railway car used to haul lumber: a depressed center beam flat car.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Figure 1 of the '575 patent shows a longitudinal section through one side of the car and is reproduced below.</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text indent:.5in. Line height:200%'>The car described in the '575 patent is a ". Car because the primary structure of the car is a truss like beam element that runs the length of the center of the car between the wheel assemblies. In the front and back of the car.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Center beam cars are an industry standard for hauling lumber. Which is piled onto a floor that extends laterally to each side of the car from the bottom of the center beam and then secured to the center beam.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Canadian Pacific currently operates a fleet of center beam flat cars.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>    </span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text indent:.5in. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1977.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Avil‚s & Col¢n Morales LLP were on brief. Col¢n & Mart¡nez was on brief. We affirm on the alternative ground that the appellee was immune from suit under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-5051.html">MASSIE JILL K V. USA<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were Frank W. Alleging that Autumn's injuries were caused by medical malpractice. Or subrogated interests </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2004/034263np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The owner of the vessel he was hired to unload. The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the facts. Kent Line's vessel that was carrying a cargo of steel beams and other construction equipment. McLaughlin noted that the beams in hold #3 had been jostled during the voyage and that they were no longer neatly stacked or tied together in bundles. McLaughlin Trans Ocean was a defendant in this action. The cargo in hold #1 was unloaded from 7:00 a.m. until 12:00 Noon. Marino was engaged in unloading steel beams from cargo hold #3. Summary judgment is appropriate if . . . 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-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19954944.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. FACTS The material facts in this case are not in dispute. Canada. * All of the passengers on Judge Kravitch was in regular active service when this matter was originally submitted but has taken senior status effective January 1. These stopovers are of a short duration and do not last overnight. There is hereby imposed a tax of $3 per passenger on a covered voyage. (b) By whom paid. At issue in this appeal is the meaning of the words </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2000/99-14328.man.html">NOBLE V. UNITED STATES (6/29/2000, NO. 99-14328)<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because there was a substantial question as to whether the Federal Employees' Compensation Act. </EM> ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1878.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C. were on brief for appellant. Cowley and Edwards & Angell were on brief for appellees. This acquisition was completed through the merger of the prior owner. ECN 2 is consolidating the three newspapers into one publication to be called The Salem Evening News. This consolidated daily is to be published from ECN's Beverly facility. Which is less than five miles from the less modern Salem plant. The district court noted that this consolidation was the principal reason for ECN's acquisition and that it required a reduction in the work force in order to avoid duplication. The Agreement was to expire on September 30. It was extended until March 31. The Guild contends that the Agreement was extended because of the then pending acquisition and due. The Publisher communicated to the Guild </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2000/99-14328.man.html">NOBLE V. UNITED STATES (6/29/2000, NO. 99-14328)<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because there was a substantial question as to whether the Federal Employees' Compensation Act. </EM> ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept97/96-6833.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2625.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/332DD12889E41B8288256E5A00707D49/$file/9917154.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Mudgetts were the owners and operators of Marin Tug and Barge. Because the diesel engines that power the receiving ships are highly sensitive to abrasives. Bunker fuel must meet certain specifications regarding aluminum and silicon oxide content. 15727 (Aluminum and silicon oxide are used as catalysts in the refining process.). The Tenor was loaded with marine fuel oil at Shell's Martinez refinery. It turned out that there were large amounts of alumina and silica in Shell's delivery line. The oil loaded onto the Tenor was substandard. Marin Tug learned that the fuel delivered to the Direct Eagle was contaminated. Believing the Tenor was the source of the contamination. Two flushing voyages were completed. The Tenor was sold to a third party. After the civil action was filed. Shell refused to have further business dealings with Marin Tug and prohibited Marin Tug from loading fuel at Shell's Martinez refinery. The effect of Shell's refusal to deal was not only that Shell would no longer contract with Marin Tug but also that Marin Tug could no longer do business with third party fuel brokers and consumers who otherwise would have hired it to transport Shell oil. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="101"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept97/96-6833.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="99"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1932.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellant United States. Was on brief for defendants. 2 TORRUELLA. This is an appeal by the Government from an order entered by the District Court for the District of Maine dismissing its in rem complaint for forfeiture of certain real property consisting of 400 acres. 1 under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 981(a)(1) and 21 U.S.C. 881(a)(6).2 The complaint 1 Although the record is not entirely clear. The Government asserts that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="99"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2429.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Or document filed\ pursuant to this chapter or any rule or regulation\ thereunder . . . which statement was at the time and in\ the light of the circumstances under which it was made\ false or misleading with respect to any material fact. \ shall be liable to any person (not knowing that such\ statement was false or misleading) who. Shall have purchased or sold a security\ at a price which was affected by such statement. Unless the person sued\ shall prove that he acted in good faith and had no\ knowledge that such statement was false or misleading. .\ . .</span></p>\ <p style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="99"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-5242a.html">CHAMBER CMERC US V. REICH ROBERT B.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="99"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july96/95-2418.opa.html">SUZUKI OF ORANGE PARK V. SHUBERT<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Suzuki of Orange Park v. FACTS<p> <p> Suzuki is a Florida corporation engaged primarily in the business of selling recreational watercraft. It is unknown whether Mann and Nemic pushed Shubert. The first watercraft was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="99"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992519.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We are asked to review the district court's grant of a motion for voluntary dismissal made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). Because we are confident that the district court did not abuse its discretion. Allen Flath was seriously injured in a jet ski accident that occurred on Lake Murray in Lexington County. The Flaths alleged negligence and strict liability causes of action in their complaint and indicated that their suit was initiated in federal court on the basis of federal admiralty jurisdiction within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(h). The Flaths alleged that Lake Murray was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="99"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1581.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> McLaughlin</SPAN> was on brief for appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="99"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19943370.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was docked in navigable waters in southern Florida where it was undergoing a conversion from an oil drilling vessel to a fish processing vessel. Was assisting in the installation of an elevator aboard the Northern Victor. Sitting by designation. cause was removed to federal court based upon the diversity of the parties and upon admiralty jurisdiction. 1 the district court determined that this was a maritime tort. Holding that the suit was time barred because it had not been filed within the applicable three year statute of limitations.2 Subsequent to that decision. The issue before us is a simple one. If the tort is governed by maritime law. Discussion Whether substantive admiralty law applies is a question of law that we review de novo.3 To determine whether substantive If. It is governed by Florida law. The test for admiralty tort jurisdiction was simple. It became apparent that this test was no longer sufficient. The activity from which the claim arises must satisfy a location test and it must have sufficient connection with maritime activity.8 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="99"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july96/95-2418.opa.html">SUZUKI OF ORANGE PARK V. SHUBERT<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Suzuki of Orange Park v. FACTS<p> <p> Suzuki is a Florida corporation engaged primarily in the business of selling recreational watercraft. It is unknown whether Mann and Nemic pushed Shubert. The first watercraft was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="99"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1B6E7B2E95868EB188256D9E007B9B2F/$file/0235364.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2003 is hereby amended as follows: 1. Delete the two sentences reading: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="99"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/024759.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ABDI 3 during the course of the conspiracy was over $4.2 million. All of which was attributable to Isse and approximately $3.3 million of which was attributable to Abdi. Contending that the district court did not properly apply U.S.S.G. § 2S1.3(b)(2) so as to reduce their sentencing levels to reflect that they had no knowledge of whether the funds that they structured were the proceeds of unlawful activities or were to be used for unlawful purposes. The defendants did not ask their customers about the sources of the cash that the defendants received for transmission through Al Barakat nor the uses for which the money was to be transmitted. Although some customers told the defendants that they were sending money to relatives. Because the deposits were in cash amounts less than $10. The defendants were indicted for numerous structuring offenses. They did not know from where the customers derived the money and they did not know for what the money was to be used once it was transmitted overseas. They filed this appeal challenging the district court's determination that they were ineligible for reduction of their base offense level to level 6. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="99"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/662799C7C0BF21AB88256CFA005A1041/$file/0116703.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BACKGROUND Gravquick is a Danish corporation located near Copenhagen that imports construction equipment and products into Denmark for sale in the Danish market. Trimble is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Sunnyvale. The IDA was effective for a one year term beginning on May 26. Unless it was extended by mutual consent of the parties. Which was to be governed by the laws of Gravquick's jurisdiction. No provision of the IDA authorized such a delegation and Gravquick's consent to it was not sought. Contending that the CEDA did not apply to the IDA because Gravquick was a dealer located outside of California and because the decision not to renew was made in England. A supplier may not fail to renew a dealer agreement unless there is cause and the supplier provides the dealer 90 days' written notice. I Place of Non Renewal The district court held that the CEDA did not apply to the non renewal of the IDA because the decision not to renew was made in England. The contract itself was governed by California law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="99"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7BA2CC81D0DBF56688256D7200732939/$file/0235364.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We consider the apportionment of a salvage award that was given to participating crew members but not to the owner of the salving vessel. Some have traced the right back to the ancient Rhodians. CROWLEY MARINE SERVICES and who are thought by some to be the earliest culture to have devised a system of maritime law.2 The manuscript known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="99"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1129.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was unconstitutional. While the appeal was pending the district court granted defendants' motions for sanctions and fees against attorney Mulhern. The officers placed a sign on the highway that stated a narcotics checkpoint was being conducted one mile ahead. A second sign was placed further down the highway stating that a drug dog was in use as part of the narcotics checkpoint. Were false. Officers were stationed in inconspicuous areas along the highway in the area of the signs watching for any illegal or suspicious activity. No stops were to be made unless officers observed or otherwise had reasonable suspicion of some type of illegal activity associated with a particular vehicle. Deputy Hugh Richards of the Montezuma County Sheriff's Department was stationed between the two signs on <hr> Highway 145. Richards radioed ahead and the blue Toyota was stopped for littering by task force member Dennis Spruell. Was advised that he had been stopped because his passenger had been observed throwing an object out the window. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="99"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200706/06-1276a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Jonathan E. With him on the briefs were Scott Blake Harris. Hazzard were on the briefs for intervenor Voice on the Net Coalition. With him on the brief were Thomas O. Bergmann was on the brief for intervenor National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates. Brown were on the brief for intervenor Verizon Communications Inc. The USF is a funding stream the Commission uses to subsidize telecommunications and information services in rural and high cost areas. Some businesses are required by statute to contribute while others must contribute only when the Commission has. Cir. 2005) (holding that the Commission may regulate under its ancillary jurisdiction when </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="99"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3882.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Between 1916 and 1928 the Rosinco the first diesel electric vessel berthed in Chicago was one of the largest (at 95 feet and 82 gross tons) and most opulent yachts on the Great Lakes. Paul Ehorn was arrested in October 1998 after he retrieved one of its portholes. States own two categories of vessels: those that have become </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="96"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2001/00-10163.opn.html">EHLERT V. SINGER (3/30/2001, NO. 00-10163)<BR></A><BR> Chief Judge: This is an appeal from a district court order dismissing Plaintiffs' claims under §§ 11. Medical Manager Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="96"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2001/00-10163.opn.html">EHLERT V. SINGER (3/30/2001, NO. 00-10163)<BR></A><BR> Chief Judge: This is an appeal from a district court order dismissing Plaintiffs' claims under §§ 11. Medical Manager Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="96"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2B8C467ADCD0F45988256E7B00832FF0/$file/0355166.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The question is whether these two interests conflict here. We are constrained to conclude that California acting as a regulator. We hold that the California statute as written is preempted by the NLRA under Lodge 76. Gov't Code §§ 16645 49 are hereinafter cited as. LOCKYER 5173 It is the policy of the state not to interfere with an employee's choice about whether to join or to be represented by a labor union. It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to prohibit an employer from using state funds and facilities for the purpose of influencing employees to support or oppose unionization and to prohibit an employer from seeking to influence employees to support or oppose unionization while those employees are performing work on a state contract. § 16645. Two provisions of the California statute are at issue on this appeal sections 16645.2 and 16645.7. Section 16645.2(a) bars private employers who are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="96"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1052.html">INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES I, LTD V. MERCK<BR></A><BR> Argued for defendant appellant Merck KGaA.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Thomas H. Townsend</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>M. Of counsel was <u>Esther H. Ltd. and The Burnham Institute.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief was <u>David M. Beckwith</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Raphael V. Will &. Mso bidi font family: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="96"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1895.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gallagher & Spielberg were on brief. Were on brief. Jr. and Ropes & Gray were on brief. There is. BACKGROUND The litigation that undergirds this appeal is nearly a decade old. NWF argued that 2The statute provides that the federal government may grant covenants not to sue to CERCLA defendants . . . if each of the following conditions is met: (A) The covenant not to sue is in the public interest. (C) The [covenantee] is in full compliance with a consent decree under [CERCLA] section 9606 . . . (including a consent decree entered into in accordance with this section) for response to the release or threatened release concerned. Is the lone appellant. THE NECESSITY FOR STANDING Our odyssey through the often Byzantine world of standing is greatly assisted in this instance by the Supreme Court's opinion in Diamond v. Since the intervenor was the sole appellant. Justice Blackmun wrote that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="94"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/353D976599E1D8BF88256E5A00707AB6/$file/9756562.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Factual Overview AMI is a Delaware corporation that owns and operates hospitals and medical research facilities. It 3791 and National Union have been locked in this coverage dispute over a $5 million excess directors and officers ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="94"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972205.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 2 the word </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="94"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8CC38609A1F10EB688256A1C005CB6AC/$file/9756562.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Factual Overview AMI is a Delaware corporation that owns and operates hospitals and medical research facilities. It 3791 and National Union have been locked in this coverage dispute over a $5 million excess directors and officers ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="94"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200706/05-1446a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Which is designed to protect air quality in national parks and 2 similar scenic and recreational areas. 42 U.S.C. ch. 85. After the NAAQS is established for a particular pollutant. In areas where pollution was within the national ambient standards. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="94"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1693.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Mahoney and Miller were on brief for appellees. All Trawl is a Massachusetts commercial fishing corporation which owns the Corey Pride and Anderson is All Trawl's president. James Corey is identified in Southworth's complaint as either an agent or principal of All Trawl. Shortly after the engine was installed on the vessel by a Southworth employee. A fire broke out on the Corey Pride while it was out at sea on a fishing expedition. Claiming that the fire was caused by defective engine parts and faulty installation. An additional claim for negligence was later asserted at trial. Southworth's claims against Anderson and James Corey were dismissed without objection prior to trial. James Corey was out of the case altogether and Anderson continued only as a counterclaimant. The remaining claims were tried in December 1990 before a magistrate judge by consent of the parties. 28 U.S.C. 636(c). The magistrate judge found that the fire was caused by a defective makeshift oil pressure line connected to the engine and installed by Southworth's agent. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="94"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/12/981332P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the navigation seasons covered by the 1995 96 and 1996 97 AOPs are over. We hold that the case is now moot. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="94"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1843.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. 2 Roberto Rold n Burgos for appellant Franklyn Rivera Santiago and Rachel Brill for appellant Edwin Alamo Silva were on joint brief. Were on brief for appellee. Customs Service air interdiction officers who were assigned to three aircraft operating off the southeast coast of Puerto Rico on the night of January 4. The officers were investigating what was perceived to be a suspicious aircraft flying with its lights off and without a flight plan from South America toward Puerto Rico. The government s first witness was Leslie Robb. The splashes were captured on a videotape of Omaha 42's FLIR. Which was submitted to the jury as evidence along with videotapes of the FLIRs from the other two aircraft. A vessel was seen flashing its lights in the area near the suspicious aircraft. This target was the only one that Rivera was able to locate on his radar. That the vessel s navigation lights had to have been turned off. Was the pilot in command of Omaha 02. We received information from Omaha 42 that a drop was taking place and that they were seeing the splashes. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="94"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/05/03-7023.htm">03-7023 -- MAGNOLIA MARINE TRANSPORT CO. V. STATE OF OKLAHOMA -- 05/03/2004<BR></A><BR> An order denying a motion to dismiss on the basis of state sovereign immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine. <em>P.R. Was pushing two empty barges up the Arkansas River in Oklahoma. While Captain Dedmon was unconscious. The parties' legal actions were consolidated in federal district court in Oklahoma. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="94"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/11/964132P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. NationsMart was formed in 1992 with the goal of applying the low price. The Prospectus also cautioned that NationsMart's financial model reflected </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="94"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2025.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellee. Was sent to sea by GEGS. Is the only plaintiff to pursue appeal. 2 2 recorded during the stranding incident. At the time the requests were sent. Nor was the United States. Arguing that the United States Navy owned the SEPTAR on which Wilson and the others were injured. That therefore the United States was the only proper party in interest. It is important to note that when the court issued this deadline. No statute of limitations issue was before the district court when it set the September 24. The amended complaint was filed on September 25. Wilson's brief misleadingly states that the amended complaint was filed on September 24. The amended complaint included in the Wilson's appendix is date stamped by the clerk's office </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="91"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2001/00-14405.man.html">PAC. HARBOR CAPITAL V. BARNETT BANK (5/30/2001, NO. 00-14405)<BR></A><BR> (Barnett) is barred by the statute of limitations. PHC's remaining state law claims were dismissed with prejudice pursuant to an agreement between the parties. The sole issue on appeal is whether partial summary judgment was justifiably given against PHC on its contention that the statute of limitations was equitably tolled. Where a fact is noted as disputed. Is a financial institution whose headquarters are in Portland. Barnett was to take a quarter share in this financing and. To certify for each disbursement under the construction loan that Santini was in compliance with the terms of that loan and with the terms of the mortgage loan and that no adverse financial changes had occurred in his creditworthiness or the collateral. It is a disputed fact whether from the start Santini was not creditworthy and known by Barnett to be in desperate financial need.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="91"></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-0.gif" ALT="91"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2004/032541p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We similarly conclude that we do not have appellate jurisdiction under the provisions for appellate review of certain interlocutory orders found in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) and (3). Which we will dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The arbitration has been Because this is an in rem action. The King A itself is the defendant with King David merely acting on its behalf. Adopted a `personification' theory in which the vessel itself is a party and judgments are entered against her without the necessity of securing jurisdiction over the owner. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="91"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19963494.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from a maritime limitation proceeding initiated pursuant to Rule F of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims (Rule F). Are subject to Rule F and therefore constrained to Rule F limitation proceedings. Are subject to Rule F and therefore constrained to Rule F limitation proceedings. The Admiralty Rules were variously amended. Was adopted in 1966. The Owners allege their liability is limited under OPA 90 to $1. Notices were issued to potential claimants that all claims against each of the Owners had to be filed in the respective limitation proceeding within 60 days or the right to recover from the Owners would be forfeited. This case has a long and complicated procedural history.2 We are concerned here with three of the district court's rulings. The district court ruled that Florida is entitled to sovereign immunity from the limitation proceeding. Concluding that claims brought pursuant to OPA 90 are not subject to Rule F and therefore cannot be constrained to the limitation proceeding. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="91"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july98/96-3494.man.html">BOUCHARD TRANSP. CO., INC. V. UPDEGRAFF (7/31/1998, NO. 96-3494)<BR></A><BR> Is entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from a maritime limitation proceeding initiated pursuant to Rule F of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims (Rule F). Are subject to Rule F and therefore constrained to Rule F limitation proceedings. Are subject to Rule F and therefore constrained to Rule F limitation proceedings.</P> <P><CENTER>I. The Admiralty Rules were variously amended. Was adopted in 1966.</P> <P> Rule F(1) states that a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="91"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19963494.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from a maritime limitation proceeding initiated pursuant to Rule F of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims (Rule F). Are subject to Rule F and therefore constrained to Rule F limitation proceedings. Are subject to Rule F and therefore constrained to Rule F limitation proceedings. The Admiralty Rules were variously amended. Was adopted in 1966. The Owners allege their liability is limited under OPA 90 to $1. Notices were issued to potential claimants that all claims against each of the Owners had to be filed in the respective limitation proceeding within 60 days or the right to recover from the Owners would be forfeited. This case has a long and complicated procedural history.2 We are concerned here with three of the district court's rulings. The district court ruled that Florida is entitled to sovereign immunity from the limitation proceeding. Concluding that claims brought pursuant to OPA 90 are not subject to Rule F and therefore cannot be constrained to the limitation proceeding. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="91"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar95/93-5209.opa.html">FLORES V. CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Flores v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This case presents a novel question: if a seaman whose income consists mainly of tips becomes ill or injured and is unable to work. Can he recover those tips under the remedy for wages that is provided by admiralty law? We hold that the average tip income the seaman was earning prior to his incapacitation is to be included in the measure of wages he is due if he becomes unable to work.<p> <b>I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY</b><p> <p> Mario Flores is a seaman who signed two consecutive employment contracts to work as a cabin steward on cruise ships owned by Carnival Cruise Lines. Further provided:<p> If you have been contracted as a ... <i>CABIN STEWARD. [T]he tips you may expect go as high as <i>$1000.00 a month.</i> Carnival will take it upon itself to inform passengers of what is customarily tipped for the work that you perform.<p> <p> [Flores Br. 3. B] The underlined words and figures were typed into blank spaces on the original printed form.<p> Flores claims that he worked on the Ecstasy until April 27. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="91"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july98/96-3494.man.html">BOUCHARD TRANSP. CO., INC. V. UPDEGRAFF (7/31/1998, NO. 96-3494)<BR></A><BR> Is entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from a maritime limitation proceeding initiated pursuant to Rule F of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims (Rule F). Are subject to Rule F and therefore constrained to Rule F limitation proceedings. Are subject to Rule F and therefore constrained to Rule F limitation proceedings.</P> <P><CENTER>I. The Admiralty Rules were variously amended. Was adopted in 1966.</P> <P> Rule F(1) states that a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="91"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2001/00-14405.man.html">PAC. HARBOR CAPITAL V. BARNETT BANK (5/30/2001, NO. 00-14405)<BR></A><BR> (Barnett) is barred by the statute of limitations. PHC's remaining state law claims were dismissed with prejudice pursuant to an agreement between the parties. The sole issue on appeal is whether partial summary judgment was justifiably given against PHC on its contention that the statute of limitations was equitably tolled. Where a fact is noted as disputed. Is a financial institution whose headquarters are in Portland. Barnett was to take a quarter share in this financing and. To certify for each disbursement under the construction loan that Santini was in compliance with the terms of that loan and with the terms of the mortgage loan and that no adverse financial changes had occurred in his creditworthiness or the collateral. It is a disputed fact whether from the start Santini was not creditworthy and known by Barnett to be in desperate financial need.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="91"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1542.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> AS HE IS TRUSTEE OF GROSVENOR PARK REALTY TRUST. Is amended as follows: Amend the cover sheet to show that Judge Jack E. Tanner is from the Western District of Washington and was sitting on the District Court of Massachusetts by special designation. AS HE IS TRUSTEE OF GROSVENOR PARK REALTY TRUST. With whom Beatrice & Beatrice was on brief for appellant. With whom Williams & Grainger was on brief for appellee FDIC. Argues that summary judgment is therefore inappropriate. Contends that Gleicher's conclusory remarks are insufficient to overcome the circumstantial evidence of fraud. FACTUAL BACKGROUND FACTUAL BACKGROUND The following facts are undisputed. The Note was secured by a mortgage on the Lynn property. 000 to a limited partnership (of which Gleicher was a general partner). 000 loan was in the form of an unsecured line of credit due to expire on December 30. 000 line of credit was fully drawn and had expired. It would have to be secured with. Stein reminded Gleicher that the Note was a demand note and would shortly expire. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="91"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar95/93-5209.opa.html">FLORES V. CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Flores v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This case presents a novel question: if a seaman whose income consists mainly of tips becomes ill or injured and is unable to work. Can he recover those tips under the remedy for wages that is provided by admiralty law? We hold that the average tip income the seaman was earning prior to his incapacitation is to be included in the measure of wages he is due if he becomes unable to work.<p> <b>I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY</b><p> <p> Mario Flores is a seaman who signed two consecutive employment contracts to work as a cabin steward on cruise ships owned by Carnival Cruise Lines. Further provided:<p> If you have been contracted as a ... <i>CABIN STEWARD. [T]he tips you may expect go as high as <i>$1000.00 a month.</i> Carnival will take it upon itself to inform passengers of what is customarily tipped for the work that you perform.<p> <p> [Flores Br. 3. B] The underlined words and figures were typed into blank spaces on the original printed form.<p> Flores claims that he worked on the Ecstasy until April 27. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="91"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200010163.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chief Judge: This is an appeal from a district court order dismissing Plaintiffs' claims under §§ 11. Medical Manager Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="91"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/59A5DF91D0F1993B88256E140056A274/$file/0217474.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Held that the statements were either not made as alleged or were forward looking statements accompanied by meaningful disclaimers of uncertainty or caution that were protected by the safe harbor provision of the PSLRA. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Which was looking for a possible acquisition in the spring of 1998. The exchange rate was determined by the average price of Clorox stock during a preset </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="91"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031911.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> For direct infringement under §§ 501 and 106 of the Copyright Act because CoStar's copyrighted photographs were posted by LoopNet's subscribers on LoopNet's website. CoStar contended that the photographs were copied into LoopNet's computer system and that LoopNet therefore was a copier strictly liable for infringement of CoStar's rights under § 106. Regardless of whether LoopNet's role was passive when the photographs were copied into its system. Is simply the owner and manager of a system used by others who are violating CoStar's copyrights and is not an actual duplicator itself. It is not directly liable for copyright infringement. I CoStar is a national provider of commercial real estate information. It claims to have collected the most comprehensive database of 4 COSTAR GROUP v. LoopNet is an Internet service provider ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="87"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0820n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LAWS No. 05 1905 ANN. § 324.80176(1) and (3) (1999). 2 Plaintiff has limited her appeal to the following three claims: (1) that the stop by Oakland County Sheriff Deputies Bryan Johnson and Matthew Karchnick was invalid. Because plaintiff has alleged facts that preclude a finding at this stage that he is entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive force claim. The other individual defendants. 1 No. 05 1905 3 When plaintiff's boat was approximately 110 yards from home. Plaintiff said she was surprised to see them out so late. Plaintiff testified that Johnson said it was because her green navigation light was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="87"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001351.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We are presented with an issue of first impression whether an Internet service provider enjoys a safe harbor from copyright infringement liability as provided by Title II of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="87"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/01/033802P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Permits copyright owners and their representatives to obtain and serve subpoenas on internet service providers (ISPs) to obtain personal information about an ISP's subscribers who are alleged to be transmitting copyrighted works via the internet using so called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="87"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1502.html">BRISTOL-MYERS V. ROYCE<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="87"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-2104_019.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="87"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043844p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The number of shares to be converted was controlled by a formula based on the current market value of the shares less a 17% discount for Berckeley. There is no dispute that Colkitt breached his end of the bargain. Asserts that he was justified in not complying with the Agreement because Berckeley made material misrepresentations in the Agreement 3 that violated federal securities laws and constituted common law fraud. We will affirm in part. Is the Chairman of the Board and principal shareholder of National Medical Financial Services Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="87"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2174_021.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> One condition of a grant is that the recipient </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="87"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/02-1052c.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Thomas H. Of counsel on the brief were M. Of counsel was Esther H. With him on the brief was David M. Of counsel on the brief were Raphael V. Will & Emery. Of counsel was Donna M. Of counsel on the brief was Charles E. With him on the brief was Robert C. Of counsel was Li Westerlund. With him on the brief was Mark J. With him on the brief was Susan M. With him on the brief were Paul J. BACKGROUND Reference is made to the prior opinions. The patented inventions are described as demonstrating various cell interactions with the extracellular peptide matrix. The validity of the Integra patents was sustained at trial but for one claim. Is not here at issue. Merck KGaA (a German company) and Scripps Research Institute were collaborating in research related to studies that Dr. David Cheresh and others at Scripps were conducting on the inhibition of angiogenesis. 2 The development and growth of undesired blood vessels is a factor in several diseases. Had discovered that angiogenesis is 1 Merck KGaA v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="84"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200313765.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that UNUM's long term disability plan was governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="84"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/08468E0D5E386A2F882572AC0077AD1A/$file/0457143.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That CCBill and CWIE were immune from liability for state law unfair competition and false advertising claims based on the Communications Decency Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="84"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1664.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Perry were on brief for appellants. P.C. were on brief for appellee. Circuit Judge. punitive damages or damages for loss of parental and spousal society allegedly caused by a nonfatal injury to a seaman aboard a vessel in territorial waters are recoverable in an unseaworthi ness action under the general maritime law. The district court entered summary judgment for Mobil on all three claims.1 1Jurisdiction over this interlocutory admiralty appeal is based on 28 U.S.C. 1292 (a)(3). 1064 (1st Cir. 1987). 2 II II DISCUSSION DISCUSSION The Supreme Court has decided that damages for loss of society are not cognizable in a general maritime action for the wrongful death of a seaman. Because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="84"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0168FFB46E51AC548825718F00493302/$file/0356621.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Both these ordinances and Santa Monica's administrative interpretation of them have changed substantially. Appellants' persistent urging and Santa Monica's willingness to change its regulations have together produced a transformation in the applicable permitting scheme that to the credit of all par SANTA MONICA FOOD v. We hold that Santa Monica's Community Events Ordinance is. Is not constitutionally sound and cannot be enforced. The facial challenges to other ordinances either are moot or fail on the merits. We are not to be understood as having reviewed or approved aspects of the ordinances or implementing regulations not here challenged. We have endeavored throughout to be quite specific about the limited nature of the challenges to which we respond. 2 Santa Monica has requested that we take judicial notice of six documents: Staff Report. Santa Monica submits that each document is a certified public record. The first four documents are on file with the City Clerk of the City of Santa Monica. The remainder can be accessed at Santa Monica's official website found at www.santa monica.org/ccs/events and are on file with the Open Space Management Division of the Community and Cultural Services Department of the City of Santa Monica. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="84"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0005E1F8E80056658825706F000CED83/$file/0336012.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court concluded that Thorman's claims were time barred because the contractual six month limit on disputes had expired. Crucial to our decision is that the merits of Thorman's claims are not before us. We are faced with the threshold issue of whether Thorman has overcome the sixmonth time bar to his claims. Lead a reasonable person to believe that he did not have a claim for relief. As passive concealment is insufficient for a court to grant equitable tolling </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="84"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1169.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Murray with whom Lorusso & Loud was on brief for appellant Brennan. Was on brief for appellee. Brennan was sentenced to forty one months in prison and McHugh was sentenced to a year and a day in prison. Their complaints can be loosely divided into two categories: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support certain of their convictions. Brennan also advances miscellaneous arguments that he was victimized by constitutionally infirm legal representation at trial and that his sentence was unlawful. Was otherwise denied. 2. As is always the case when we consider whether there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction. McHugh was hired by CSB on May 24. McHugh was charged with increasing the volume of commercial loans. Contingent liabilities that were false both at the time they were submitted and throughout Brennan's relationship with CSB. McHugh and Brennan had a prior business relationship when McHugh was a senior lender at First Mutual Bank. 4 4 term sheet which was required for each loan made. 000 loan was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="84"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept99/98-9253.man.html">BRYANT V. AVADO BRANDS, INC. (9/3/1999, NO. 98-9253)<BR></A><BR> Chief Judge:</P> <P><CENTER>INTRODUCTION</CENTER> </P> <P> This is a securities class action lawsuit brought by shareholders of Apple South. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="84"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1997/97a1525p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal by the government from two judgments of sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Defendant appellees are Paul Haut (P. Both were convicted of conspiracy to commit malicious destruction of property by means of fire (18 U.S.C. § 371). S. Haut was also convicted of mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341). Based on a finding that the government's witnesses were not credible. We will affirm the district court insofar as it decreased the offense levels of both P. We will reverse. The arson was accompanied by mail fraud (the U.S. Mail was used to process fraudulent fire insurance claims related to the arson) and culminated in the conviction of four defendants. Whose sentences were not appealed by the Government. Are described below to provide background and to place the actions of P. Was convicted of malicious destruction of property by fire (18 U.S.C. § 844(i)). Henson was the foremost offender in the group and his activities in the illegal enterprise were extensive. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="84"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200705/05-5382a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the briefs were Edward M. With her on the brief were Jeffrey A. I Appellant is a licensed pilot registered by the Coast Guard under the Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960. 46 U.S.C. §§ 9301 et seq. The President of the United States has designated three areas in the Great Lakes where navigation by a registered pilot is required: District One. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="84"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1935.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Susan Cooper Houben's dispute with her former employer Telular Corporation about commissions it owed her is making its second appearance before this court. We have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. The appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. Declined to resolve whether Telular owed additional post trial statutory penalties under IWPCA for failing to pay the judgment within 15 days after it was docketed. The district court concluded that Telular was not subject to any additional IWPCA penalties and denied Houben's writ of execution. I The facts of this case are set out in detail in our prior opinion. The judgment was docketed two days later. (Although there is some confusion in the record about the choice between May 18 and May 20 for the actual date of the judgment. P. 79(a) indicates that it is the date of docketing that counts. IWPCA provides that an employer who has been ordered by a court to pay wages due an employee and fails to do so within 15 days is liable for statutory penalties of 1% of the wages per calendar day of delay. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="84"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ED8FA1537F4D6C17882572BF00584125/$file/0535468.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have not had the occasion to determine whether Erie principles apply when federal courts exercise jurisdiction over state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c). The basis of a federal court's jurisdiction over a state law claim is irrelevant for Erie purposes. It is the duty of federal courts to ascertain and apply that law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="84"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept99/98-9253.man.html">BRYANT V. AVADO BRANDS, INC. (9/3/1999, NO. 98-9253)<BR></A><BR> Chief Judge:</P> <P><CENTER>INTRODUCTION</CENTER> </P> <P> This is a securities class action lawsuit brought by shareholders of Apple South. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="84"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1687_039.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The plaintiffs have accused Tellabs and its executives of engaging in a scheme to deceive the investing public about the true value of Tellabs's stock. The release proclaimed that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="84"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D516334F4061022A88256D8100783635/$file/0255076.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The defendants removed the Cox complaint to federal court and the case was assigned to Judge Kelleher. Judge Kelleher (1) remanded to state court the claims under the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act because the defendants could not show that those claims satisfied the amount in controversy requirement necessary for diversity jurisdiction and (2) retained the Unfair Competition Law claims because the defendants established that diversity jurisdiction requirements were met for those claims. Cox moved to voluntarily dismiss the portion of the Cox complaint that was pending in federal court before Judge Kelleher. Is granted. 1 2 Cal. That new action is removable to federal court. The Retail Flooring complaint asserted that federal court jurisdiction was based on the 1999 order from Judge Kelleher dismissing the Cox complaint. Beaulieu moved to dismiss the Retail Flooring complaint for lack of jurisdiction and the motion was granted with ten days leave to amend. II We first address whether we have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="84"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0101n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Petitioner seeks relief on the grounds that the state trial court should have suppressed self incriminating statements taken without Miranda warning. That the jury instructions should have instructed the jury to consider the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter. I. No. 04 2052 The underlying facts of this case are largely undisputed. Kattura Ogburn Carter ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="84"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011670.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The district court found that M & D was liable to Duck Head under the Carmack Amendment. I. This appeal concerns a container of shoes that Duck Head arranged to have shipped from Santos. Determining that its total loaded weight was 12. Capital then sealed the container with two seals bearing individualized numbers.2 The container was shipped by truck from Capital's warehouse to Santos. Where it was loaded onto a ship. Brazilian customs officials inspected the container when it was loaded onto the ship. They found that the seals were intact and confirmed that the container weighed 12. The second driver delivered the One of these seals is described by the parties as bearing a bar code. A bill of lading is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="84"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002543.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This decision is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). 2 HUNTER v. Was suspended from practice in the Western District of North Carolina for five years. Campbell Taggart Company were all defendants in the First Lawsuit. Campbell Taggart was at one time a wholly owned subsidiary of Anheuser Busch. (2) that the workers there were more skilled. (3) that the hourly wage workforce at the Charlotte bakery was predominantly African American. While the workforce at other Earthgrains bakeries was predominantly white. (4) that Earthgrains management had represented to its Charlotte employees that the Charlotte bakery was profitable and would remain open after a corporate spinoff. That it was nonetheless closed. That its Charlotte employees were bound to arbitrate their Title VII claims under their collective bargaining agreement (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="84"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051822np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Only a brief summary of pertinent facts is necessary. Plaintiffs have taken steps in anticipation of a complete redevelopment of the site. Regardless whether the alleged violations occurred and (2) the Commerce Clause did not offer a basis for the exercise of federal jurisdiction because no facts were alleged to suggest that the Borough's designation of Plaintiffs' property as an The Paulsboro Planning Board and the Paulsboro Redevelopment Agency were not named as defendants in Plaintiffs' federal action. 4 2 area in need of redevelopment materially affects interstate commerce. Are a private individual's challenge to the exercise by a municipality of its power to enact local land use law. The District Court further held that even if it were to grant Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint to allege some other basis for federal jurisdiction. That amendment would be futile because Plaintiffs' claims </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="84"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001356.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> NSI was the only company authorized by the government to serve as a registrar for Internet domain names. The TLD is the suffix. The SLD is the prefix. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="84"></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-0.gif" ALT="84"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/55F8863703B598F9882570F4000727E4/$file/0315852.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The City of Berkeley appeals the district court's summary judgment ruling that its Interim Telecommunication Carriers Ordinance is preempted by the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="84"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2A31B9ADAD5C7C56882572EC000096D9/$file/0457143.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 3577. Neither party in that case raised the question of whether state law counts as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="80"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982158.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Harbor Court Associates and Murdock Development Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="80"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199912/98-7209b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Stacey L. With him on the brief were Jo Anne Robinson. Nelson were on the brief for amicus curiae The National Trust for Historic Preservation and D.C. All nine lots were declared historic landmarks. Finding that the construction was incompatible with the prop erty's landmark status. The District Court found that there was no categori cal taking under Lucas. The property as it was originally purchased in 1961 and as it was held for 27 years prior to the 1988 subdivision. When the proper ty is viewed as a single parcel. There is no doubt that it has not been rendered valueless. Even if each subdivided parcel is considered separately. The record here does not show that District Intown's investment backed expectations were disappointed. This is not surprising. Be cause District Intown could not have had any reasonable investment backed expectations of development given the background regulatory structure at the time of subdivision. The property was known as Cathedral Mansions South and consisted of an apartment building and adjacent landscaped lawns. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="80"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A21A1A97EE088475882569FC00622D20/$file/9936065.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve is a place of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="80"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034395p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whose sailboat was destroyed by heavy seas after it was moored at the Virgin Islands National Park. We must decide whether equitable tolling is applicable to save Hedges' claim. Where it was destroyed. Which was manufactured by Environmental Moorings International ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="80"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan95/94-6072.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>In re Sloma

United States Court of Appeals. He was employed by Gulf Coast Catering Company which provided catering services to offshore oil rigs. Damages for the injuries were governed by the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. Negotiated a settlement with Sloma to fulfill his rights under the Act pursuant to which Sloma was to be paid $180. Sloma's employer and its carrier were discharged of any further obligation or liabilities to Sloma. The settlement was approved as an Award by the United States Department of Labor. Sloma agreed that he should be paid as follows:

$500.00 per month for 20 years certain until 240 payments have been made. The loan was structured to be repaid in accordance with the annuity payments that were assigned to the Bank.

The Bank continued to receive monthly payments from Manufacturers pursuant to the assignment until Sloma's business venture failed and. Judgment was entered against Sloma for the amount due under the note.

80 OPINION/ORDER
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > In re Sloma

United States Court of Appeals. He was employed by Gulf Coast Catering Company which provided catering services to offshore oil rigs. Damages for the injuries were governed by the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. Negotiated a settlement with Sloma to fulfill his rights under the Act pursuant to which Sloma was to be paid $180. Sloma's employer and its carrier were discharged of any further obligation or liabilities to Sloma. The settlement was approved as an Award by the United States Department of Labor. Sloma agreed that he should be paid as follows:

$500.00 per month for 20 years certain until 240 payments have been made. The loan was structured to be repaid in accordance with the annuity payments that were assigned to the Bank.

The Bank continued to receive monthly payments from Manufacturers pursuant to the assignment until Sloma's business venture failed and. Judgment was entered against Sloma for the amount due under the note.

80 OPINION/ORDER
Fighting over these funds are. To whom they have been forfeited. Whether we should exercise our appellate jurisdiction when the appeal is from an order terminating one of two consolidated cases. We conclude that we should exercise our jurisdiction and we will reverse the District Court's award of judgment of forfeiture and remand for further proceedings. The government instituted the forfeiture action by filing a civil complaint for forfeiture in the same court.2 The forfeiture complaint alleged that the seized funds were involved in a drug money laundering conspiracy headed by a South American money exchanger. Glikas was arrested in April 1998 and convicted of conspiracy to commit money laundering in March 1999. The government claimed that the seized funds were subject to forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. §§ 981 and 984 for involvement in transactions that violated the federal money laundering statutes. Kesten was thus prosecuting a civil action in New York and defending a civil forfeiture action in New Jersey.
80 GEORGE E. WARREN CORPORATION V. U.S.

Argued for plaintiff appellant.  With him on the brief were Paul A. Argued for defendant appellee.  With him on the brief were David M. ) paid by Warren on various imported petroleum products were ineligible for drawback refunds.  George E. We hold the Court of International Trade did have jurisdiction. Held HMTs are not imposed ". As is required for drawback by 19 U.S.C. § . Warren exported petroleum products that were ". 1581(a) where a valid protest has been denied.  The government maintained that Warren did not have grounds to file a protest since its original drawback request did not include HMTs or ETs and was granted as to regular duties. There was no valid protest.  The Court of International Trade. Held that it did have jurisdiction because Customs' denial of the protest specifying the two taxes was made on the merits and it would thus have been futile for Warren to file a second drawback request specifying HMT and ET.  Warren.
80 OPINION/ORDER
With her on the briefs was Craig M. With him on the brief were David W. An imagi nary surface is essentially an artificial engineering boundary
80 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Cameron Cohick and Gregory E. With him on the brief were Giovanni P. Circuit Judge: This is a petition for review of the Securities and Exchange Commission's regulation of
80 OPINION/ORDER
This case is before the court on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States for further proceedings following the Court's reversal of our decision. The background facts are not in dispute. The following statement of facts is taken in large part from the Court's opinion. He was injured aboard the M/V Karen Michelle when he tripped over a wire and hurt his back. The district court5 followed the
80 DISTRICT INTOWN PROPERTIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP V. D.C.

Christensen argued the cause for appellants.

With him on the briefs was Stacey L. With him on the

brief were Jo Anne Robinson. Nelson were on the brief for amicus

curiae The National Trust for Historic Preservation and D.C.

Preservation League.

Before: Edwards. All nine lots were declared

historic landmarks.

finding that the construction was incompatible with the prop

erty's landmark status. The District Court found that there was no categori

 . The property as it was

originally purchased in 1961 and as it was held for 27 years

prior to the 1988 subdivision. When the proper

ty is viewed as a single parcel. There is no doubt that it has

not been rendered valueless. Even if each subdivided

parcel is considered separately. The record

here does not show that District Intown's investment backed

expectations were disappointed. This is not surprising. Be

cause District Intown could not have had any reasonable

investment backed expectations of development given the

background regulatory structure at the time of subdivision.

Accordingly.

80 OPINION/ORDER
Witmeyer III argued the cause for appellant.

With him on the briefs was David E. With her on the brief was

Craig Goldblatt.

 . With him on the brief

was Ann M. Emotional or nervous diseases or

disorders of any type.

80 OPINION/ORDER
Daniel Walz was a student in pre kindergarten in the spring of 1998. There was usually an exchange of small gifts. The children's parents were encouraged to donate gifts to the local Parent Teacher Organization. [our student body is] very diverse. Kids would see other kids doing it and feel they have to do it. Walz had purchased the pencils at a local store because she thought 3 the pencils were
80 OPINION/ORDER
Roitman & Coleman were on brief. P.C. was on brief. Filed grievances against eight Boston Harbor Project employers on behalf of certain truck drivers on the project who own and drive their own trucks (the
80 OPINION/ORDER
They were each given a ticket packet containing ticket coupons and a
80 DISTRICT INTOWN PROPERTIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP V. D.C.

Christensen argued the cause for appellants.

With him on the briefs was Stacey L. With him on the

brief were Jo Anne Robinson. Nelson were on the brief for amicus

curiae The National Trust for Historic Preservation and D.C.

Preservation League.

Before: Edwards. All nine lots were declared

historic landmarks.

finding that the construction was incompatible with the prop

erty's landmark status. The District Court found that there was no categori

 . The property as it was

originally purchased in 1961 and as it was held for 27 years

prior to the 1988 subdivision. When the proper

ty is viewed as a single parcel. There is no doubt that it has

not been rendered valueless. Even if each subdivided

parcel is considered separately. The record

here does not show that District Intown's investment backed

expectations were disappointed. This is not surprising. Be

cause District Intown could not have had any reasonable

investment backed expectations of development given the

background regulatory structure at the time of subdivision.

Accordingly.

80 OPINION/ORDER
Terry Young were collectively convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. Cox and Young were also convicted of possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute. Mohammad Mansoori was convicted of engaging in monetary transactions involving funds derived from criminal activity. 99 3623 was convicted of money laundering. Who were engaged in narcotics trafficking had organized a drug deal that. Was assigned to transfer the cocaine from White to another TVL member. Once Bronson was in possession of the cocaine. Mohammad Mansoori was not a member of TVL. Choice were all members of TVL. Was in charge of the drug sales. Mansoori made several large cash payments to contractors for a house he was having built in Highland Park. He used Young's money to make the purchase and understood that the house was actually Young's. An IRS agent testified that he did not think that Young could have purchased the property with his legitimate sources of income. The defendants were using to conduct their narcotics business.
80 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve is a place of
80 OPINION/ORDER
CV 99 00462 SOM OPINION* *Publication is pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 36 2(g). 2659 2660 COUNSEL Richard Turbin. That therefore the case was governed by the Federal Tort Claims Act (
80 OPINION/ORDER
CV 99 00462 SOM OPINION* *Publication is pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 36 2(g). 2659 2660 COUNSEL Richard Turbin. That therefore the case was governed by the Federal Tort Claims Act (
80 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: At issue today is whether the district court erred in dismissing. We conclude that the district court did indeed have subject matter jurisdiction. Have various usury laws that generally prohibit such high interest loans. No one doubts that when so called
80 OPINION/ORDER
Survivors of three naval aircraft crewmembers who were killed after ejecting from a crashing Lockheed manufactured aircraft. Were killed and Air Warfare Technician Second Class (AW2) Tracy Mann was injured when they ejected from a S 3
80 OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief for appellees. *Of the District of Massachusetts. Curtis is an alter ego of Robert Brewis and Connie Frazier. Neither Brewis nor Frazier is a party to this appeal. 3 3 judgment and/or the confirmation of an arbitration award2 in an amount exceeding $269. The complaint subsequently was amended to request damages in excess of $910. The court shall then have jurisdiction to direct the parties to proceed with the arbitration and shall retain jurisdiction to enter its decree upon the award. 5. An order so stating and authorizing a warrant for the arrest of the vessel or other property that is the subject of the action shall issue and be delivered to the clerk who shall prepare the warrant and deliver it to the marshal for service. . . . 5 5 sale of the vessel would be granted unless security were posted within three days. Attached to the notice of stay was a proposed order which apparently contained language directing that the arrest of the vessel be dissolved.6 Evidently. The proposed order never was noticed to or served upon Taino.7 For several months.
80 OPINION/ORDER
This judgment was based on an order filed May 13. Richard Kern is the trustee of the Hannah G. Donald Kern is the trustee of the Hannah R. The Kerns' respective children are the beneficiaries of these trusts. 3 1 Section 4(1) of the Act. Defendants appellants argue that their sales are exempt from the registration requirements of Section 5 under Rule 144 or Section 4(1). That the district court's contrary holdings are the result of misapplications of the law and of the integration doctrine. Defendants appellants further argue that their violations were not willful or intentional. That the losses to others have been inflated by improper inclusion of certain sales. So that Tier III civil penalties are inappropriate. That the penalties imposed were thus within the permissible range of discretion of the district court. BACKGROUND Most of the facts in this case are not disputed or are definitively established by documentary evidence. Because the case was decided under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. 4 where the facts are subject to dispute.
80 OPINION/ORDER
Greeni Trading Oy (
80 OPINION/ORDER
CV 99 00462 SOM OPINION* *Publication is pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 36 2(g). 2659 2660 COUNSEL Richard Turbin. That therefore the case was governed by the Federal Tort Claims Act (
80 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was Stacey L. With him on the brief were Jo Anne Robinson. Nelson were on the brief for amicus curiae The National Trust for Historic Preservation and D.C. All nine lots were declared historic landmarks. Finding that the construction was incompatible with the prop erty's landmark status. The District Court found that there was no categori cal taking under Lucas. The property as it was originally purchased in 1961 and as it was held for 27 years prior to the 1988 subdivision. When the proper ty is viewed as a single parcel. There is no doubt that it has not been rendered valueless. Even if each subdivided parcel is considered separately. The record here does not show that District Intown's investment backed expectations were disappointed. This is not surprising. Be cause District Intown could not have had any reasonable investment backed expectations of development given the background regulatory structure at the time of subdivision. The property was known as Cathedral Mansions South and consisted of an apartment building and adjacent landscaped lawns.
80 OPINION/ORDER
He was employed by Gulf Coast Catering Company which provided catering services to offshore oil rigs. Damages for the injuries were governed by the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. Negotiated a settlement with Sloma to fulfill his rights under the Act pursuant to which Sloma was to be paid $180. Sloma's employer and its carrier were discharged of any further obligation or liabilities to Sloma. The settlement was approved as an Award by the United States Department of Labor. For which National paid Manufacturers a single premium. that he should be paid as follows: $500.00 per month for 20 years certain until 240 payments have been made. The loan was structured to be repaid in accordance with the annuity payments that were assigned to the Bank. Judgment was entered against Sloma for the amount due under the note. The Circuit Court issued a final order directing that Manufacturers fulfill the obligation under the assignment to the Bank and pay all future annuity payments until the judgment held by the Bank against Sloma was paid.
80 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was David E. With her on the brief was Craig Goldblatt. With him on the brief was Ann M. Emotional or nervous diseases or disorders of any type.
80 OPINION/ORDER
CV 99 00462 SOM OPINION* *Publication is pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 36 2(g). 2659 2660 COUNSEL Richard Turbin. That therefore the case was governed by the Federal Tort Claims Act (
80 OPINION/ORDER
Although we have previously held that the administrative review scheme provided in the Longshore Act supplants district court jurisdiction over claims for benefits. Kreschollek's claim presents a new twist on the question because his challenge to the Longshore Act is a constitutional one and he claims that the review process established by the Act is insufficient to address his injuries. Asserting that Kreschollek was now able to return to work. While the matter was pending before the ALJ. Kreschollek filed this action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey invoking jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and alleging that the review procedure under the Act is unconstitutional because it does not require a predeprivation hearing before employers who voluntarily compensated injured employees may terminate those benefits. Is unconstitutional. Named as defendants were Southern Stevedoring Co. The ALJ's final decision on Kreschollek's administrative claim for benefits and the district court's ruling on the motion to dismiss were handed down within days of each other in March 1995.
80 OPINION/ORDER
Because the companies were operating as agents of the United States Navy. The only proper defendant in the case was the United States. He sought and was granted leave to file an amended complaint naming the United States as a party. We conclude that this decision was in error. Will reverse. Dyn Marine is incorrectly identified in the complaint and caption of the case as
76 OPINION/ORDER
Schug noted that Jackson was reporting hallucination. That he was taking Anafranil and Ativan.1 Dr. Diagnosed Jackson as suffering from an emergency medical (as opposed to a psychological or psychiatric) condition. 1 Anafranil is an antidepressant. Ativan is an anti anxiety agent. 4921 Redbud did not offer psychiatric care to its patients. The unwritten policy of the Redbud emergency room was that when a patient presented to the emergency room with psychiatric complaints. The patient would be examined to determine if there were any medical components to his problem. If a medical problem was found. If no medical problem was found. Where he was evaluated by Dennis Skinner. Such as the Anafranil Jackson was known to be taking. His condition to have stabilized. Ollada observed that Jackson was very agitated. Ollada that she believed that her husband was suicidal. Ollada determined that Jackson was suffering from a psychological disorder which caused his agitation. That he was not suffering from any physical disorders.
76 02-4023 -- U.S. V. MARTINEZ-CANDEJAS -- 10/21/2003

Circuit Judge.

76 TURECAMO OF SAVANNAH, INC. V. UNITED STATES TURECAMO OF SAVANNAH. [1] IN CASES WHERE IF SUCH VESSEL WERE PRIVATELY OWNED OR OPERATED. OR IF SUCH CARGO WERE PRIVATELY OWNED OR POSSESSED. OR IF A PRIVATE PERSON OR PROPERTY WERE INVOLVED. RESIDE OR HAVE THEIR PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IN THE UNITED STATES. OR IN WHICH THE VESSEL OR CARGO CHARGED WITH LIABILITY IS FOUND. TO RECOVER MONEY ALLEGEDLY OWED TURECAMO BY THE DEFENDANT APPELLANT UNITED STATES FOR TOWING SERVICES FOR A UNITED STATES NAVAL VESSEL. BECAUSE WE ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW THE PRECEDENT SET IN BONANNI SHIP SUPPLY V. BACKGROUND THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE NOT DISPUTED. IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TOWING OCEANGOING AND OTHER VESSELS. THE YFNB 33 SEACON IS A PUBLIC VESSEL OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES. THE GOVERNMENT SOUGHT TO HAVE THE YFNB 33 SEACON TOWED FROM MAYPORT. IN ORDER TO HAVE THE VESSEL TOWED. TURECAMO WAS TO RECEIVE $55.">

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 >
76 KASPRIK V. UNITED STATES

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Kasprik v. STATEMENT OF THE CASE<p> <p> This action arises from an incident which occurred while Andrew Kasprik was performing his duties as a second assistant engineer aboard the U.S.S. Kasprik was employed by the United States as a crew member of a vessel owned by the United States through the Maritime Administration. It is undisputed that both OMI Ship Management Corporation and OMI Corporation were acting as the agents of the United States at the time of the incident which forms the basis of this action.<p> Kasprik allegedly injured his wrist while attempting to manually engage the turning gear lever of the main engine and incurred medical and support expenses as a result of his injury. OMI moved to dismiss Kasprik's claim on the grounds that the claim is barred by the exclusivity provision of the Suits in Admiralty Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="76"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1420.html">FIREMAN S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY V. GORDON ENGLAND<BR></A><BR> For appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="76"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200205/99-1397a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs was Matthew D. Amara was on the brief for amici curiae Clifton Power Corporation and New England Legal Founda tion in support of petitioner. With her on the brief were Cynthia A. Squire and IJay Palansky were on the brief for intervenors American Rivers. The first determining that FPL is subject to licensing because the Messalonskee Stream on which FPL is located is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="76"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0008n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Comprised of approximately eleven attorneys including Leonard Jaques who was the Firm's President. Checked the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="76"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july96/95-4509.opa.html">KASPRIK V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Kasprik v. STATEMENT OF THE CASE<p> <p> This action arises from an incident which occurred while Andrew Kasprik was performing his duties as a second assistant engineer aboard the U.S.S. Kasprik was employed by the United States as a crew member of a vessel owned by the United States through the Maritime Administration. It is undisputed that both OMI Ship Management Corporation and OMI Corporation were acting as the agents of the United States at the time of the incident which forms the basis of this action.<p> Kasprik allegedly injured his wrist while attempting to manually engage the turning gear lever of the main engine and incurred medical and support expenses as a result of his injury. OMI moved to dismiss Kasprik's claim on the grounds that the claim is barred by the exclusivity provision of the Suits in Admiralty Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="76"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1489.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: In case title on cover sheet. Is amended as follows: On cover sheet. Was on brief for appellee State of New Hampshire. P.A. were on brief for appellees Public Service Company of New Hampshire and The Official Committee of Equity Security Holders. I. BACKGROUND The appellants in this case were common stockholders of Public Service. The details of the bankruptcy proceeding are recounted in the opinion of the bankruptcy court in this case. The plan was accompanied by a disclosure 2 2 statement. The disclosure statement was approved by the bankruptcy court on January 3. Public Service's plan of reorganization was confirmed on April 20. The plan was to be implemented in two stages. The first step reorganization of Public Service with certain distributions to its owners and creditors was to take effect only if the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission approved the plan's provisions regarding new utility rates for Public Service. That approval was forthcoming. The merger was conditioned on the approval of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="76"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/03/042122U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The United States filed a response in which it </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="76"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2122.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Roitman & Coleman were on brief for appellant. With whom O'Reilly & Grosso was on brief for appellees. The circumscribed role of federal courts reviewing arbitration awards in labor contract disputes is now well established. Courts must confine themselves to determining whether the arbitrator's construction of the contract was in any way plausible. The issue in this case is whether any plausible reading of a collective bargaining agreement supports an arbitrator's ruling in a dispute over fringe benefit contributions. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="76"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-1397b.html">FPL ENERGY MAINE HYDRO LLC V. FERC<BR></A><BR> Connors argued the cause for petitioner.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="76"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6566B768B9F1E5E9882570CA00000E81/$file/0335924.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Environmental Protection Agency ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="76"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200205/99-1397b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs was Matthew D. Amara was on the brief for amici curiae Clifton Power Corporation and New England Legal Founda tion in support of petitioner. With her on the brief were Cynthia A. Squire and IJay Palansky were on the brief for intervenors American Rivers. The first determining that FPL is subject to licensing because the Messalonskee Stream on which FPL is located is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="76"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200402/03-1215a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="76"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1485F422AF12F48D88256E1C00832921/$file/0255330.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Join: These consolidated appeals from the district court's forfeiture order present the novel question whether the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="76"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200313858.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq.1 We first hold that the SZO's provision excluding churches and synagogues from locations where private clubs and lodges are permitted violates the equal terms provision of RLUIPA. We must decide whether RLUIPA is a constitutional exercise of Congress's authority under the First. Finding that it is. Midrash and Young Israel (collectively the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="76"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0145p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendants argue that this court can affirm the district court's opinion on summary judgment grounds or on the grounds that the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim 26 Helwig. When defendants chose to speak they have a duty to provide complete and non misleading information regarding those statements. The effect of the Court's decision seems to be that no statements about the future prospects ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="76"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971813.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> In which Judge Michael joined.* *Senior Judge Britt heard oral argument in this case but recused himself from consideration prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C.§ 46(d). Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Westwood is no longer a viable entity and has not appeared before us. We dismiss the case as moot because we have no power to grant the relief sought by Woodlands. 2 I. Is not present in the district and therefore not subject to the district's personal jurisdiction. Which was served on NationsBank at its Baltimore branch office on October 9. Arguing that the Charlottesville account was outside the Maryland court's jurisdiction. The district court granted Westwood's motion on the ground that the two NationsBank branches were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="76"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2083.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Wilfredo Segarra Miranda with whom Carlo & Troncoso were on brief Wilfredo Segarra Miranda with whom Carlo & Troncoso were on brief for appellant. for appellant. Gelpi & Gotay were on brief Gustavo A. Gelpi & Gotay were on brief for appellees. for appellees. On the ground that her tort claims are time barred under the one year limitations period prescribed in the passenger ticket she purchased before boarding the ship on which she was injured during her Caribbean cruise. As there was no suitable berthing for the Pacific Princess. Small boats were used to ferry Jimenez and her fellow passengers to and from the island. Jimenez was injured upon reboarding the cruise ship. A complaint was filed against </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="76"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002324.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Published opinion filed 7/7/03 is vacated. Which was protesting the award. This letter was written by Datanet's president. Brickwood contends that the sanctions are both unwarranted and untimely in violation of the safe harbor provision of Rule 11. Jurisdiction is proper in this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 as an appeal from the district court's final judgment. Rule 11 was revised in 1993 to address the shortcomings of the 1983 amendment. Or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected. The Advisory Committee Notes state the purpose and effect of the amendment which is to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="76"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1289.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
76 OPINION/ORDER
Provided simply that a
76 OPINION/ORDER
Schug noted that Jackson was reporting hallucination. That he was taking Anafranil and Ativan.1 Dr. Diagnosed Jackson as suffering from an emergency medical (as opposed to a psychological or psychiatric) condition. 1 Anafranil is an antidepressant. Ativan is an anti anxiety agent. 4921 Redbud did not offer psychiatric care to its patients. The unwritten policy of the Redbud emergency room was that when a patient presented to the emergency room with psychiatric complaints. The patient would be examined to determine if there were any medical components to his problem. If a medical problem was found. If no medical problem was found. Where he was evaluated by Dennis Skinner. Such as the Anafranil Jackson was known to be taking. His condition to have stabilized. Ollada observed that Jackson was very agitated. Ollada that she believed that her husband was suicidal. Ollada determined that Jackson was suffering from a psychological disorder which caused his agitation. That he was not suffering from any physical disorders.
76 TURECAMO OF SAVANNAH, INC. V. UNITED STATES TURECAMO OF SAVANNAH. [1] IN CASES WHERE IF SUCH VESSEL WERE PRIVATELY OWNED OR OPERATED. OR IF SUCH CARGO WERE PRIVATELY OWNED OR POSSESSED. OR IF A PRIVATE PERSON OR PROPERTY WERE INVOLVED. RESIDE OR HAVE THEIR PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IN THE UNITED STATES. OR IN WHICH THE VESSEL OR CARGO CHARGED WITH LIABILITY IS FOUND. TO RECOVER MONEY ALLEGEDLY OWED TURECAMO BY THE DEFENDANT APPELLANT UNITED STATES FOR TOWING SERVICES FOR A UNITED STATES NAVAL VESSEL. BECAUSE WE ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW THE PRECEDENT SET IN BONANNI SHIP SUPPLY V. BACKGROUND THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE NOT DISPUTED. IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TOWING OCEANGOING AND OTHER VESSELS. THE YFNB 33 SEACON IS A PUBLIC VESSEL OWNED BY THE UNITED STATES. THE GOVERNMENT SOUGHT TO HAVE THE YFNB 33 SEACON TOWED FROM MAYPORT. IN ORDER TO HAVE THE VESSEL TOWED. TURECAMO WAS TO RECEIVE $55.">

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 >
76 OPINION/ORDER
That count also sought indemnity but was premised on Alabama common law rather than the indemnity provision itself. Because we find that entry of partial final judgment under Rule 54(b) was improper. We have no jurisdiction and must dismiss this appeal. Because we ultimately conclude that we have no jurisdiction over this appeal. That were owed to LNF by Tenet's subsidiaries and guaranteed by Tenet (the
76 OPINION/ORDER
The district court held that the claims were preempted by federal law. FERC reviewed electricity rates that were cost based. The primary factor in setting the rate was the cost of producing and transmitting the electricity. Utilities were also required to give a thorough explanation of
76 OPINION/ORDER
The underlying facts are not in dispute. Foster Wheeler is a multi national corporation which is principally domiciled in the United States and is engaged in a wide variety of manufacturing and shipping endeavors. Is engaged in the operation of vessels for the carriage of goods for hire. Was loaded aboard the AN NING JIANG at the port of Gijon. While the remainder of the shipment was loaded on the vessel in Tarragona. The equipment was delivered in good order to the ports of Tarragona and Gijon and loaded aboard the AN NING JIANG. Foster Wheeler and IMC were the only parties remaining in this litigation. A third party defendant were dismissed from the suit prior to the district court's entry of final judgment. 3 2 See 46 U.S.C. Section 1304(5) of COGSA provides in relevant part: Neither the carrier nor the ship shall in any event be or become liable for any loss or damage to or in connection with the transportation of goods in an amount exceeding $500 per package ... unless the nature and value of such goods have been declared by the shipper before shipment and inserted in the bill of lading . . . .
76 OPINION/ORDER
Is granted. The Clerk is directed to reissue the Order & Judgment as a published decision. The published opinion is attached to this order. A default judgment was entered against Nightime on January 20. Some of these insurance payments were made pursuant to contracts between Nightime and various insurance companies (
76 99-3170 -- LAURINO V. TATE -- 08/08/2000

Laurino was arrested for obstruction of legal process under a Wichita. Laurino was initially convicted in municipal court of the charge. At which time he was acquitted. Dismiss that:

there were inconsistent statements. Laurino in which he was acquitted. If the Plaintiff was tried in municipal court on stipulated facts and. If the Plaintiff is correct and the inconsistencies between the officers' reports and the officers' testimony rise to the level of

76 OPINION/ORDER
Argues that the WP 02 rates are not sufficient to satisfy BPA's fish and wildlife obligations.1 Petitioner Canby Utility Board raises an issue specific to its contract with BPA. Are not supported by substantial evidence. I. Background BPA is a federal agency that markets power generated primarily by federal hydroelectric projects in the Columbia River basin. The parties asked us to rule that the claim was not ripe for review in the present WP 02 appeal. BPA periodically determines the wholesale power rates it will charge its customers. When the rate ceiling for preference customers is triggered. BPA's proposed rates do not become effective until they are
76 FOREST PROPERTIES, INC V. U.S.

With him on the brief were Ronald A. With him on the brief were James F. We agree that there was no taking and therefore affirm the judgment dismissing this suit for just compensation.

I

This case grows out of the planned residential development of two segments of property. The first segment is a 53 acre tract of upland contiguous to Big Bear Lake (the Lake) in Southern California. The second is 9.4 acres of lake bottom contiguous to the aforementioned upland. (Big Bear) are. As the lake was quite shallow. The number of acres subject to the option was reduced in the settlement of a dispute between Big Bear and the successor water district (the appellee Big Bear Municipal Water District) over the validity of the option. The settlement also provided that

76 FPL ENERGY MAINE HYDRO LLC V. FERC

Connors argued the cause for petitioner.
71 OPINION/ORDER
He claims that the statute of limitations should have barred the government from bringing the continuing criminal enterprise charge. Authorities finally apprehended Eason after receiving a tip from his mother that he was at her house in Chicago. He argues that the charge is time barred. Unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted within five years next after such offense shall have been committed.
71 OPINION/ORDER
ALI Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The guideline also contains a safe harbor provision that reduces the offense level to six if a defendant meets four requirements: (A) subsection (b)(1) does not apply [that is. A defendant did not know or believe that the funds were proceeds of or were intended to promote unlawful activity]. (C) the funds were the proceeds of lawful activity. (D) the funds were to be used for a lawful purpose[.]. He does not challenge his wire fraud conviction or sentence on appeal. 2 We note that the district court did not have the benefit of our decision in Abdi when it sentenced Ali. 1 UNITED STATES v. Id. (stating that it was defendants' burden to
71 OPINION/ORDER
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
71 OPINION/ORDER
1 to whom we will refer collectively as
71 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.

71 OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. BACKGROUND JAL is a Japanese commercial air carrier based in Tokyo. Ventress and Crawford were employed by HACS to perform services for JAL flights. HACS informed Crawford that his assignment to JAL was cancelled because of unsatisfactory performance. All claims were brought under California law. Or is about to provide (with any knowledge of the employer) or cause to be provided to the employer or Federal Government information relating to any violation or alleged violation of any order. That Hawaii was the more convenient forum for potential witnesses and for accessing HACS's personnel records. The Hawaii district court granted judgment on the pleadings for JAL on the ground that all of plaintiffs' claims were preempted by the Friendship. Even if they were not preempted. Saying that the issue was mooted by its decision on treaty preemption. Although Ventress and Crawford were represented by the same lawyer when they filed the complaint. (3) whether the interlocutory order compelling arbitration is appealable.
71 OPINION/ORDER
Controlling shareholders are liable under section 20(a) of the 1934 Act. Defendants in this case are America West. The shareholders were Defendants TPG Partners. Coulter was Director and Vice President of TPG and Director of America West. Schifter was Vice President of TPG and Director of America West. The following Defendants were officers and/or directors of America West: William A. The following Defendants were outside directors of America West: Stephen F. Were involved in the reorganization plan. Although the economic rights were identical between the two. The facts are presented in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs. We also consider documents submitted by Defendants that were referenced in the complaint and whose authenticity has not been questioned. That these nine were chosen solely by TPG and Continental. TPG and Continental allegedly chose directors who were favorable to their interests. Was appointed a director of America West and served on its Executive Committee. Was also appointed to the Board of Directors and served on the Compensation Committee.
71 OPINION/ORDER
Where hazardous substances disposed of by Teck have come to be located. We decide today whether a citizen suit based on Teck's alleged non compliance with the Order is a domestic or an extraterritorial application of the Comprehensive Environmental Response. We address Teck's argument that it is not liable for having
71 OPINION/ORDER
The amended forfeiture complaint alleged that the deposits were subject to forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §981(a)(1)(C) and (a)(1)(B) because they were traceable to specified unlawful activity and/or obtained directly or indirectly from an offense against a foreign nation. The amended complaint specified the eight names under which the 2 deposits were made. Alleging that the Verified Claim was (1) untimely. (2) that it did not comport with Supplemental Rule C(6) for Admiralty and Maritime Claims because it was not verified by a claimant. (3) that it was not properly verified by claimants' attorney in accordance with Southern District of Florida Local Admiralty Rules A(5) and B(2). All of whom are members of her family. 2003 Verified Claim filed by counsel was untimely and failed to comply with the verification requirements of Local Admiralty Rules A(5) and B(2). Although the claimant's Amended Verified Claim filed on her own behalf and on behalf of her family members was untimely. That the Amended Verified Claim failed to be sufficiently specific and that it was not properly verified by the absent putative claimants as required by 18 U.S.C. §983(a)(4)(A).
71 BROUGHTON V. FLORIDA INT'L UNDERWRITERS, INC. (4/24/1998, NO. 96-9112)

That the insurer was financially unsound. We hold that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction. We vacate the judgment entered by the district court and remand the case with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

I. FACTS

Broughton is a Georgia resident who owned the shrimp trawler JOAN S. All communications between Broughton and FIU were handled through Coastal.

Usher was placed in liquidation by a Florida Circuit Court on December 13. All insurance policies issued by Usher were to be canceled as of January 10. FIU notified Coastal of another insurer that was willing to offer replacement coverage. Was totally destroyed. Broughton filed suit against Usher on the insurance policy and against FIU for breach of its alleged duty under Ga.Code Ann. § 33 5 25 to ensure the financial soundness of Usher before placing insurance with the company

71 OPINION/ORDER
Office of Workers' Compensation Programs.
71 OPINION/ORDER
Before the IPO was to occur. Some details about the policy were disclosed in Merck's registration statements filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Medco IPO was canceled. Are jointly and severally liable as controlling persons under section 20(a) of the `34 Act. Union is the lead plaintiff for a class of investors owning stock in Merck. Which were not fully disclosed until. A. Medco's revenue recognition policy Medco is a pharmacy benefits manager (PBM). The pharmacist checks with Medco to ensure that the customer is an approved beneficiary. It changed this language in its 2001 Form 10 K to state that revenues were
71 GRAY V. LOCKHEED AERONAUTICAL SYS. CO.

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Gray v. Survivors of three naval aircraft crewmembers who were killed after ejecting from a crashing Lockheed manufactured aircraft. Were killed and Air Warfare Technician Second Class (AW2) Tracy Mann was injured when they ejected from a S 3 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1998/98a1780p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That caused damage to its surrounding engine was separate property from the engine or was merely a component of the engine. 2) whether East River bars a tort claim for post sale duty to warn under a negligence theory when the damage is purely economic. 3) whether East River bars a tort claim for negligent repair when the damage is purely economic. The district court held 1) that the rod was not separate property from the engine. 2) that even when the injury is only economic. There is a post sale duty to warn claim if a defendant manufacturer had actual knowledge that the 2 product was defective. That GE did not have actual knowledge of the defective part prior to Sea Land's injury. 3) that East River bars a tort claim for negligent repair when the damage is purely economic. I. Facts Sea Land is a bareboat charterer of many vessels including the Sea Land Enterprise. The Enterprise was constructed in 1980. The Enterprise's SSDG is powered by a GE diesel engine. The diesel engine is made up of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5118.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. This is an appeal from a final decision of the Court of Federal Claims holding. Inter alia: (1) that Appellants are not entitled to reformation of a contract they entered into with the United States in 1961. (2) that Appellants' takings claims against the United States are either time barred or. Because Appellants have shown no error of law or fact in the thorough and well reasoned decision of the Court of Federal Claims. I The facts of this case are complex. Are ably and completely set forth in a series of opinions of the Court of Federal Claims. The project is known as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr98/96-9112.man.html">BROUGHTON V. FLORIDA INT'L UNDERWRITERS, INC. (4/24/1998, NO. 96-9112)<BR></A><BR> That the insurer was financially unsound. We hold that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction. We vacate the judgment entered by the district court and remand the case with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.</P> <P><CENTER>I. <EM>FACTS</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> Broughton is a Georgia resident who owned the shrimp trawler JOAN S. All communications between Broughton and FIU were handled through Coastal.</P> <P> Usher was placed in liquidation by a Florida Circuit Court on December 13. All insurance policies issued by Usher were to be canceled as of January 10. FIU notified Coastal of another insurer that was willing to offer replacement coverage. Was totally destroyed. Broughton filed suit against Usher on the insurance policy and against FIU for breach of its alleged duty under Ga.Code Ann. § 33 5 25 to ensure the financial soundness of Usher before placing insurance with the company<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0184n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appeals a determination he was negligent in causing a fire aboard his houseboat that spread and damaged seventeen vessels at the marina where he docked. Hartley argues that: (1) the district court's finding of negligence was clearly erroneous. (3) the district court erred to the extent liability was based on unseaworthiness. We affirm the district court because its finding of negligence was not clearly erroneous and the district court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings. Hartley's vessel was unseaworthy. The finding of negligence is sufficient to support the judgment of liability and any error regarding the doctrine of seaworthiness is therefore harmless. Patricia Hughes were awakened by an explosion at the Pier 99 Marina. Was burning. While the exterior hulls of the boats on either side were on fire. After the fire was put out. The M/V Nina's Casino was a 65 foot seagoing houseboat docked at slip 33 of the Pier 99 Marina. Two of which were identified by experts as possible causes of the fire.2 The first was an electric space heater kept in the main cabin of the boat. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1555.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 17. Castro Amy was on brief for claimant appellant. Was on brief for the United States. At issue in this appeal is whether appellant Cotto Garc a was tardy in filing his </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200411/03-5264a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012028.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. The Internet is an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct97/95-8459.opa.html">GRAY V. LOCKHEED AERONAUTICAL SYS. CO.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gray v. Survivors of three naval aircraft crewmembers who were killed after ejecting from a crashing Lockheed manufactured aircraft. Were killed and Air Warfare Technician Second Class (AW2) Tracy Mann was injured when they ejected from a S 3 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTUzMDgtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-5308-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> When the steel coils were subsequently loaded onto SK Shipping's vessel. Were the governing contract of carriage and that their South Korea forum selection clause controlled. SK Shipping is bound to the terms of its contract. BACKGROUND As is often the case in intercontinental ocean shipping. The litigants are connected to a network of affiliated companies.1 Asoma is apparently affiliated with four companies MUR London. A key price term was FOB Kaohsiung. The steel was to be shipped to the United States during October or November 1999. 1 1 2 3 4 5 As the Supreme Court recently stated: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011831.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. One of Fernandez's boats was the F/V Cap FERNANDEZ v. Also unknown to Fernandez was the fact that Haynie and two other individuals were actively involved in a venture to build their own marine insurance business. The loss of Fernandez's business would have dealt a significant blow to Haynie's efforts. The first attorney who handled Fernandez's case was unable to make contact with Liberty. Haynie argues that the district court improperly asserted admiralty jurisdiction over the case because the contract to procure marine insurance is not maritime. 4 FERNANDEZ v. The court finds that the contract is maritime in nature and the district court properly asserted admiralty jurisdiction over the case. 1043 (4th Cir. 1986) (stating that district court's decision to allow plaintiff to amend pleadings to conform to the evidence under Rule 15(b) is reviewed for abuse of discretion). A court applies federal common law and can look to state law in situations where there is no admiralty law on point. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9D2D2B591E10EBBF88256A84007C9E01/$file/9936173.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2001 is amended as follows: 1. Second paragraph: Replace sentence reading: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/67F16008FAD8510B8825729F007E6505/$file/0317125.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the briefs for appellant EPA. Argued the case and was on the briefs for appellant California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Were on the briefs for appellant California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Was on the briefs for the appellees. Was on the briefs for appellee cross appellant Shell. Owned and operated a facility at which toxic chemicals were stored and distributed. Part of the land on which the chemical operation was located was owned by two railroad companies (the Railroads). Some of the chemicals used by B&B were supplied and delivered to the facility by Shell Oil Company (Shell). B&B was defunct by that time. The agencies were thus left holding the bag for a great deal of money. All statutory citations are to Title 42 and the 2000 edition of the U.S. Claiming that it was not an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1352.html">TEXPORT OIL V. USA<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief was Christopher E. With him on the brief were David M. On the brief were G. Of counsel was Jack D. Or fee imposed under Federal law because of [the merchandise's] importation </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/04AE71A22799055B88256E83007BB106/$file/0257014.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that although service of process was not made </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1409.html">DALTON V. CESSNA AIRCRAFT<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1707.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Garrity</U> was on brief. <U>Senior Circuit Judge</U>.</STRONG></FONT><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1390.html">CITGO V. U.S. FOREIGN TRADE-ZONES<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/94FCAED573143C4B88256E5A00707BDE/$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-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1622.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ganem</U> were on brief. Barlow</U> were on brief. <U>Senior Circuit Judge</U>.</STRONG></FONT><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972330.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 97 2330 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Was determined to fish that day at Northwest Places. The wind was steady out of the southwest. The seas were rolling and choppy. Impatient because it was now after lunch and they had not yet reached their fishing destination. Defendant was seated facing the wheel. His vision of oncoming waves was partially obstructed. The windshield was somewhat smeared with spray. Defendant's brother was seated next to him in the boat. Plaintiff was positioned behind defendant. Defendant's brother was concerned about the roughness of the ride. Defendant claimed it was necessary to drive the boat between twenty and twenty five miles per hour in order to plane the vessel. Evidence introduced at trial suggested that the vessel could have been planed at a lower speed. Plaintiff was thrown approximately twelve to eighteen inches in the air. Plaintiff was turned and fell backward onto the deck. Plaintiff was taken to a nearby hospital. The orthopedic surgeon who examined plaintiff determined that the injuries were caused by a high impact accident and were not consistent with a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="71"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-5138.html">GOOD LLOYD JR. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Of counsel was <U>John G. With him on the brief were <U>Lois J. Of counsel on the brief was <U>James B. With him on the brief was <U>Peter G. <U>Senior Circuit Judge</U>.</P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200106/00-1318a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Carol A. Circuit Judge: This case is one of the last claims likely to be brought by a District of Columbia employee under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. The underlying controversy is whether Ms. Is whether the Board erred in asserting jurisdiction to review the supplementary compensation order. We join the other circuits that have addressed this question in holding that the Board lacked jurisdiction to review the order because it was issued pursuant to s 918(a). Snowden's benefit payments were to be calculated. Will assume responsibility for permanent total disabil ity payments after 104 weeks if </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200106/99-7229a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Robert R. The District contends that it is entitled to a new trial because the district court erroneous ly admitted evidence and because the evidence introduced in the trial was insufficient to support the jury's verdict. I. The contested evidence consisted of an excerpt of Monique Blasio's testimony from the first trial which the court admit ted at the second trial because Blasio was unavailable. While she was assigned to the Second District vice unit in 1992. She suggested to Knieser that the dearth of female promotions to detective was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2003/013343.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Benefits Review Board (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4B97BF2891383BD48825730600829913/$file/0575337.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sells photographs to tourists on a historic naval ship is entitled to collect benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec97/96-2931.man.html">WHITE V. MERCURY MARINE<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>White v. The district court held that White's claim was barred by the general maritime statute of limitations. One common feature of those boats was that they had Mercury Marine engines. How open the throttle is. The operator was positioned close to the engine. Was exposed to substantial noise from Mercury Marine's engines throughout his employment.<p> Not surprisingly. The parties agree that White's hearing is impaired. They also agree that at least as early as 1984 White became aware that the loud engine noise was causing him hearing loss. A doctor advised White that his constant exposure to loud engine noise was causing his hearing loss. In 1990 White filed a workman's compensation claim in which he stated that the constant exposure to engine noise had caused his gradual loss of hearing.<p> It was not until 1994 that White sued Mercury Marine in federal district court.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-2335_019.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Employees were evaluated on a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1334.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLP</SPAN> was on consolidated brief for appellants Barry C. Labinger</SPAN> was on consolidated brief for appellant Robert B. The court revoked the pro hac vice status of the two attorneys who were not members of the court's bar and formally censured one of the two. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-5220a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge:<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/95-8330.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. 408 PEYTON RD., S.W. (12/8/1998, NO. 95-8330)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> At issue in the present appeal is whether predeprivation notice and a hearing must be provided when the Government executes a seizure warrant against real property. We hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment mandates provision of such predeprivation procedures even when the seizure of real property is not physically intrusive. When the Government has failed to provide predeprivation notice and a hearing but the property is found to be subject to forfeiture after the process due has been afforded. The proper remedy is as follows: The Government should return any rents received or other proceeds realized from the property during the period of illegal seizure. </P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr97/96-6038.wpd.html">GAYLOR V. JOHN HANCOCK MUT. LIFE INS. CO.<BR></A><BR> The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Gaylor maintains first that her policy with Defendant John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company (Hancock) is not governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). She argues that even if her claim is governed by ERISA. The bases relied upon by Hancock were insufficient to deny her claim. Life and accidental death and dismemberment (ADD) policies are mandatory. Is optional. Was finally referred to Dr. Gaylor was not in need of orthopedic surgery. Gaylor was still his patient and that he would see her in further follow ups. She was unable to work as of October 13. Who informed her that there was nothing more he could do for her and suggested that she return to her primary care physicians for long term treatment. Non surgical condition required follow up and care and medications that are best handled by primary care physicians who would continue to see patients on a regular basis. She was rejected. Because she was financially unable to pay the doctor's bill. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0464p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the portions of the Glass property covered by each conservation easement is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/10/031402P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unifund attached copies of correspondence between it and Appellant demonstrating that Appellant was well aware of the potential </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200207/01-5220a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from the judgment of the district court in favor of the United States in a civil forfeiture action. Intervened and argued that the court had no juris diction because the property was outside the court's territori al jurisdiction and because the five year statute of limitations had run. Vasquez is the wife of Juan Ramon Matta. Matta is currently imprisoned in a federal penitentiary. Is derived from Matta's criminal operations. Civil forfeiture actions are brought against property. Forfeiture is an ancient penalty. The owner of the bull will not be held responsible. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1F5D6119027B14AB88256E5A00707B8F/$file/9915020.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This appeal is an outgrowth of a dispute over the right of union representatives to visit the construction sites of a non7339 union general contractor in order to inspect for unsafe conditions or violations of prevailing wage policies applicable to governmental construction contracts. The plaintiffs are four representatives of the Bay Counties District Council of Carpenters ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011880.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Custom Ship contends that the payments were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1696.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C.</SPAN> was on brief for petitioner. Decof</SPAN> were on brief for claimant. Was employed on the M/V Reflections. The result was anoxic brain injury anoxic refers to the lack of oxygen so severe that his life was despaired of. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec97/96-2931.man.html">WHITE V. MERCURY MARINE<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>White v. The district court held that White's claim was barred by the general maritime statute of limitations. One common feature of those boats was that they had Mercury Marine engines. How open the throttle is. The operator was positioned close to the engine. Was exposed to substantial noise from Mercury Marine's engines throughout his employment.<p> Not surprisingly. The parties agree that White's hearing is impaired. They also agree that at least as early as 1984 White became aware that the loud engine noise was causing him hearing loss. A doctor advised White that his constant exposure to loud engine noise was causing his hearing loss. In 1990 White filed a workman's compensation claim in which he stated that the constant exposure to engine noise had caused his gradual loss of hearing.<p> It was not until 1994 that White sued Mercury Marine in federal district court.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19944344.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The detailed facts are set out in the decision of the district court denying motions to suppress. Defendant Li Chi Cheong was granted leave to appeal from denial of his motion to suppress on two grounds: lack of probable cause to arrest. The district court did not err in holding there was probable cause to arrest Li. He was experienced in credit card fraud and had been trained by the Secret Service in identification of fraudulent cards. He was assigned to the access device fraud squad in the Miami office of the Secret Service. Who confirmed that there was an organized ring of Asian males victimizing local stores with fraudulent credit cards. On January 28 Cachinero received a call stating that there were four Asian men in the Saks store at Bal Harbor. Some of which were being rejected. He was shown a videotape of them. The two men at the other counter were making large purchases with credit cards. Cachinero thought the behavior of the four individuals was suspicious. Cachinero was advised by an off duty policeman at the mall that four Asian men were making large purchases in another store. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></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-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/46ABE3B53B56DC2488256E910052F6C5/$file/0271207.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that when an increase in an employee's average weekly wage between the time of a prior permanent partial disability and subsequent permanent total disability is not caused by a change in his wage earning capacity. Price was awarded permanent partial disability benefits of $196.01 per week under the LHWCA.1 SAIF Corporation. Is responsible for those benefits. Administrative Law Judge Brissenden determined that Price's residual wageearning capacity after the injury was $333.87 per week.2 1 The 1979 award is not at issue in this case. The amount of his previous award is relevant in determining the appropriate compensation for Price's present claims. 2 The award was calculated by subtracting Price's residual wage earning capacity from his pre injury average weekly wage: $627.88 $333.87. Which is multiplied by two thirds as required by the LHWCA to obtain the award of $196.01. He could no longer work as a fisherman because it was too hard on his back. He was restricted to light jobs as a longshoreman. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1079.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bruno with whom Marisa Rivera Barrera and Sweeting Gonzalez Cestero & Bruno were on brief for appellants. Graffam & Lausell was on brief for appellees. * Of the Eighth Circuit. Is not an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-3252.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who are in the electronic connector business. Have been involved in a number of disputes in Delaware state courts and one in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Incorporated sought a finding that the licensing agreement was breached. Methode alleged that venue was proper in the Northern District of Illinois. Sanctions were imposed against both attorney Canade and Methode. Contending that the sanctions were improperly imposed.1 As to the underlying lawsuit. It is enough to say that from 1987 to 1993 Methode owned all the stock of Adam Technologies. Methode was to sell to Vincent DeVito all of its shares in Adam Tech as well as the Adam Tech trade name and trademarks and a large amount of inventory. The claim in the present lawsuit is that less than a day after the licensing agreement was signed. Adam Tech and DeVito began to undermine Methode's rights by issuing a press release to Methode's customers which announced that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/06/993940P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to review the district court's1 finding that a barge owner lost profits while repairing several barges damaged in towing accidents. We are also asked to review the district court's award of prejudgment interest on those lost profits. Twenty seven barges towed by Inland were damaged in accidents. Only the last claim is at issue in this appeal. Power and Johnston testified that the barge market was very active between February 1995 and July 1996. That Peavey's entire fleet of available barges was always in use to the extent possible. He testified that demand for barges between February 1995 and July 1996 was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june97/94-4344.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. WAI-KEUNG<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. The detailed facts are set out in the decision of the district court denying motions to suppress. Need not be repeated here.<p> Defendant Li Chi Cheong was granted leave to appeal from denial of his motion to suppress on two grounds: lack of probable cause to arrest. The taking of his statement allegedly in violation of <i>Miranda.</i><p> The district court did not err in holding there was probable cause to arrest Li. He was experienced in credit card fraud and had been trained by the Secret Service in identification of fraudulent cards. He was assigned to the access device fraud squad in the Miami office of the Secret Service.<p> In early January 1993 Cachinero learned of an investigation in West Palm Beach of Asian males posing as rich businessmen and purchasing high end items with fraudulent credit cards. Who confirmed that there was an organized ring of Asian males victimizing local stores with fraudulent credit cards.<p> On January 28 Cachinero received a call stating that there were four Asian men in the Saks store at Bal Harbor. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5400a.html">MODDERNO MARSHA V. KING, JAMES B.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1996/96a1356p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is one of first impression in this circuit. Is whether O'Connell's punitive damage claim premised on an arbitrary and willful failure to pay maintenance and cure is barred by the exclusivity provision of the Suits in Admiralty Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002509.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200401/03-7015b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200312/03-7015a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2002/995960.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> National class action involved the claims of over eight million policy holders of Prudential Life Insurance Company who were represented by many lawyers. We will affirm in part and reverse in part. Prudential removed those class actions to federal district court and Malakoff's subsequent motions to remand were denied. Malakoff argued that the two state class actions in which he was counsel should be litigated separately from the national class asserted by Lead Counsel. Were settled on a nationwide basis in late 1996. That request for sanctions was withdrawn within the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CF89023CAB836C8E88256AB4006D403E/$file/9915716.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case was tried to the bench before District Judge Robert H. The case was reassigned to District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong. The case was later reassigned to District Judge Susan Illston. (2) that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 63 was violated because the successor judges did not certify familiarity with the record. (3) that the plan was not an ERISA plan. (4) that benefits checks from the employer's stop loss carrier were not ERISA assets. (5) that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether Sahni was a fiduciary. The money he retained was reasonable compensation that had been disclosed to and approved by Patelco. (7) that evidence and a witness were erroneously excluded. (8) that sanctions were imposed in violation of Rule 11 and Rule 63 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs in this action are Patelco Credit Union. Defendants are Sudhir Sahni. Prior to 1983 the Plan was fully insured by Travelers. None of these components was itemized. Sahni either approved or denied them and then wrote checks to medical care providers for those services that were covered. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1996/96a1360p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the navigational servitude was a preexisting limitation on the landowners' title to riparian land. We hold the Corps' exercise of the servitude to prohibit the use of the landowners' property was not a taking under the Fifth Amendment or Section 111. A coal loading facility was located on the tract. The tipple and coal loading facility have been used for loading coal into barges since 1914. The Government did not acquire the remaining 102 acres of the tract on which the coal loading facility was located and on which the tipple was grounded. The Corps of Engineers concluded: the loading and unloading of the barges at the tipple site will [create a hazard to navigation]. If a barge or a river boat were to break away. The Corps of Engineers is responsible for the control and regulation of the navigation of the Monongahela River. It will not permit coal loading operations to continue in the area of the tipple. No compensation was due. Therefore the landowners were not entitled to compensation. We have jurisdiction over final orders of the district court under 28 U.S.C. 1291. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/17AF5540C492B4B488256E5A00707B03/$file/9936173.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are called upon to decide (1) whether an ambiguous tariff filed with the state utilities commission trumps the common law and statutory rule that the utility company. That the ordinances are preempted. It was required by statutory and common law to relocate or pay for relocation of its facilities. When city street improvements require the displacement of telecommu 1 The City of University Place has since revised its ordinances and was dismissed from the case. 5152 nications equipment located in the city's right of way. The current version reads in relevant part: When relocation or aerial to underground conversion of existing facilities is requested or required by law. The cost of constructing the new and removing the old facilities will be borne by the customer or others requesting the relocation or conversion. After this appeal was filed and partially briefed. The question before us is limited to who bears the costs of relocation prior to the effective date of the new statute. This stems from the conditional nature of a utility's right to have facilities in the public right of way. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></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-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct98/96-3117.man.html">UNITED STATES V. STARKS (10/9/1998, NO. 96-3117)<BR></A><BR> Starks and Siegel contend that the Anti Kickback statute is unconstitutionally vague. The government cross appeals Siegel's sentence on the grounds that the district court should not have reduced his offense level for acceptance of responsibility. That the district court should have applied the guideline for bribery of a public official rather than the guideline for fraud and deceit. Andrew Siegel was both the president and the sole shareholder of Future Steps. Angela Starks and Barbara Henry had just become community health aids in the employ of the State of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1997/97a1543p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Specifically whether the tort of malicious prosecution </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B2202939BD4801128825717800776566/$file/0550112.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argued the case and was on the briefs for the defendant appellant. Argued the case and was on the briefs for the plaintiff appellee. Were on the briefs for the plaintiff appellee. Is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 3929. Beginning with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FEE065DE53DC4E2888256EFD0057B3FC/$file/0271207.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: 12202 STEVEDORING SERVICES v. We held that the employee's permanent partial disability award was to be measured based on the difference between his pre injury average weekly wages and his post injury wage earning capacity. Another way to understand the inflation adjustment is as follows. Employee B's pre injury average weekly wage is $1000. The inflation rate in the hypothetical is 192% ($48 divided by $25). Employee B's inflation adjusted pre injury average weekly wage is $1920 (192% of $1000). PRICE 12203 reveals that at the time of the second accident employee B continues to have a diminished earning capacity as a result of the first accident. Is consistent with our conclusion here. The court reasoned that the permanent total disability award would be </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200413740.rem.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lora Sisson are current or former hourly employees of defendantappellant Mohawk Industries. The plaintiffs also alleged that Mohawk was unjustly enriched by the lower wages it paid. Whether plaintiffs state proximately caused injuries to business or property by alleging that the hourly wages they voluntarily accepted were too low. This case is now before the Court on remand from the Supreme Court. I. BACKGROUND 3 Mohawk is the second largest carpet and rug manufacturer in the United States and has over 30. Mohawk employees have traveled to the United States Border. To recruit undocumented aliens that recently have entered the United States in violation of federal law. These employees and other persons have transported undocumented aliens from these border towns to North Georgia so that those aliens may procure employment at Mohawk. Have provided housing to these illegal workers upon their arrival in North Georgia and have helped them find illegal employment with Mohawk. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/00-4015.htm">00-4015 -- U.S. V. WILGUS -- 08/08/2001<BR></A><BR> The Secretary of the Interior to promulgate regulations which authorize takings or possession of these eagles when such possession is compatible with eagle preservation and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1462.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Sandra L. Of counsel on the brief were Michael D. Of counsel were Jerry A. Of counsel on the brief were Edwin G. Connected to each silo is a Library Control Unit that controls the robotic mechanisms in the silo and monitors their progress. The individual silos and Control Units are connected via a local area network to a Library Management Unit. Which is a computer that can direct and control several silos. A central element of this case concerns what occurs when the entire tape library is first turned on. When the Control Unit is powered up. Where it is loaded into the Control Unit's memory. StorageTek's claims in this case stem from the fact that the 9330 and 9311 computer code is copyrighted. Both the functional and maintenance code are automatically loaded into the RAM of the Control Unit and Management Unit upon startup. Copying the entire code is necessary to activate and run the library. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/073038CED26D2A5D882572DB0056D09F/$file/0456771.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. that were damaged while being transported across a container yard operated by Maersk Pacific Ltd. Starrag claims that the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1998/98a1868p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the order of the district court dismissing Ford's complaint even though we differ with the district court by finding Ford eligible to file suit under Title I of the ADA. I. The facts concerning the plaintiff's employment and her disability are not in dispute. Ford was an employee of Schering from 1975 until May of 1992. When she became disabled by virtue of a mental disorder and was unable to continue her employment. The plan mandated that benefits cease after two years if the disabled employee was not hospitalized. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Our review over the district court's order is plenary. Because the facts of this case are not in dispute. Whether Ford is even eligible to sue under the ADA. We will address Ford's claims under Titles I and III seriatim. The defendants' group insurance plan is a fringe benefit of employment at Schering. We must first ascertain whether Ford is eligible tofile suit under Title I. The question of standing is not at issue in this case. Which is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1490.html">KAJARIA IRON V. US<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200413740.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lora Sisson are current or former hourly employees of Defendant Mohawk Industries. The plaintiffs also alleged that Mohawk was unjustly enriched by the lower wages it paid. I. BACKGROUND Mohawk is the second largest carpet and rug manufacturer in the United States and has over 30. According to the plaintiffs' complaint Mohawk employees have traveled to the United States Border. To recruit undocumented aliens that recently have entered the United States in violation of federal law. These employees and other persons have transported undocumented aliens from these border towns to North Georgia so that those aliens may procure employment at Mohawk. Have provided housing to these illegal workers upon their arrival in North Georgia and have helped them find illegal employment with Mohawk. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5005B5A345F5EE6C88256D3A005439D9/$file/0135028.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The United States alleging they were harmed by the Cushman Hydroelectric Project ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></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-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTU0MDItY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5402-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (2) imposing a remedy disgorgement that defendants appellants allege is beyond the power of the federal courts. Defendants contend that the District Court's action was erroneous on several grounds. We consider two of the defendants' arguments in greater detail: (1) that the District Court should have allowed defendants to benefit from an exemption to the federal securities registration For reasons substantially similar to those articulated in this opinion. Franklin arose from the same district court proceedings and was argued befo re this Court in tandem with the instant cases. 1 2 requirements2 and (2) that the District Court exceeded its authority in granting equitable disgorgement of defendants' ill gotten profits. The facts below are drawn from the complaint of the SEC and the Cavanagh III opinion of the District Court. A Massachusetts corporation that was developing a fingerprint verification system. Prohibits the sale or delivery after sale of any security by means of interstate comm erce </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1531_018.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a suit to enjoin enforcement of Chapter 31 of the General Ordinances of Milwaukee County. Primarily on the ground that the chapter is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. (We will not have to discuss the plaintiff's other grounds.). Chapter 31 requires firms that have contracts with the County for the provision of transportation and other services for elderly and disabled County residents to negotiate </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct98/96-3117.man.html">UNITED STATES V. STARKS (10/9/1998, NO. 96-3117)<BR></A><BR> Starks and Siegel contend that the Anti Kickback statute is unconstitutionally vague. The government cross appeals Siegel's sentence on the grounds that the district court should not have reduced his offense level for acceptance of responsibility. That the district court should have applied the guideline for bribery of a public official rather than the guideline for fraud and deceit. Andrew Siegel was both the president and the sole shareholder of Future Steps. Angela Starks and Barbara Henry had just become community health aids in the employ of the State of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962457.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judges. *Judge Russell heard oral argument in this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). Circuit Judge: We are presented with the jurisdictional question of whether the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/04/96-6038.htm">96-6038 -- GAYLOR V. JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. -- 04/29/1997<BR></A><BR> Gaylor maintains first that her policy with Defendant John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company (Hancock) is not governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). She argues that even if her claim is governed by ERISA. The bases relied upon by Hancock were insufficient to deny her claim. Life and accidental death and dismemberment (ADD) policies are mandatory. Is optional. Was finally referred to Dr. Gaylor was not in need of orthopedic surgery. Gaylor was still his patient and that he would see her in further follow ups. <p> In the meantime. She was unable to work as of October 13. Who informed her that there was nothing more he could do for her and suggested that she return to her primary care physicians for long term treatment. Non surgical condition required follow up and care and medications that are best handled by primary care physicians who would continue to see patients on a regular basis. She was rejected. Because she was financially unable to pay the doctor's bill. Claiming that (1) she was not under the regular care of a physician. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2B24CF29731FBEED88256A6A0056523D/$file/9915020.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This appeal is an outgrowth of a dispute over the right of union representatives to visit the construction sites of a non7339 union general contractor in order to inspect for unsafe conditions or violations of prevailing wage policies applicable to governmental construction contracts. The plaintiffs are four representatives of the Bay Counties District Council of Carpenters ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2041.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 4. Suris & Godreau were on brief. Gonzalez & Rodriguez were on brief. This is an appeal by defendant appellant Villa Marina Yacht Harbor. Uncontested Facts Uncontested Facts A statement of the uncontested facts leading to the order compels the conclusion that there is no merit to this appeal. This request was referred to a magistrate judge. In its answer Villa Marina stated: 4 . . . it is admitted that VILLA MARINA owes CHASE the principal sum and interest therein pleaded. Minus the amounts that VILLA MARINA claims against CHASE in the counterclaim and the amounts CHASE is retaining in its escrow account. A hearing was held before the magistrate judge on March 5. The district court vacated the magistrate judge's appointment of a receiver because this action </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec2000/986461.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Chief Executive Officer of EchoCath enticed MedSystems into investing $1.4 million in EchoCath by assuring MedSystems that lengthy negotiations had already taken place with four prominent companies to market certain new EchoCath products and that contracts with these companies were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2E5F3A673466BE058825734D0052AF1C/$file/0399010.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The jury unanimously returned a recommendation of a sentence of death as to each of the two victims who were murdered. They were picked up by a trucker who took them part of the way. It is a 35 minute drive that the two made in Slim's pewter colored double cab Sierra GMC pickup truck. Denison was unable to assist her. That is the last time they were seen alive. Slim and Jane were in front. Her body was pulled onto the rear seat. Jane was put next to her. Slim's body was dragged out. Jane was ordered out of the truck and told by Mitchell </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CCAC494C54AB3E6C88256E5A00707C71/$file/9915716.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case was tried to the bench before District Judge Robert H. The case was reassigned to District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong. The case was later reassigned to District Judge Susan Illston. (2) that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 63 was violated because the successor judges did not certify familiarity with the record. (3) that the plan was not an ERISA plan. (4) that benefits checks from the employer's stop loss carrier were not ERISA assets. (5) that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether Sahni was a fiduciary. The money he retained was reasonable compensation that had been disclosed to and approved by Patelco. (7) that evidence and a witness were erroneously excluded. (8) that sanctions were imposed in violation of Rule 11 and Rule 63 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs in this action are Patelco Credit Union. Defendants are Sudhir Sahni. Prior to 1983 the Plan was fully insured by Travelers. None of these components was itemized. Sahni either approved or denied them and then wrote checks to medical care providers for those services that were covered. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A06A51AA36D752FF88256A38005BB2BF/$file/9936173.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are called upon to decide (1) whether an ambiguous tariff filed with the state utilities commission trumps the common law and statutory rule that the utility company. That the ordinances are preempted. It was required by statutory and common law to relocate or pay for relocation of its facilities. When city street improvements require the displacement of telecommu 1 The City of University Place has since revised its ordinances and was dismissed from the case. 5152 nications equipment located in the city's right of way. The current version reads in relevant part: When relocation or aerial to underground conversion of existing facilities is requested or required by law. The cost of constructing the new and removing the old facilities will be borne by the customer or others requesting the relocation or conversion. After this appeal was filed and partially briefed. The question before us is limited to who bears the costs of relocation prior to the effective date of the new statute. This stems from the conditional nature of a utility's right to have facilities in the public right of way. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june97/94-4344.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. WAI-KEUNG<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. The detailed facts are set out in the decision of the district court denying motions to suppress. Need not be repeated here.<p> Defendant Li Chi Cheong was granted leave to appeal from denial of his motion to suppress on two grounds: lack of probable cause to arrest. The taking of his statement allegedly in violation of <i>Miranda.</i><p> The district court did not err in holding there was probable cause to arrest Li. He was experienced in credit card fraud and had been trained by the Secret Service in identification of fraudulent cards. He was assigned to the access device fraud squad in the Miami office of the Secret Service.<p> In early January 1993 Cachinero learned of an investigation in West Palm Beach of Asian males posing as rich businessmen and purchasing high end items with fraudulent credit cards. Who confirmed that there was an organized ring of Asian males victimizing local stores with fraudulent credit cards.<p> On January 28 Cachinero received a call stating that there were four Asian men in the Saks store at Bal Harbor. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may99/97-6536.opn.html">BUTERO V. ROYAL MACCABEES LIFE INS. CO. (5/10/1999, NO. 97-6536)<BR></A><BR> The replacement policy would have a portability feature.</P> <P> Based on this information. Full time employees with 90 days' tenure who were not enrolled under the old policy were invited to enroll. 000) and who was eligible (full time employees with 90 days' tenure). The form contained a signature space at the bottom to indicate that the enrollment was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200001/99-5088a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Joseph O. With him on the brief were Wilma A. With her on the brief were David M. Was on the brief for amicus curiae The Government of the Republic of Iceland. With him on the brief was Gary C. L.L.C. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200702/05-1216a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs were Judith A. With her on the brief were Ronald E. Young was on the brief for intervenor Guardsmark. Where an employer promulgates work rules </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTY2MTAtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-6610-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A Bill of Lading for the shipment issued on that date indicated that the shipper was Chemlube International. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F6232FFCE1D59BC68825714C0055CF8D/$file/0550112.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argued the case and was on the briefs for the defendant appellant. Argued the case and was on the briefs for the plaintiff appellee. Were on the briefs for the plaintiff appellee. Is an ingredient in many over the counter cold medications. Both the United States and California have statutes prohibiting over the counter sales of drugs containing pseudoephedrine in certain instances. Jae Gab Kim was convicted of violating 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(2). That [the pseudoephedrine] will be used to manufacture a controlled substance. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200612/05-1241a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs were Mark D. With him on the brief was William R. An Administrative Law Judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/03-1002.htm">03-1002 -- BIODIVERSITY ASSOCIATES V. CABLES -- 02/04/2004<BR></A><BR> Explicitly supersedes a settlement agreement between the Forest Service and various environmental groups regarding management of these lands. <p> The question presented is whether the extraordinary specificity of this legislation. Congress is permitted to be as specific as it deems appropriate. Settlement agreements between private litigants and the executive branch cannot divest Congress of its constitutionally vested authority to legislate. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1776.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Sulloway & Hollis was on brief for appellants U.S. Sullivan and Rice Dolan & Kershaw were on brief for appellants Supreme Court of Rhode Island. Were on brief for appellees. Chief Judge is whether a United States District Court has the power to adopt a local rule that requires federal prosecutors to obtain judicial approval before they serve a subpoena on an attorney to compel evidence concerning a client. Does not have the power to do so with respect to grand jury subpoenas. It is necessary briefly to review some of the recent history leading to this lawsuit. 21 U.S.C. 848 (1988) (evidence that legal representation was provided by a benefactor. The instances of federal prosecutors subpoenaing attorneys to compel evidence regarding theirclients have. The Assistant Attorney General must find that the information is necessary for an investigation or prosecution. That the subpoena is narrowly drawn. Id. 3 In the first year that the Department of Justice Guidelines were in effect. Of which 278 subpoenas were for grand jury proceedings and 85 for trial. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may99/97-6536.opn.html">BUTERO V. ROYAL MACCABEES LIFE INS. CO. (5/10/1999, NO. 97-6536)<BR></A><BR> The replacement policy would have a portability feature.</P> <P> Based on this information. Full time employees with 90 days' tenure who were not enrolled under the old policy were invited to enroll. 000) and who was eligible (full time employees with 90 days' tenure). The form contained a signature space at the bottom to indicate that the enrollment was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-7229a.html">ANDREW M. FREDRICK, ET AL., V. D.C.<BR></A><BR> Argued the cause for appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2003/024098p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The principal issue on appeal is the proper application of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 to the proffered testimony of plaintiffs' experts. 3 I. Its tragic facts have been well documented. Twelve year old Natalie Calhoun was vacationing with her friend. Affixed to the jet ski was a warning that the minimum recommended age for operation was fourteen. No parents or guardians were present at this time. While Melanie was riding the jet ski. Fox that riding the jet ski was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="65"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/95-8330.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. 408 PEYTON RD., S.W. (12/8/1998, NO. 95-8330)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> At issue in the present appeal is whether predeprivation notice and a hearing must be provided when the Government executes a seizure warrant against real property. We hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment mandates provision of such predeprivation procedures even when the seizure of real property is not physically intrusive. When the Government has failed to provide predeprivation notice and a hearing but the property is found to be subject to forfeiture after the process due has been afforded. The proper remedy is as follows: The Government should return any rents received or other proceeds realized from the property during the period of illegal seizure. </P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/984466.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The evidence was sufficient to support his conviction. Eric Jeter was wanted for conspiracy to commit a bank robbery in New York. Jeter stayed at a Richmond apartment that was rented to Denis Somerville and his sister Tasha. He had been dozing on the couch and was sick and under the influence of cold medicine. Agent Sell informed Mitchell that the agents were looking for a person named Eric Jeter and showed Mitchell a photograph of Jeter. Mitchell told Agent Sell that he was alone in the apartment and that he did not know Eric Jeter. Mitchell admitted that he lied to the agents when he told them he was alone and did not know the person in the picture). The court properly recognized that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1494.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Capone LLP</SPAN> was on brief for appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1995/95a1107p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court based its holding on the Providers' claim that the Pennsylvania statute is preempted by the Hyde Amendment. We conclude that the Secretary of Health and Human Services is owed deference regarding her interpretation of the Hyde Amendment mandates. Because the Secretary has determined that reporting requirements are permissible under the Medicaid Act. Because the second physician certification requirement pursuant to § 3215(c) is contrary to a federal regulation. It is also invalid to the extent that it goes beyond the scope of that regulation. The purpose of the Medicaid program is to help provide medical treatment for low income people. Establishment of a Medicaid program is voluntary on the part of each state. While states are not obligated to participate in the Medicaid program. Each state that chooses to do so is required to develop its own state plan which must be approved by the Secretary. Certain categories of medical care are mandatory. While other categories of care are optional. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982653.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court found the state laws were preempted. Once the ship is outside of the state's territorial waters. Casino Ventures fears that its cruise business will violate South Carolina criminal laws restricting gambling. State statutes have long prohibited the possession and use of certain gambling devices within South Carolina territory. Casino Ventures sought a declaration that South Carolina's gambling laws are preempted by federal law and an order enjoining the enforcement of those state laws. It was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar96/94-4574.opa.html">CENTRAL STATE TRANSIT & LEASING CORP. V. JONES BOAT YARD, INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Central State Transit & Leasing Corp. v. The court noted that the <i>Blackhawk</i> was documented and insured as a pleasure vessel and that the plaintiff had not lost any profits or incurred additional expenses while the vessel was being repaired. The plaintiff then perfected this appeal.<p> II.<p> <p> The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the district court's grant of partial summary judgment is not appealable. Although conceding that orders resolving the liabilities of the parties in admiralty actions are immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept95/93-5102.opa.html">BRADFORD MARINE, INC. V. M/V "SEA FALCON"<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bradford Marine. The district court held that the <i>Sea Falcon</i> was properly liable for the fees because the repair contract at issue provided that the plaintiff would receive attorney's fees if it retained legal counsel to collect its repair charges. Because the repairs were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jul1998/98a1922p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge We are asked to determine if the delay of the Board of Revision and Review in reviewing a decision of an administrative law judge deprived the Board of jurisdiction under the facts of this appeal. That the Board's delay caused the ALJ's decision to become a final order that we now have jurisdiction to review. We further hold that the ALJ erred in deciding that a maritime employer is entitled to relief from the Special Fund established under S 8(f) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. Where the employee's disability was not manifest during the time of his employment. We will reverse the decision of the ALJ. 2 I. Nine years after he retired he was diagnosed with asbestosis resulting from his years of work related asbestos exposure while at Sun Ship. The same month he was diagnosed. Ehrentraut's asbestosis was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C9C9E731BC998E34882570F2007C1820/$file/0415049.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. § 1291. All of which were awarded as small business set asides under the Small Business Act. Those contracts were set to expire on September 30. Was re designated under the Small Business Act's HUBZone Program. It is not a HUBZone small business. There are no genuine issues During the pendency of this lawsuit. When reviewing an agency's construction of a statute it is charged with administering. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982120.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Many lives were lost as well as substantial sums of gold belonging to passengers and a large commercial shipment of gold in route from California to New York. The district court found that ColumbusAmerica was a first salvor under substantive admiralty law and thereby entitled to salvage the ship without interference and to the exclusion of other salvors. 1990 holding that the Underwriters had abandoned any interest they may have had in the gold and that ColumbusAmerica was entitled to keep everything recovered from the ship. 1993 finding that Columbus America was entitled to a salvage award of 90 percent of the recovered gold allegedly insured by the Underwriters. Was the marketing of the gold. The district court found that all parties agreed that a marketing plan was necessary. The court credited the reasoning of several marketing experts who were of opinion that the marketing plan should extend for some period of years. Finding that this approach was contrary to the Underwriters' earlier position. To which they were actually entitled. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/09/022894P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case was brought under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act by the Washington Post Company and its wholly owned subsidiary Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company. Purdy1 from appropriating Internet domain names2 that incorporate and are confusingly similar to their trademarks and servicemarks. Purdy was later found in contempt and fined for violating the injunctions. I. Both the common law and Congress have provided protection to the holders of recognized trademarks to prevent others from appropriating or copying them and taking advantage of the owner's good will for their own benefit. One legislative purpose of that act was to ensure that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct98/97-4309.man.html">SEA SERVICES OF THE KEYS, INC. V. FLORIDA (10/2/1998, NO. 97-4309)<BR></A><BR> Chief Judge:</P> <P> The principal issue in this case is whether Florida may invoke Eleventh Amendment immunity in an <EM>in rem</EM> admiralty action when the <EM>res</EM> is not within the state's possession. Sea Tow determined that the boat was in peril of sinking. After the Florida Marine Patrol discovered that the boat did not have a required hull identification number (<EM>see</EM> Fla. Stat. §§ 328.07(3)(b) (permitting seizure of a boat that does not have a hull identification number as contraband property and subjecting it to forfeiture under the Act). Holding that Sea Tow's action was not against Florida. We disagree and affirm because: (1) Florida did not have lawful possession of the boat pursuant to the Act. </EM> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0298p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> His driver's license was suspended pursuant to Ohio Revised Code § 4511.191. Salkil was arraigned the next day. Finding that Salkil was not indigent because of his employment with a sports equipment company. Salkil was returned to the Madison County jail. Salkil was unable to post the requisite bail bond. No local bail bondsman would assist Salkil because he was not an Ohio resident. Salkil was forced to remain in jail. He was unable to timely file a new affidavit of indigency as instructed by the court because the jail guards refused to give him the proper forms. He was released on his own recognizance. Page 3 Village from liability and that the release was standard practice. That finding was necessary to terminate the suspension on Salkil's license. The suspension on Salkil's license was never terminated. Sometime after the order was entered. He assumed that plea negotiations were ongoing because he would not agree to the release. The district court expressly held that the Village's objections to the claims were more appropriately addressed in a motion to dismiss rather than in a denial of leave to amend. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981402.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We also find that awarding sanctions on the Defendants' Rule 11 motion was improper and vacate that order and the order denying Howell's motion for reconsideration and remand to the district court for further proceedings on the sanctions issue consistent with this opinion. After the action was removed to district court. Contending that Howell's complaint and subsequent filings were frivolous. The motion was filed with the court twelve days later on December 2. The motion was denied on March 6. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed. These periods are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C74C366E2554512788256D480072500D/$file/0071547.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Board found that De La Fuente had used his position at FIB to secure several loans in excess of applicable limits for entities in which he and his close associates were interested. We have jurisdiction to review the Board's decision under the judicial review provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act. See also 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (Courts may set aside agency orders if they are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/56ADB59DAD4DF55388257248007DAED4/$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-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972780.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The key question in this case is whether Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA or Act). I. The facts are undisputed and can be stated in short order. Major Rogers was employed by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) as a maintenance engineer for approximately 22 years. As a state worker Rogers was a participant in a long term disability plan sponsored by the State of South Carolina (the State) for the benefit of its employees. The plan administrator was the South Carolina Budget and Control Board. It appears that all eligible state employees were covered by the same plan. Rogers was diagnosed with a panic anxiety disorder. He alleged (1) that he was discriminated against because he was denied the same level of benefits as someone with a physical disability and (2) that the plan's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb96/94-5254.opa.html">HILTON OIL TRANS. V. JONAS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hilton Oil Trans. v. We conclude that there were genuine issues of material facts concerning the alleged breach of the trading warranty which precluded the entry of a summary judgment. It was towed to Amuay. Barge </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug96/95-4765.man_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972133.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The remaining issues of liability were also determined adversely to the Vessel Owner by the district court. The district judge determined that Carter was not liable to the Vessel Owner. That Carter was entitled to recover $4. The trial evidence was as follows. The Vessel was purchased by the Vessel Owner in 1988 from an insurance company after it had been damaged in a casualty. It was refurbished and used by the Vessel Owner as a commercial fishing vessel. The engine was over thirty 2 years old and had been rebuilt on multiple occasions prior to it being presented to Carter for replacement of piston and cylinder liners. When the Vessel was delivered to Carter. The engine did not have all its component parts. The engine room was unusually dirty. Determined that the engine was in overall bad shape. The engine and its parts were cleaned. 000 balance was acknowledged by the Vessel Owner. The Vessel was returned to Carter's facility for further work. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june99/97-7024.man.html">COOPER/T. SMITH, INC. V. NLRB (6/14/1999, NO. 97-7024)<BR></A><BR> That the NLRB should not have certified the union because the docking pilots are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972038.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lines 1 2 the language is corrected to read: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2004/032754p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was an officer and the sole shareholder of Nu Look Design. The Notice further advised that the IRS had determined that Nu Look was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1681.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> MacFadyen was on brief. Inc. were on brief. Was on brief. Asks us to determine whether summary judgment foreclosing his claim to certain real property was duly entered in the underlying civil forfeiture action. The second appeal is prosecuted by Peter's siblings. Who were successful claimants in the same forfeiture proceeding. Peter Beane was arrested and charged. Finding probable cause to believe that the property was subject to forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. 881(a)(7) (1982 & Supp. 1988). Which is used . . . in any manner or part. By reason of any act or omission established by that owner to have been committed or omitted without the knowledge or consent of that owner. 21 U.S.C. 881(a)(7) (1982 & Supp. 1988). 4 interest. Even before this judgment was obtained. Summary judgment's role is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5154.html">JAMES G. ROBINSON V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Samuel M. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief was <u>Richard Farber</u>. A provision that addresses deductions for employers who use property transfers (other than money) to compensate employees.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>That statute provides that the amount of the employer s deduction is equal to the amount included in the employee s gross income as a result of the transfer.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>The issue presented to us is whether the amount of the employer s deduction is the value of the transferred property that is includible in the employee s gross income as a matter of law or only the amount that is actually included in the employee s gross income.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>The Court of Federal Claims held that the amount of the employer s deduction under section 83(h) is limited to the value of the transferred property that is actually included in the employee s gross income. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2002/011717.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-5032.html">AMERICAN BROADCASTING V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul08/03-30389-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dismissing Martin's Jones Act suit on the ground that she was not a seaman because the floating casino upon which she worked was not a vessel. The TREASURE CHEST is a riverboat casino which was built in 1994 as a replica of a 19th Century paddle wheel steamer. The TREASURE CHEST is approximately 213 feet in length. The defendant moved for summary judgment on grounds that the TREASURE CHEST was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2392.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971160.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court subsequently determined that the Landowners did not have valid title to the Property from South Carolina. The Government then filed the instant action to have the Property condemned. Natural forces and the spoil deposits have converted the separate islands into a continuous piece of land attached to the South Carolina shore. 3 In 1952. Shall have the right to take immediate possession of said lands. Proceed with such public works thereon as have been authorized by Congress: Provided. That certain and adequate provision shall have been made for the payment of just compensation to the party or parties entitled thereto. 33 U.S.C.A. § 594 (emphasis added). 4 the condemnation action because it had obtained the perpetual Georgia Easement. The district court concluded that South Carolina exercised sovereignty over the Island on the date of the Georgia Easement and that the Government therefore never acquired a valid easement because Georgia did not have the right to convey such an interest. The district court granted the Government's motion to join Georgia as a party plaintiff on the ground that Georgia will have to pay any compensation owed to the Landowners for the condemnation. 3 3 Pursuant to the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1917. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></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-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/April1995/95a1021p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While six year old Urvashi was playing a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2A4579E6200EFD7388256A31005B4E76/$file/9915385.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Brown appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Lucky Stores and John Hunt on her claims that she was terminated because of her alcoholism in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1639.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It alleged that a shipment of cigars entrusted 2 Nos. 02 1639 and 02 1741 to Yellow Freight was damaged in transit. That none of the excepted causes under the Carmack Amendment were proven by Yellow Freight. That the damaged cartons were part of the shipment at issue in the case. National Insurance crossappeals the district court's determinations that the date of subrogation rather than the date of delivery of the damaged goods is the date of accrual for prejudgment interest and that prejudgment interest would be simple rather than compound. He noted that some of the cardboard box tops were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/02/061398P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The amount charged­the footage fees­is calculated annually based upon not only the number of linear feet of conduit installed by Level 3 within the City but also the number of active conduits within each linear foot. May prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service. 3 unable to provide to date because of the Agreement. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/03/031752P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Zbylut presented evidence that when there were not enough engine utilitymen working to comply with the vessel's Coast Guard Certificate. Even though the employee was not actually working in the engine room. Knowing that Zbylut's wife was Filipino and that Zbylut was president of a local PhilippineAmerican organization. Were generally unfriendly to him. In July 1999 Zbylut told supervisory personnel he was contemplating leaving Harvey's due to the harassment arising out of his complaints regarding the log books. Zbylut claimed he was constructively discharged for resisting orders to falsify log entries. The district court erred in not considering evidence he resigned because he was required to engage in illegal conduct. 1280 (1st Cir. 1993) (nothing in maritime law is at odds with state human rights statutes regarding handicapped rights). (2) the policy was undermined by discharging the employee. (3) the discharge was the result of engaging in the protected activity. (4) there was no other justification for the discharge. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/043401P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jurisdiction in the district court was proper based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. Jurisdiction on appeal is proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. Plan benefits were based on a $200 credit for each unused sick leave day. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F9697D946CA355A188256FB2007FCE0D/$file/0355754.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction to review the district court's preliminary injunction order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Only one is directly relevant here: a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962612.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We reverse and remand because we conclude that (1) the Administrative Law Judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr96/94-4583.opa.html">AMERICAN DREDGING CO. V. LAMBERT<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>American Dredging Co. v. We affirm the district court's ruling that American Dredging potentially is liable to the representatives for non pecuniary damages.<p> I. Where American Dredging was conducting a dredging operation. Which the dredge </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2000/99-2488.man.html">MID-S. HOLDING CO. V. UNITED STATES (9/1/2000, NO. 99-2488)<BR></A><BR> Acting on reports that the vessel was involved in narcotics trafficking. Was able to refloat the vessel. Abner was unable to refloat the vessel a second time. (2) Mid South did not have standing to bring the suit because it did not own the vessel at the time it was destroyed and therefore was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AEE79A75B71F13C388256E00005FB59B/$file/0157256.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The strike was called because the Corona bargaining unit believed that Standard Concrete was negotiating with Local 952 in bad faith. At issue in this case is whether the Orange County bargaining unit violated its Collective Bargaining Agreement ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></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-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2236.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> L.L.P.</U> were on brief. Was on brief. Is whether the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code. A principal reason behind this filing was a desire to avoid perfection of the Commonwealth's lien. Is one of the fundamental protections afforded to debtors by the bankruptcy laws. <U>Midatlantic Nat'l Bank</U> v. <U>N.J. It gives debtors breathing room by stopping collection efforts in their tracks and permitting their resumption only when the stay is lifted by the bankruptcy court or dissolved by operation of law. <U>Soares</U>. Or enforce any lien against property of the estate. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct98/97-4309.man.html">SEA SERVICES OF THE KEYS, INC. V. FLORIDA (10/2/1998, NO. 97-4309)<BR></A><BR> Chief Judge:</P> <P> The principal issue in this case is whether Florida may invoke Eleventh Amendment immunity in an <EM>in rem</EM> admiralty action when the <EM>res</EM> is not within the state's possession. Sea Tow determined that the boat was in peril of sinking. After the Florida Marine Patrol discovered that the boat did not have a required hull identification number (<EM>see</EM> Fla. Stat. §§ 328.07(3)(b) (permitting seizure of a boat that does not have a hull identification number as contraband property and subjecting it to forfeiture under the Act). Holding that Sea Tow's action was not against Florida. We disagree and affirm because: (1) Florida did not have lawful possession of the boat pursuant to the Act. </EM> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962399.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> USAS was a subcontractor for Appellee Boeing Middle East Limited ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2B0D789626D52E6288256F32007C4BAD/$file/0216585.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The United States Fish and Wildlife Service have violated numerous environmental and conservation oriented statutes. Background Fort Baker ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961818.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lawrence was a law firm founded in 1976 by Colonel Matthew Clary. It was named Clary. Clary Jr. was the majority stockholder of the firm. Was a minority shareholder with 42% of the stock. Clary Jr. was president. Clary III was vice president. Other partners were officers of the firm. In 1991 the outstanding debt was about $574. Sovran's debt was personally secured by Clary Jr. Lawrence is $271. Clary & Moore was founded in October 1990. Although it was called The Business Law Firm for the first couple of months. Clary III was the sole shareholder. All of the attorneys who would join Clary & Moore were still on the payroll of Clary. They were not officially hired at Clary & Moore until March 31. Services of staff members were also leased to Clary & Moore by Clary. That Clary & Moore's client list and the nature of its practice was substantially identical to that of Clary. Lawrence was dying while Clary & Moore was setting up shop. A public foreclosure sale was held in an attempt to raise enough capital to cover Clary. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/98-5245.htm">98-5245 -- HUTCHINSON V. PFEIL -- 04/04/2000<BR></A><BR> 1927.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec2000/99-11456.man.html">VENUS LINES AGENCY V. CVG INT'L AM. (12/4/2000, NO. 99-11456)<BR></A><BR> We decide whether there was sufficient mutual assent for the parties to form a valid new contract or modify an existing one. Also at issue are the application of the doctrine of laches to demurrage claims and the proper calculation of damages on demurrage claims.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2075.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Quetglas Jordan was on brief for appellant Luis Alfredo Alvarado. Quetglas Jordan was on brief for appellant Juan Eugenio Lorenzi Padilla. Were on brief for appellee. *Of the District of Rhode Island. Both appellants claim that there was insufficient evidence to establish that appellants intentionally possessed the cocaine with intent to distribute it and that there was insufficient evidence to show that the cocaine was imported into the customs territory of the United States. The suspect aircraft was heading northeast. The vessels were located approximately twenty miles southwest of Santa Isabel. Which is near Ponce. The pilot suspected that the string of lights he observed were chem lights. Which are often attached to narcotic airdrops for visibility. The vessels were traveling at about twenty to twenty five miles per hour in a northbound heading. Both vessels were traveling without navigation lights. The Nomad began a half mile orbit around the vessels and radioed the state 5 5 police that two vessels suspected of drug smuggling were headed towards the shore. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1774.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Judgment was entered by the district court in the amount of $99. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1048.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argued for appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june99/97-7024.man.html">COOPER/T. SMITH, INC. V. NLRB (6/14/1999, NO. 97-7024)<BR></A><BR> That the NLRB should not have certified the union because the docking pilots are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19942982.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The only interest of American Home Assurance in this appeal is that it is among the parties against whom costs were imposed by the arbitral panel. Is a spin off corporation of. MAN GHH was responsible for designing. A tail gas expander is essentially a turbine which generates electricity from waste gasses given off in the nitric acid manufacturing process. Are both wholly owned subsidiaries of Barnard and Burk Group. 4 3 2 providing technical guidance regarding its installation. Barnard and Burk was responsible for the piping required to put the expander into service. The tail gas expander was installed in the Tampa plant in late 1984 and early 1985. Parts of the expander were returned to Germany for repair and the piping was modified. The machine was rebuilt again and after further piping modifications. Arguing that the wrecks were caused by Barnard and Burk's poor design and defective piping. That the losses due to the wrecks therefore were not covered by the policy. Arguing inter alia that one of them had to pay for the remaining losses: if Barnard and Burk was at fault for the wrecks. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19942982.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Florida nitric acid manufacturing The only interest of American Home Assurance in this appeal is that it is among the parties against whom costs were imposed by the arbitral panel. Is a spin off corporation of. MAN GHH was responsible for designing. Barnard and Burk was responsible for the piping required to put the expander into service. The tail gas expander was installed in the Tampa plant in late 1984 and early 1985. This caused a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19945254.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that there were genuine issues of material facts concerning the alleged breach of the trading warranty which precluded the entry of a summary judgment. It was towed to Amuay. Barge </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-5105.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were J. With him on the brief were Emmett B. With him on the brief were Stuart E. The plaintiffs prevailed on their claim and were awarded damages for the breach. The common law rule is that a party generally may not collect its attorney fees from the loser. Each party is expected to bear its own attorney fees pursuant to the longstanding </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200508/03-1292a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Donald A. With him on the 2 brief were Cynthia A. Because PPL was not a party to the latter agreements. PPL does have standing to challenge the orders rejecting its own agreement. The rates they will charge for the transmission or sale of energy. FERC </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061577p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge What is required for a finding of probable cause within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment can be a difficult question. There is a misunderstanding as to what one of our decisions has held. We write to correct that misunderstanding by making clear that state or local law does not dictate the reasonableness of an arrest for purposes of a Fourth Amendment probable cause analysis a violation of state or local law is not. Probable cause exists when the totality of the circumstances within an officer's knowledge is sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to conclude that the person being arrested has committed or is committing an offense. We will. An eyewitness on the wharf phoned the Virgin Islands Police Department ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200505/05-5131a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the motion for injunction and summary reversal were Virginia A. With him on the response were Kenneth L. Hynes were on the response of amicus curiae Norfolk Southern Railway Company in support of the appellant. With him on the opposition were Robert J. With him on the opposition were Brian Boynton and James B. Act is emergency legislation. It was passed on only one reading by the D.C. Was not reviewed by the Congress and is effective for only 90 days. Act is invalid and an The D.C. Act provides that DCDOT may issue a permit for rail or motor carrier transportation otherwise banned only upon a showing that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1039.html">KEARFOTT GUIDANCE & NAVIGATION CORPORATION V. DONALD RUMSFELD<BR></A><BR> Argued for appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Samuel Paige</u>. Argued for appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Robert D. Assistant Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </spa </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1968.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Horstmann</U> were on brief. There was a falling out and the government indicted him. Those facts are by now old hat. This specification was augmented when the grand jury returned a second superseding indictment on August 1. Was a horse of a different hue. May have participated in four murders (dating back to 1967). Flemmi moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the government was playing fast and loose by employing the grand jury as a vehicle for trial preparation. That is. As a means to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2275.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Mariani Franco</SPAN> was on brief for appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb97/95-9425.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul08/03-30459-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dismissing Martin's Jones Act suit on the ground that she was not a seaman because the floating casino upon which she worked was not a vessel. The TREASURE CHEST is a riverboat casino which was built in 1994 as a replica of a 19th Century paddle wheel steamer. The TREASURE CHEST is approximately 213 feet in length. The defendant moved for summary judgment on grounds that the TREASURE CHEST was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053223np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the judgment of the District Court. Rodriguez Rijo was charged in a three count indictment with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine on board a vessel that was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They also discovered a piece of paper bearing a ten digit number that was later found to match the telephone number of a cellular phone seized from the Second Vessel. Which was less than one mile away from the First Vessel. Testified that he was supposed to be paid $10. Which was coming from St. Was occupied by Rodriguez Rijo and two others. Ending only after warning shots were fired from one of the police vessels in hot pursuit. They determined that Rodriguez Rijo was the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1410.html">DUPONT V. BRISTOL-MYERS<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2440.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Harnes</SPAN> were on brief. Glass</SPAN> were on brief. Sartory</SPAN> were on brief. Mass. 2003).</P> <P> GCX was a Delaware corporation that publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F2EFDB85D6B4C3EA88256BFA0058AD64/$file/0110374.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We must decide whether a sailboat was lawfully boarded in Lahaina Harbor by officers from three different agencies and whether its owner consented to a search of his vessel. David Todhunter was convicted of (1) possession of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844(a). The caller stated that (1) he was UNITED STATES v. (2) individuals on board the sailboat GANDALF moored in Lahaina Harbor were partying and taking drugs. Confirmed the presence in the harbor of a sailboat by that name and decided to board her to ensure that the GANDALF was complying with all federal rules and regulations. Because the Coast Guard was understaffed. Which was moored approximately 200 yards off the wharf. Believing the occupants of the vessel were then aboard and might take flight. He was accompanied by Petty Officer James Vareha and a coxswain from the Coast Guard and Hawaii Marine Patrol Deputy Nelson Alana. The district court noted that there was considerable dispute in the testimony regarding the exchange between Officer Wong and Todhunter. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200512220.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Steamship is a mutual insurance association that provided protection and indemnity ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb96/94-5254.opa.html">HILTON OIL TRANS. V. JONAS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hilton Oil Trans. v. We conclude that there were genuine issues of material facts concerning the alleged breach of the trading warranty which precluded the entry of a summary judgment. It was towed to Amuay. Barge </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov95/94-2214.opa.html">BANANA SERVS. V. M/V TASMAN STAR<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Banana Servs. v. BACKGROUND<p> <p> Navegantes is the owner and operator of the M/V TASMAN STAR. The cargo was accepted. The vessel was unable to properly refrigerate its cargo of bananas and plantains. Representatives of Star Reefers and Navegantes met to discuss what options were available to protect the perishable cargo. They unanimously agreed the fruit was unmarketable because the pulp temperature of the fruit exceeded industry standards. The shipper establishes a prima facie case by demonstrating the cargo was loaded in an undamaged condition. A clean bill of lading creates a rebuttable presumption the goods were delivered to the carrier in good condition and thus satisfies this element of the plaintiff's prima facie case. <i>Terman Foods. The burden of proof shifts to the carrier to demonstrate either (1) it exercised due diligence to prevent the cargo damage or (2) the damage was caused by an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001918.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bush </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar96/94-4574.opa.html">CENTRAL STATE TRANSIT & LEASING CORP. V. JONES BOAT YARD, INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Central State Transit & Leasing Corp. v. The court noted that the <i>Blackhawk</i> was documented and insured as a pleasure vessel and that the plaintiff had not lost any profits or incurred additional expenses while the vessel was being repaired. The plaintiff then perfected this appeal.<p> II.<p> <p> The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the district court's grant of partial summary judgment is not appealable. Although conceding that orders resolving the liabilities of the parties in admiralty actions are immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199914272.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199914272.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0E528E9398661A9F88256E5A00707AEC/$file/9915385.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Brown appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Lucky Stores and John Hunt on her claims that she was terminated because of her alcoholism in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb97/95-9425.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov95/94-2214.opa.html">BANANA SERVS. V. M/V TASMAN STAR<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Banana Servs. v. BACKGROUND<p> <p> Navegantes is the owner and operator of the M/V TASMAN STAR. The cargo was accepted. The vessel was unable to properly refrigerate its cargo of bananas and plantains. Representatives of Star Reefers and Navegantes met to discuss what options were available to protect the perishable cargo. They unanimously agreed the fruit was unmarketable because the pulp temperature of the fruit exceeded industry standards. The shipper establishes a prima facie case by demonstrating the cargo was loaded in an undamaged condition. A clean bill of lading creates a rebuttable presumption the goods were delivered to the carrier in good condition and thus satisfies this element of the plaintiff's prima facie case. <i>Terman Foods. The burden of proof shifts to the carrier to demonstrate either (1) it exercised due diligence to prevent the cargo damage or (2) the damage was caused by an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-9548.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. §§ 1153. In 1988 he was employed full time as a civilian air traffic controller working for the Department of Defense at Hill. In 1993 his ATCS certificate was reissued. Apparently only because there was no room for additional certifications and ratings on his old one. Newton's ATCS certificate and restricted him from performing air traffic control duties because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200115975.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> If the duty is breached. The stevedore must indemnify the shipowner for damages it is required to pay a longshoreman who is injured aboard its vessel. Is whether Ryan's holding (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/11575F252DF695A588256FBA0006EA63/$file/0316849.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleging that he was twice denied a promotion to the position of Production Resource Manager at the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard (hereinafter. Judgment was entered against Obrey. The Pearl Harbor Shipyard is one of four Navy shipyards operated by the Navy organizational unit. The applicants were rated in three categories. Obrey was 2612 OBREY v. The PRM position was subsequently offered to Ernest Chamberlain in the first round of hiring. Both of whom are Caucasian males and both of whom declined the offer. Recruitment was then cancelled. The Navy argues that the exclusion was proper but that. The error was harmless. We find that the district court's decision excluding this evidence was an abuse of discretion as to all. We further conclude that the error was not harmless. The hiring practice evidence at issue was compiled through discovery and included the hiring history of the Pearl Harbor Shipyard for the period 19992002. Dannemiller's report concludes that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200116485.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A version of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act which is no longer in effect. Probable cause is no longer a central issue in forfeiture proceedings. 484.00 in cash was the proceeds of. Or was otherwise connected to. The burden shifted to Stanford to establish by a preponderance of the evidence one of two affirmative defenses: either that the money was not the proceeds of illegal drug activity. Or that she was an innocent owner. Stanford herself was her only witness at trial. 484.00 in cash she was carrying was not connected to illegal drug activity. The court was not persuaded. 484.00 Stanford was carrying was substantially connected to an illegal drug transaction. The opinion also explained that Stanford had not thereafter satisfied her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec2000/99-11456.man.html">VENUS LINES AGENCY V. CVG INT'L AM. (12/4/2000, NO. 99-11456)<BR></A><BR> We decide whether there was sufficient mutual assent for the parties to form a valid new contract or modify an existing one. Also at issue are the application of the doctrine of laches to demurrage claims and the proper calculation of damages on demurrage claims.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200212453.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> District Judge: We are asked in this case to decide whether a district judge erred in sua sponte imposing F.R.Civ.P. 11 sanctions against a party for filing. Rules are not applied to defeat justice. The object of the entire thing is to try and get justice done. We will work it out just so long as it's in sufficient time so I can read it and know it and get to the point where I can try the case properly. Insisting that the motion could have been raised at trial and not in a motion filed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/opinions%20by%20date?OpenView&Start=1&Count=100&Expand=7.11#7.11">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3187.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. INTRODUCTION Defendant appellant Milan Matousek was convicted after a bench trial of conspiracy to transport and harbor aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1324. The improper (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Was arrested as part of an investigation by U.S. The investigation revealed this organization was operating in six to twelve states and involved approximately 750 illegal alien workers. Was working on a hog farm in Seneca. Kansas when he was arrested. The farm where Matousek worked was part of a large agricultural operationÄJ 6 Farms. The farm would fax an invoice to the employee leasing companies indicating which workers had worked how many hours and how much they were due to be paid. To have Matousek contact Preus. Matousek used his own car for these trips and was reimbursed approximately forty dollars per trip by Preus. On one occasion Matousek also paid for a night's stay at a hotel for the workers whom he was transporting. He was later reimbursed by Preus for this expense. There was also testimony that Federal Express records indicated Matousek received some of the paychecks from S&V Commercial Services and would then distribute them to the farm workers. <hr> One of the workers that Matousek transported was Michal Preclik. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr96/94-4583.opa.html">AMERICAN DREDGING CO. V. LAMBERT<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>American Dredging Co. v. We affirm the district court's ruling that American Dredging potentially is liable to the representatives for non pecuniary damages.<p> I. Where American Dredging was conducting a dredging operation. Which the dredge </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-6218.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs Plaintiffs are three related businesses that manufacture and distribute indoor tanning lotions. Is the exclusive distributor of Australian Gold. It is indoor tanning products. That are at issue in this lawsuit. <hr> distributors must agree to market. These agreements have generally prohibited distributors from selling Products over the internet or selling Products to anyone else who will sell them to the general public over the internet.(2) Plaintiffs enforce the integrity of these agreements by attempting to stem the flow of Products to businesses other than tanning salons. Have spent over $1 million on such efforts. Quality Tanning & Distributing LLC d/b/a/ United Domain Management are all businesses created by the Hatfields through which the Hatfields have resold Products over the internet. Because the Hatfields were aware that Plaintiffs objected to the sale of Products on the internet. By switching the original name of the business from </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1869.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. BACKGROUND</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1277.html">SWISHER INTERNATIONAL V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <U>Peter Buck Feller</U>. With him on the brief were <U>David W. With him on the brief were <U>George W. With him on the brief was <U>Robert . Is the proper basis of jurisdiction for this constitutional challenge to the application of the HMT to exports. The court ruled that a Customs Service decision to deny a refund request based on such a challenge was not a decision subject to protest under 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a) and thus cannot support Court of International Trade jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § . Since under the HMT regulation there is no time limit for filing a request for refund of the HMT. If its denial were protestable. The refund claims in the complaint would not have been dismissable. Given that Swisher had timely filed its protest and the subsequent Court of International Trade suit when the protest was denied. Was the exclusive jurisdictional basis for this suit. The court entered judgment for the United States on all of Swisher s claims that were barred by the two year statute of limitations applicable to that subsection. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc0MDhfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7408_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We are presented with a simple set of facts on this appeal. A shipper's goods were damaged in transit. While the facts are simple. The statutory and regulatory context in which this case arises is complex and presents a question that is one of first impression in this and other circuits. That question is whether 49 U.S.C. § 13906(a)(3) (2000) (amended 2005). We are faced on this appeal with a situation where two parallel channels leading to the harbor were merged into one to provide a wider and more navigable trench through 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 which all ships may travel. The question we must answer is whether it was permissible for the Harbor Master to continue to impose this requirement. show. These groups included the We think it was. As the following discussion will Inland Marine Underwriters Association in support of the insurer. That the agency's discretion is entitled to deference. It is necessary to establish the legislative and regulatory framework in which this appeal must be decided. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1207.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Varela</SPAN> were on brief for appellants.</SPAN> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2001/99-14272.man.html">BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS V. TOWN OF PALM BEACH (5/25/2001, NO. 99-14272)<BR></A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug96/95-4765.man_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200002/99-5304a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were David W. With him on the brief were Daniel J. Labson were on the brief for amicus curiae Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. Prywes were on the brief for amicus curiae American Civil Liberties Union of the National Capital Area. 1 a manufacturer must demon strate that its product is safe and effective for each of its intended uses. It will often be discovered after initial FDA approval. That a drug has uses other than those for which it was 1 For brevity's sake we use the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTI1NzAtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-2570-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-0.gif" ALT="58"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/04opinions/04-5013.html">HARBUCK V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Font family:Arial'><span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Peter D. <span class=SpellE>Keisler</span></u>. Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Lieutenant Colonel Paula J. <span class=SpellE>DeMuth</span></u>. The claims in the Court of Federal Claims are deemed to have been filed on the same date as the plaintiff filed her district court suit.<span sty