Search the opinions of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal

use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"

This collection has many hidden limitations. To find out what you're really searching, see the disclaimer .

Your query affirmative action returned 7415 results.

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

	OPINION/ORDER Hutchinson was a member of the original panel which heard argument in this appeal on January 24. Before the appeal was resolved. Chief Judge Sloviter was designated to serve in his place on the reconstituted panel. ** Judge Sarokin heard argument but retired from office prior to the issuance of the opinion. It is clear that the language of Title VII is violated when an employer makes an employment decision based upon an employee's race. That Title VII's prohibition against racial discrimination is not violated by affirmative action plans which first.
	BASS V. BD. OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (7/9/2001, NO. 99-10579) Is vacated. A number of positions were eliminated. One of which was held by Michael Bass. Bass received a layoff notice in September 1995.
	BASS V. BD. OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (7/9/2001, NO. 99-10579) Is vacated. A number of positions were eliminated. One of which was held by Michael Bass. Bass received a layoff notice in September 1995.
	OPINION/ORDER File Name: 00a0184p.06 University's affirmative action procedures and occurred while he was acting in his official position and consisted only of a letter and memos addressed to the president and other members of the Board of Trustees (of which plaintiff was a member as Vice President of Human Relations). I think that the University had a significant interest in regulating the speech to make certain that it was presented in the most informative and helpful manner. I believe that in this situation the plaintiff's speech is not entitled to First Amendment protections. Who is African American. Was employed by the University of Cincinnati (
	BASS V. BD. OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (2/21/2001, NO. 99-10579) A number of positions were eliminated. One of which was held by Michael Bass. Bass received a layoff notice in September 1995.
	BASS V. BD. OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (2/21/2001, NO. 99-10579) A number of positions were eliminated. One of which was held by Michael Bass. Bass received a layoff notice in September 1995.
	OPINION/ORDER He was denied entry. The Kamehameha Schools were created through a charitable testamentary trust. Plaintiff argues that he was denied admission because of his race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Factual Background Historical Context2 The islands of Hawaii are geographically isolated in the South Pacific Ocean and were originally settled sometime between 1 and 750 A.D. The immediate result of that first encounter was that Native Hawaiians were introduced to Western goods and Western diseases. The first treaty was signed in 1826. Additional treaties were signed in 1849. Was commercially desirable. Western economic domination of the Hawaiian Islands was followed by an interest in establishing political control. Was overthrown by a small group of nonHawaiians. Who were assisted in their efforts by the United States Minister. Laws were then enacted suppressing the Hawaiian culture and language and allowing for the displacement of Native Hawaiians from their lands. The Hawaiian language was banned as a medium of instruction in schools.
	OPINION/ORDER National Union and Gulf sought to rescind insurance policies which they had issued and under which City Savings and the RTC were seeking coverage. National Union and Gulf were jurisdictionally barred from raising certain affirmative defenses to the RTC's counterclaim. We will affirm the district court's holding that under FIRREA the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over National Union and Gulf's declaratory judgment action. We will reverse the district court's holding that under FIRREA National Union and Gulf are barred from raising affirmative defenses to the counterclaim. Sent a letter to National Union and Gulf providing notice that City Federal might have suffered a loss covered by the insurance policies as a result of dishonest or fraudulent acts of City Federal employees. City Federal was declared insolvent by the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision (
	OPINION/ORDER That it should have dismissed his VEVRA claim for money damages for lack of jurisdiction. We will affirm in part. I. Antol is employed by the Defense Logistics Agency as a Budget Assistant. He is also a veteran of the United States Army. There were two positions available in this job classification. Who each hold a college degree but are not disabled veterans. Antol was informed on November 18. Claiming that he was not selected for the promotion based on his disability. Antol contends that the Agency discriminated against him because he is disabled and violated VEVRA when. He also contends generally that the Agency did not select him for the position because he is disabled. Because the two successful candidates were female. We view the evidence de novo and in the light most favorable to the non moving party to determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact and. Whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. If the evidence is merely colorable or not significantly probative.
	OPINION/ORDER The concept of a tangible employment action is distinct from that of a materially adverse employment action which is a necessary element of a prima facie case under Title VII. Courts have yet to address the differences between them. It is worth noting generally that because Ellerth and Faragher create a rule of strict liability. A tangible employment action was also defined by reference to a non exclusive list of possible actions:
	DANSKINE V. MIAMI DADE FIRE DEP'T (6/12/2001, NO. 99-14493) Those aspects of the plan have long since been terminated. It is that aspect of the plan which we consider today.
	DANSKINE V. MIAMI DADE FIRE DEP'T (6/12/2001, NO. 99-14493) Those aspects of the plan have long since been terminated. It is that aspect of the plan which we consider today.
	OPINION/ORDER In which Judge Wilson joined. *Judge Murnaghan 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). 2 DEA v. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Dea died and his estate was substituted as the appellant pursuant to Fed. Dea is entitled to judgment in his favor. The Commission's service is big business. It is this transfer which gave rise to this litigation. Dea's direct supervisor was Stephen Profilet. The Commission's General Manager was Richard Hocevar. Was not a white male. When Profilet learned that Miss Lucci was not on his short list for second interviews. Which was to promote a qualified minority candidate if one was available even though that candidate was not the best qualified for the job. 4 DEA v. Dea was transferred in April 1990 to a newly created position. Dea alleges that the district court committed clear error in determining 1) that he lacked both a good faith belief and a reasonable basis for a good faith belief that the Commissions's affirmative action policies were unlawful under Title VII.
	OPINION/ORDER With her on the briefs was George M. With her on the brief were Kenneth L. Per Curiam: This cause was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Was briefed and argued by counsel. It is hereby Ordered and Adjudged that the judgment of the District Court is affirmed. Who is employed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief.
	ENG'G CONTRACTORS ASS'N OF SOUTH FLORIDA V. METRO. DADE COUNTY This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Eng'g Contractors Ass'n of South Florida v. Is drawn primarily from the district court's thorough opinion. UNDISPUTED FACTS<p> <p> Three affirmative action programs enacted by the Dade County Board of Commissioners are at issue in this appeal: (1) the Black Business Enterprise ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="887"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept97/96-5274.man.html">ENG'G CONTRACTORS ASS'N OF SOUTH FLORIDA V. METRO. DADE COUNTY<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Eng'g Contractors Ass'n of South Florida v. Is drawn primarily from the district court's thorough opinion. UNDISPUTED FACTS<p> <p> Three affirmative action programs enacted by the Dade County Board of Commissioners are at issue in this appeal: (1) the Black Business Enterprise ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="837"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/02a0170p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bollinger Page 3 appeal the district court's determination that the Law School's consideration of race and ethnicity in its admissions decisions violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.1 The Law School contends that its interest in achieving a diverse student body is compelling under Regents of the University of California v. That its admissions policy is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The Law School is joined by the Intervenors: forty one individuals and three student groups. The policy states that the Law School's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="832"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AD352B54CA55A99688256A2B005CE63C/$file/9915895.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We affirm because we conclude that the district court did not err in determining that the California Supreme Court will hold that an employer can assert an affirmative defense under certain circumstances to a claim that a supervisor has sexually harassed the plaintiff in violation of FEHA. I Kohler was employed as a project coordinator with InterTel from August 18. InterTel is a single source provider of telephone. Kohler was responsible for programming telephone systems at customer sites and training customers on how to use the Inter Tel telephone system. Saying </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="832"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CDCC3B9E1F72B2D488256E5A00707AE0/$file/9915895.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We affirm because we conclude that the district court did not err in determining that the California Supreme Court will hold that an employer can assert an affirmative defense under certain circumstances to a claim that a supervisor has sexually harassed the plaintiff in violation of FEHA. I Kohler was employed as a project coordinator with InterTel from August 18. InterTel is a single source provider of telephone. Kohler was responsible for programming telephone systems at customer sites and training customers on how to use the Inter Tel telephone system. Saying </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/04opinions/04-1118.html">THE CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC., V. SKYLINK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>John F. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Andra Barmash Greene</u>. Communications Industry Association.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Matthew Schruers</u>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso bidi font s </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="791"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTYzMjgtY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/04-6328-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="791"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2205.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 9. Replace </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="791"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/00-1145.htm">00-1145 -- CONCRETE WORKS OF COLORADO INC. V. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER -- 02/10/2003<BR></A><BR> Denver has amended the ordinance twice since this lawsuit was initiated but it remains essentially unchanged for purposes of this case. <p> In 1993. A bench trial was held and the district court entered judgment in favor of CWC on its claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. <em>See Concrete Works of Colorado. CWC's entitlement to damages was reserved and the district court directed entry of judgment under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. <em>See</em> <em>id</em>. at 1044. Anecdotal evidence which are discussed respectively in subsections IV.A. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="791"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTYzMjgtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-6328-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="785"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052005p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the judgment of the District Court. He was sentenced to 23 months of probation. He was to have no contact with his 12 year old victim and no unsupervised contact with any other minor. Koschalk was under the supervision of Westmoreland County Adult Probation Department and three of its employees defendants Tami Whalen. A formal violation document alleging the above unauthorized contact was signed by Probation Officer Richard Yesko for Probation Officer Whelan. 19. A Petition to Revoke Defendant Koschalk's probation was filed through Defendant District Attorney's office by and through an assistant district attorney. 21. The Westmoreland County Court Administrator's Office issued a notice that a hearing on the Petition for Revocation was scheduled for August 28. Officer Franzaglio had some familiarity with the case because he was the prosecuting officer in the proceeding against Koschalk stemming from his crime against the 12 year old. Before his probation revocation hearing was scheduled. The homicide was directly and proximately caused by the affirmative acts and/or the deliberate indifference and/or failure to enforce. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="785"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0070p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Page 2 separates this calamity from many others is that police officers from the City of Lincoln Park. The depravity of the fact pattern often is enough to make </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkyNDItY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9242-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that judgment as a matter of law was inappropriate as to the hostile work environment claim because 1) the plaintiff appellant alleged harassment sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of her employment and a sufficient basis for imputing the offending conduct to her employer. 2) the defendants were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on an affirmative defense as to which they bore the burden of proof. We conclude that judgment as a matter of law was appropriate as to the plaintiff appellant's retaliation Decided: June 14. Greta Fairbrother presented significant evidence of sexual harassment that was sharply disputed by her employer. The following facts are either undisputed. Whiting is divided into six units. Forensic Treatment Specialists are assigned to work on specific units during one of three specific shifts. Fairbrother was the only female working the second shift on Unit One. Unit One was permeated with hostility toward her. Much of it was of a sexual nature. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/07/033058P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. 1 This case asks whether an employer is strictly liable for a single incident of supervisor sexual harassment.2 Jamie McCurdy (McCurdy). The employer was not previously on notice of the alleged harasser's prior like conduct or propensity to act. The employer is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Surely this is what Title VII expects of employers. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="774"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1999/985356.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Schurr alleged that race was the determining factor in Resorts' decision not to offer him a job which was ultimately filled by an equally well qualified minority candidate. Has been substituted for Smith. 2 Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by the Commission's regulations establishing minority employment goals. Schurr also alleged that Resorts' affirmative action plan as drafted and applied was invalid. Because we are convinced that the District Court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Schurr's Title VII and other statutory claims. We will reverse that portion of the District Court's Order and remand the matter for further proceedings. We will affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Chairman on standing grounds. Minorities and persons with disabilities are recruited and employed at all levels of the operation's work force and treated during employment without regard to their gender. Equal opportunity efforts are to be undertaken in all employment practices including promotion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="772"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FFA62A804D286BDB88256D8300581A06/$file/0156050.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> She was forced to engage in sexual relations with Stephen Wiggins. Although she was never told that she would be fired. Holly D. asserts that there was an implication that her continued employment depended on her complying with the professor's unwelcome sexual advances. We join the Second Circuit in holding that a plaintiff who contends that she was coerced into performing unwanted sex HOLLY D. v. Even when the supervisor is the person who engaged in the underlying wrongful conduct. Because different and complex issues of state law are presented by the other claims contested on appeal. She was promoted to Senior Division Assistant for Professor Stephen Wiggins in Caltech's Control Dynamic Systems department. On occasion showed her pornographic websites although he would eventually cease these activities when Holly D. told him that she was not interested. If Wiggins were to request that she engage in sex with him. She would have to comply in order to keep her job. The circumstances surrounding the liaison are hotly contested. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="765"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7ACE985610E84B3188256ED900685F91/$file/0235805.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> WILL ACKLES. North Puget Sound Presbytery (together the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="759"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/01-4009.htm">01-4009 -- SOUTHERN UTAH WILDERNESS ALLIANCE V. NORTON -- 08/29/2002<BR></A><BR> The district court reasoned that as long as an agency is taking some action toward fulfilling mandatory. The court concluded that the BLM did not abuse its discretion in determining that a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) was not necessary based on new information about increased ORV use. <p> Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="754"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1310_041A.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Yorli Huff brought this action for damages for race and sex discrimination that she claimed to have suffered during her employment with the Sheriff's Department of Cook County. Huff was employed by the Cook County Sheriff's Department and was assigned to the Metropolitan Enforcement Group ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/10/01-1053a.htm">01-1053 -- GONZALES V. CITY OF CASTLE ROCK -- 10/15/2002<BR></A><BR> Gonzales alleged that plaintiffs' substantive and procedural due process rights were violated when defendant police officers failed to enforce a restraining order against her estranged husband. Gonzales was seeking enforcement of the order. The order was entered into the central registry of restraining orders. The order was served on Mr. Gonzales was excluded from the family home and was prohibited from molesting or disturbing the peace of Ms. Simon Gonzales abducted the three girls while they were playing outside their house. Gonzales discovered the children were gone. Officers Brink and Ruisi were sent to the Gonzales home. The Officers </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1053.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The mandate is issued forthwith. Gonzales alleged that plaintiffs' substantive and procedural due process rights were violated when defendant police officers failed to enforce a restraining order against her estranged husband. Gonzales was seeking enforcement of the order. The order was entered into the central registry of restraining orders. The order was served on Mr. Gonzales was excluded from the family home and was prohibited from molesting or disturbing the peace of Ms. Simon Gonzales abducted the three girls while they were playing outside their house. Gonzales discovered the children were gone. Officers Brink and Ruisi were sent to the Gonzales home. The Officers </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F3398DF0F5B7CAC288256D5E00785FB2/$file/0136172.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Save Our Valley argues that the project will have the effect of discriminating against Rainier Valley residents based on race in violation of a Department of Transportation regulation. The primary question before us is whether that Department of Transportation regulation creates an individual federal right that can be enforced under the Civil Rights Act. I The Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="746"></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-7.gif" ALT="739"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/09/97-1304.htm">97-1304 -- ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS INC. V. SLATER -- 09/25/2000<BR></A><BR> We are just one race here. It is American. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="739"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3316.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Robinson was hired as a judicial secretary to Judge Warren Sappington. Was later reclassified as a judicial clerk. As well as attending court with the judge to whom she was assigned. Was named as an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961814A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is an authority constrained by no less a power than that of the People themselves. The constitution is written. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="730"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0385n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The City defendants were granted summary judgment. We also find that the plan was narrowly tailored. We affirm the district court's finding that the claims are without sufficient support in the record. Only the evidence involving the CPD's hiring history will be reviewed. C72 1088 and C77 346 were consolidated. 1 2 examination discriminated against minorities. The district court also found that the examinations were not validated for job performance. The district court's conclusion was buttressed by the historical workforce disparities between minorities and non minorities. The 18% rate was equal to the percentage of examination passers who were minorities. The district court directed the defendants to create an examination that was job related. Approximately 39.5% were minorities. It would take another look at whether the City was engaging in racial discrimination. The parties stipulated that the CPD would utilize </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1040.html">CORPUS GROUOP PLC, ET AL. V. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, ET AL.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Peter Lichtenbaum</u> and <u>Troy H. Argued for defendant appellee United States International Trade Commission.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>Lyn M. With him on the brief was <u>David M. For defendants appellees.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Jeanne E. 2002) ( Judgment ).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The appellants named as defendants in this case are George W. Line height:200%'><span style='font weight:normal'>The appellants argue that the President acted beyond his delegated authority because the International Trade Commission ( the Commission ) was not evenly divided and thus could not trigger the President s authority to impose the duty under the Trade Act of 1974 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="726"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992389A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> OPINION PER CURIAM: This case was argued before the en banc Court on February 27. (2) holding that the establishment of a magnet schools program was an ultra vires. King and Gregory in the affirmative) attorneys' fees for work done on the unitary status issue are denied. Nominal damages and attorneys' fees in that regard are denied. The injunction is vacated. The imposition of sanctions is affirmed. The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed on the finding of unitary status and the imposition of sanctions. The judgment of the district court vacating and dissolving all prior injunctive orders and decrees is affirmed. The Board is to operate the school system without the strictures of these decrees no later than the 2002 2003 school year. Circuit Judge: This case is hopefully the final chapter in the saga of federal court control over the Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="724"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012419.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Since this is an interlocutory appeal. Filed even before the parties have completed discovery. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="720"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1998/98a1999a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> * Circuit Judges ORDER AMENDING SLIP OPINION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the slip opinion in the above case. 1998 Judge Seitz heard argument in this matter but was unable to clear the opinion. 2 CORRECTED REPRINT Filed November 12. D.C. 20006 Judge Seitz heard argument in this matter but was unable to clear the opinion. 2 GARY R. We will affirm the District Court's decertification order and its grant of summary judgment. 6 I. Ciaran McNally are Pennsylvania residents who began smoking cigarettes before the age of 15 and have smoked for many years. The defendants are The American Tobacco Company. Inc. have been dismissed from this action without prejudice. Industries p.l.c. was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction by order of the District Court dated June 21. Finding that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6991788B7688EED2882571290081703C/$file/0335333.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Shields is not entitled to qualified immunity. I. Introduction The following initial facts are undisputed. There are indeed facts which the parties dispute. She told Shields that the Burns family was unstable. Though the investigation concluded he was not responsible. RIDGEFIELD 2233 handling the case that she was anxious to have the investigation started. The officer responsible for the case was out. Shields claims he did so because the Burns house was on the way to the Kennedy's. Kennedy called a friend because she was very frightened of what Michael's and his mother's reactions would be. Shields had told her Angela was very angry after their conversation and that she and Michael had begun to yell at one another. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. We must then determine whether Shields is entitled to such immunity. Conclude we have jurisdiction to determine whether the trial court erred in holding Shields was not entitled to qualified immunity. [1] As a general rule. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1998/98a1999p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> D.C. 20006 Judge Seitz heard argument in this matter but was unable to clear the opinion. 2 GARY R. We will affirm the District Court's decertification order and its grant of summary judgment. 6 I. Ciaran McNally are Pennsylvania residents who began smoking cigarettes before the age of 15 and have smoked for many years. The defendants are The American Tobacco Company. Inc. have been dismissed from this action without prejudice. Industries p.l.c. was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction by order of the District Court dated June 21. Finding that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="715"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/99-8008.htm">99-8008 -- MILE HIGH INDUSTRIES V. COHEN -- 08/18/2000<BR></A><BR> The Promissory Note provided: <p> This note is executed subject to the terms of those certain agreements concerning the sale and lease of the real property pledged as security for this note. <em>In the event that the named payee of this note [Mile High] ... defaults under the terms of the lease agreement</em> ... <em>then no further payments are required to be made hereunder and any remaining balance due is. Cohen to Mile High provided: <p> This mortgage is executed subject to the terms of those certain agreements concerning the sale and lease of the real property herein described. <em>In the event the Mortgagee [Mile High] ... defaults under the terms of the lease agreement ... <em>then no further payments are required to be made under the terms of the note secured by this mortgage. Any remaining balance due is. No payments will be due to [Mile High] on said note. <p> The Lease Agreement required Mile High to pay $11. Cohen: <p> Jefferson Standard is not willing to release their Mortgage even though I escrow the money. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1517.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Luckerman</SPAN> was on brief. Russell</SPAN> was on brief. Were on brief. We reverse.</SPAN></P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="709"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BD7EC45CE5FFA89B88257065005746B3/$file/0371439.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that the EPA did have the authority to consider jeopardy to listed species in making the transfer decision. The EPA's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The state transfer provisions of § 1342(b) have proven popular. Arizona was the forty fifth state to obtain pollution permitting authority from the EPA. If the Administrator determines that the state is not following those standards. Each agency must </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="709"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/09/061970P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs were hired by the City of Ladue Police Department ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="709"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2001/99-12623.man.html">BYRNE V. NEZHAT (8/14/2001, NO. 99-12623)<BR></A><BR> This is a simple medical malpractice case. It was brought. The discovery was to determine whether plaintiff's counsel had conducted an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="709"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2001/99-12623.man.html">BYRNE V. NEZHAT (8/14/2001, NO. 99-12623)<BR></A><BR> This is a simple medical malpractice case. It was brought. The discovery was to determine whether plaintiff's counsel had conducted an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2EA12EAE1E7DD7C488256D1600736A46/$file/9936086.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is withdrawn and the attached opinion is ORDERED filed. The full court was advised of the petitions for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing and the petitions for rehearing en banc are DENIED. The action was brought in 1998 by a class of approximately 15. P. 23(a) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-1061.htm">98-1061 -- YAPP V. EXCEL CORP. -- 08/03/1999<BR></A><BR> After the first case was settled and an Order of Dismissal with Prejudice was entered. Yapp's appeal is primarily a challenge to that summary judgment. Colorado from 1987 until he was terminated in 1995. Excel removed the Wrongful Discharge Action to the same federal district court in which the Overtime Action was pending. Arguing that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0CFE7744A3DD584188256C7D00041477/$file/9936086.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The action was brought in 1998 by a class of approximately 15. P. 23(a) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="698"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may98/97-9381.man.html">LOPS V. LOPS (5/7/1998, NO. 97-9381)<BR></A><BR> Petitioner Initiates Divorce And Custody Proceedings In Germany</EM></P> <P> Petitioner and Respondent Lops were married in Germany in June 1991. Petitioner initiated divorce and custody proceedings in the German family court for the district that was the marital and habitual residence of the parties. Judge Giwitz's letter further states that Respondent Lops dispelled these concerns by arguing that he was firmly rooted in Germany and had no further connection with the United States.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="698"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may98/97-9381.man.html">LOPS V. LOPS (5/7/1998, NO. 97-9381)<BR></A><BR> Petitioner Initiates Divorce And Custody Proceedings In Germany</EM></P> <P> Petitioner and Respondent Lops were married in Germany in June 1991. Petitioner initiated divorce and custody proceedings in the German family court for the district that was the marital and habitual residence of the parties. Judge Giwitz's letter further states that Respondent Lops dispelled these concerns by arguing that he was firmly rooted in Germany and had no further connection with the United States.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="694"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034220p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs are persons who borrowed from the two banks and signed second mortgages. Appellees in this case are the settling parties. Appellants are a number of law firms and plaintiff class members who challenge the District Court's jurisdiction. The alleged mastermind of the scheme was the Shumway Organization ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/56AADC244F5CA8D1882571B50058CA48/$file/0535178.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Requires consultation with the Secretary of the Interior or Secretary of Commerce if there is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F1DFB6D5FB7488388825710E007B4810/$file/0335906.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: Add as a new paragraph after footnote 1 (slip op. 82): There may be circumstances where an employer's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="683"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F289586BDE3003F38825721900041998/$file/0535178.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Slip opinion at 8183 and published at 456 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2006) is amended as follows: Page 8188 of the slip opinion. MATEJKO Add </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAxLTYyNDgtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/01-6248-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A liberal reading of Dotson's pro se appellate brief suggests that he raises the following challenges to the judgment of dismissal: (1) the district court should not have ruled 2 on the dismissal motion without hearing oral argument. (5) the court erred in ruling that Dotson's Bivens claim for money damages and his equitable action for reinstatement were precluded by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E252B9BFD64B1D5F88256C8700818C56/$file/0115287.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We nonetheless reverse and remand because the question whether the adjustments were more than remedial raises a factual issue that cannot. Northern Arizona University ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/18FFEF170766D6AC88256AEF005A703E/$file/9855056.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Will & Emery. We are called upon to determine whether. Those cleanup costs were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E81DBF41AAD2A0F188256E5A00707D25/$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-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2001/99-13958.man.html">FREDERICK V. SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT CO. (4/4/2001, NO. 99-13958)<BR></A><BR> The following account is drawn from the parties' deposition testimony and supporting materials. She was transferred to the Call Before You Dig Department ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/164F3F0966B78CC388257028008029A9/$file/0335333.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Defendant Noel Shields appeals the district court's ruling that he is not entitled to summary judgment against Plaintiff Kimberly Kennedy's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. Conclude the district court correctly determined that Shields is not entitled to qualified immunity. Kennedy claims to have warned Shields of Michael Burns's violent tendencies at the September 6 meeting. She told Shields that the Burns family was unstable and that she had seen a lot of violence in their home. It is undisputed that Shields had no contact with Kennedy between the September 6 meeting and September 24. That the investigation concluded that he was not responsible. Kennedy asserts that she expressed concerns about her safety and told the CAIC officer handling the investigation that she was anxious to have the investigation started. The content of this message is disputed. There was a message from Kennedy inquiring about his contact with Angela Burns and the status of the molestation case. The officer responsible for the case was out so Shields left a message. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/477360948A891CF0882570EE0050F358/$file/0335906.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: Add to end of footnote 1 (p. 14898): The dissent also analyzes the potential legal effect of EEOC enforcement guidance. This guidance was never cited by Hardage in any of his briefs. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7049DC22B6F8164F882570AB0074A65A/$file/0335906.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court concluded that CBS was entitled to assert an affirmative defense to liability based on the Supreme Court's decisions in Burlington Industries. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. He was promoted to Local Sales Manager in February of 2000. Both Hardage and Stauffer were supervised by Patty Dean. Who was in turn supervised by defendant Sparks. Hardage contends he was sexually harassed by Sparks on several occasions and subjected to retaliation after he rejected her advances. That he is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2001/99-13958.man.html">FREDERICK V. SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT CO. (4/4/2001, NO. 99-13958)<BR></A><BR> The following account is drawn from the parties' deposition testimony and supporting materials. She was transferred to the Call Before You Dig Department ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B3F216ECA850F0598825707A004DCC31/$file/0335333.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That sentence is now replaced with: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0476p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The proposal was scheduled to go into effect on December 23. At stake today is whether the federal courts should permit this state initiative to go into effect or whether we should preliminarily enjoin it in part in the part. That is. Uncertainty about the law's impact on current admissions policies and uncertainty about changing admissions policies in the middle of the current enrollment season we are unable to identify any tenable basis under federal law for suspending the law's enforcement. We have no choice but to permit its enforcement in accordance with the state law framework that gave it birth. I. Legal and policy debates about admissions preferences in the university setting are not new to the people of Michigan. The executive director of which is Jennifer Gratz. Fourth: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06A0476P-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The proposal was scheduled to go into effect on December 23. At stake today is whether the federal courts should permit this state initiative to go into effect or whether we should preliminarily enjoin it in part in the part. That is. Uncertainty about the law's impact on current admissions policies and uncertainty about changing admissions policies in the middle of the current enrollment season we are unable to identify any tenable basis under federal law for suspending the law's enforcement. We have no choice but to permit its enforcement in accordance with the state law framework that gave it birth. I. Legal and policy debates about admissions preferences in the university setting are not new to the people of Michigan. The executive director of which is Jennifer Gratz. Fourth: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982129.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is assertedly autonomous and does not perform government contract work. Is not subject to the reporting requirements. The Secretary of Labor is authorized to enforce nondiscrimination and affirmative action obligations on parties to government contracts. A covered contractor must </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A294DE38BC83F75B88257051005488B8/$file/0415044.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Kamehameha Schools have operated as the charitable legacy of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop. The Kamehameha Schools give preference to students who are of native Hawaiian ancestry. Attendance at the Kamehameha Schools is effectively limited to those descended from the Hawaiian race. The issue considered here is a significant one in our statutory civil rights law: May a private. Purposefully exclude a student qualified for admission solely because he is not of pure or part aboriginal blood? The parties agree that this is a case of first impression in our circuit. He argues that he was denied entry to the Kamehameha Schools because of his race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. I The facts are not in dispute. Nonsectarian schools which are dispersed among the Hawaiian Islands. KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS 8927 The school system was founded in 1887 under a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTA5NTctY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0957-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BACKGROUND The history of this case is reported in the opinion and order of the District Court. Among the victims were ninety two Austrians. Alleging that the train and tunnel were improperly designed. Plaintiffs asked the District Court to certify this class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3).2 A funicular railway is a cable railway ascending a mountain. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3F5E232E4D3AD0AA88256AD2005897C0/$file/9956038.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Beal asserts that the bankruptcy and district courts incorrectly concluded that Crystal was not required to pay interest at the default rate on seven defaulted loans Beal acquired from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001650.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 3 the citation to Ellerth is corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D778D1BC8A52880C88256E5A00707CE7/$file/9956038.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Beal asserts that the bankruptcy and district courts incorrectly concluded that Crystal was not required to pay interest at the default rate on seven defaulted loans Beal acquired from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1097.html">U.S. V. CHERRY HILL TEXTILES, INC.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/98-1085.htm">98-1085 -- HENO V. SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT COMPANY -- 04/03/2000<BR></A><BR> Judgment was entered against Sprint. Remand for a new trial. <p> <center><u>Background</u></center> <p> Plaintiff Andrea Heno is a woman of mixed racial background (Creole and other) who principally identifies herself as a black person. Was promoted to senior sales representative. Her immediate supervisor in the sales department was Don Libby. Ordway was selected for the position. Heno was away from the office on sick leave and short term disability. The only issues to go to the jury were the Title VII failure to promote claim against Sprint. They determined that race was not a motivating factor in Mr. He was not liable. The district court determined that it was inappropriate to give an award for both Title VII and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1984.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> S</SPAN> and <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992389.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As follows: On page 3 the list of amici curiae is corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19986598.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The lawsuit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. I. The factual and procedural history surrounding this case are straightforward. An English only Amendment to the Alabama Constitution was ratified. Amendment 509 states: English is the official language of the state of Alabama. The legislature and officials of the state of Alabama shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama is preserved and enhanced. Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the state of Alabama shall have standing to sue the state of Alabama to enforce this amendment. The courts of record of the state of Alabama shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this provision. Other interpretive aids were officially forbidden. Naming Sandoval as the representative of the class of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19986598.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The lawsuit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The factual and procedural history surrounding this case are straightforward. An English only Amendment to the Alabama Constitution was ratified. Amendment 509 states: English is the official language of the state of Alabama. The legislature and officials of the state of Alabama shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama is preserved and enhanced. Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the state of Alabama shall have standing to sue the state of Alabama to enforce this amendment. The courts of record of the state of Alabama shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this provision. Other interpretive aids were officially forbidden. Naming Sandoval as the representative of the class of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov99/98-6598.man.html">SANDOVAL V. HAGAN (11/30/1999, NO. 98-6598)<BR></A><BR> The lawsuit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. We affirm the district court's judgment.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The factual and procedural history surrounding this case are straightforward. An English only Amendment to the Alabama Constitution was ratified. Amendment 509 states:</P> <P> English is the official language of the state of Alabama. The legislature and officials of the state of Alabama shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama is preserved and enhanced. The legislature shall make no law which diminishes or ignores the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama.</P> <P> Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the state of Alabama shall have standing to sue the state of Alabama to enforce this amendment. The courts of record of the state of Alabama shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this provision. Other interpretive aids were officially forbidden. Naming Sandoval as the representative of the class of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov99/98-6598.man.html">SANDOVAL V. HAGAN (11/30/1999, NO. 98-6598)<BR></A><BR> The lawsuit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. We affirm the district court's judgment.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The factual and procedural history surrounding this case are straightforward. An English only Amendment to the Alabama Constitution was ratified. Amendment 509 states:</P> <P> English is the official language of the state of Alabama. The legislature and officials of the state of Alabama shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama is preserved and enhanced. The legislature shall make no law which diminishes or ignores the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama.</P> <P> Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the state of Alabama shall have standing to sue the state of Alabama to enforce this amendment. The courts of record of the state of Alabama shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this provision. Other interpretive aids were officially forbidden. Naming Sandoval as the representative of the class of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2000/99-12951.man.html">RICE-LAMAR V. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE (11/8/2000, NO. 99-12951)<BR></A><BR> Are seven City Departments: Police. Each Department is comprised of several Divisions. One such Division within each of the Departments is the Personnel Division.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-4147_025.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that Agency was not entitled to recover costs attributable to certain claims because those claims were not covered by an insurance policy Pacific issued to Agency. Agency came forward with sufficient evidence that Pacific's policy should have covered an estoppel claim made 2 Nos. 04 4147 & 05 1471 against Agency in the underlying litigation. Facts Agency is an intergovernmental cooperative. It consists of member Illinois school districts and is organized to provide joint self insurance for the member school districts. There are two insurance policies at issue in this case. The first is a general liability insurance policy ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2000/99-12951.man.html">RICE-LAMAR V. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE (11/8/2000, NO. 99-12951)<BR></A><BR> Are seven City Departments: Police. Each Department is comprised of several Divisions. One such Division within each of the Departments is the Personnel Division.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200313540.opn3.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We agree that Dadeland is not yet entitled to attorneys' fees under the applicable Florida statute. Issues of this case are summarized in our previous opinion. Who acted as the sureties on a performance bond issued in connection with a shopping center that Dadeland was developing. A number of structural and design defects were subsequently discovered with the development. Was bound to that award to the extent that the principal. Was bound. Paul was collaterally estopped from raising defenses that had been raised and disposed of in the earlier arbitration proceeding. As is discussed subsequently. Florida's Insurance Code allows an insured person to bring an unfair trade action against an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200313540.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Issues of this case are summarized in our previous opinion. Who acted as the sureties on a performance bond issued in connection with 2 a shopping center that Dadeland was developing. A number of structural and design defects were subsequently discovered with the development. Was bound to that award to the extent that the principal. Was bound. Paul was collaterally estopped from raising defenses that had been raised and disposed of in the earlier arbitration proceeding. Summary judgment is appropriate where </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061034p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is the State's affirmative act of restraining the individual's freedom to act on his own behalfthrough incarceration. Or other similar restraint of personal libertywhich is the `deprivation of liberty' triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0275p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Attached to the declarations were exhibits containing evidentiary material that had not previously been submitted by TVA. Arguing that it was not timely. Was employed with TVA from April of 1977 to September 26. He was a Safety Specialist in TVA's Labor and Safety organization. He had a grade level of SD 4 and was a 60% disabled veteran. His non selection for fortythree vacant positions to which he applied after he was given notice of his RIF. 1. Plaintiff was assigned to perform a safety inspection at TVA's Raccoon Mountain Pumped Storage Plant ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1404.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. <A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0253p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The plaintiffs are a collection of associations and individuals led by the American Civil Liberties Union. Because we cannot find that any of the plaintiffs have standing for any of their claims. Of telephone and email communications where one party to the communication is located outside the United States and the NSA has </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200706/05-5439a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Jeffrey A. I. Background The facts relevant to this appeal are set out fully in the opinion of the district court on remand. This is what happened. From 1989 to 1992 Fogg was assigned to a task force that tracked fugitives. Twice during his time on the task force he was not given his regularly scheduled performance rating and he did not receive an expected promotion from the GS 12 to the GS 13 level. Fogg was eventually promoted to GS 13. By 1993 he had been </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9C382D0C30B8A79A88256C09005930CE/$file/9915645.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That sex was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0321p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1 all commissioners of insurance or Mike Pickens is a defendant on ly in the action brought by First Tennessee Bank. Therefore is a party only to Appeal No. 03 5521. 1 The Honorable Gordon J. Who were sued in their official capacity as receivers for various insolvent insurance companies (collectively. Because it lacked jurisdiction or because it should have declined jurisdiction in its discretion. While at the same time controlling the unregistered brokerage that was supposedly investing the large cash reserves that insurance companies typically have on hand. He was funneling the money to overseas bank accounts. Frankel was the subject of a four month. Bank accounts used in Frankel's money laundering scheme were held by the insurance companies at both AmSouth. The Receivers argue that the Banks were negligent in not realizing the massive fraud that those accounts were being used to commit. The Receivers concluded they might have claims against AmSouth. That tolling agreement was extended six times. Negotiations were ongoing. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200616324.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are confronted with the task of interpreting several provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971409A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Morgans contend that Interstate's claim for money damages should not have been presented to the jury. The panel decision was vacated and rehearing en banc granted on November 9. Because the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to decide the case. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and do not address the Morgans' damages argument or Interstate's cross appeal for attorney's fees. This last chance was embodied in a letter contract. Alleged federal question subject matter jurisdiction under 28 The letter agreement is referred to in the Special Verdict as a Termination Agreement. 2 Interstate sought injunctive relief to enjoin the Morgans from displaying the BP logo and also sought damages. The Supreme Court has stated that it is the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTczNzgtY3YgdyBEaXNzZW50LnBkZg==/02-7378-cv%20w%20Dissent.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden of demonstrating that the challenged employment practice was unreasonable. Plaintiffs are former employees of defendant Knolls Atomic The complete procedural history of this case in the district court can be found at Meacham. There was sufficient evidence of an equally effective alternative to the subjective components of the IRIF to support liability. 71 76. Which issued while defendants' petition for 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 a writ of certiorari was pending. We have considered City of Jackson and the parties' supplemental briefing. I. The Lab is funded by the United States Navy's Nuclear Propulsion Program ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1912.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> McGlone</U> were on brief for Plaintiff. Martin PLLC</U> were on brief for Defendant. The jury also found that the club was 35% comparatively negligent. 12% of which was attributable to the club's breach of duty of ordinary care and 23% of which was attributable to the club's failure to install sprinklers in and around the sauna room. The sauna room was constructed entirely of wood. A metal box placed in a corner of the room with heating elements that were designed to be covered by a mound of rocks. There were two wooden railings around the heater to prevent patrons of the club from accidentally coming into contact with the heater itself. </FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/misc%20dkt-765.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the petition for writ of mandamus was James A. Seeking to establish a right to indemnification in the event Videotek was held liable to TLC. Seeking a declaration that TLC's asserted patents were invalid. Alleging that Gennum was liable for direct and contributory infringement of the four asserted patents. The district court entered an order that had the effect of significantly reducing the amount of damages TLC would be able to recover from Gennum if infringement were found. Maintained that it was still entitled to a trial by jury. Noting that Gennum was seeking to invalidate the patents. TLC argued that a declaratory judgment action to invalidate a patent is an action to which the right of trial by jury attaches. This court held that there is no right to a jury trial when the only remedy sought by the plaintiff patentee is an injunction and the defendant has asserted patent invalidity as an affirmative defense. The court noted that Tegal was not directly on point because in that case the issue of invalidity was asserted only as an affirmative defense and not as an independent claim. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1006.html">CO-STEEL RARITAN, ET AL. V. ITC, ET AL.<BR></A><BR> Et al.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>Paul C. Alan Luberda</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>John M. With him on the brief was <u>Thomas Peele</u>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='margin right:.5in. C.A.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Richard J. Argued for defendant appellee United States International Trade Commission.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>Lyn M. Mso bidi font family: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/02-1102.htm">02-1102 -- HILLIG V. RUMSFELD -- 08/27/2004<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EBD9A30E32ECC04988256E5A00707AB3/$file/9956466.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We affirm because we conclude that the application of the doctrine of res judicata is not barred merely because they did not receive </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DB216EE8E3D5459888256A1B00609B74/$file/9956466.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We affirm because we conclude that the application of the doctrine of res judicata is not barred merely because they did not receive </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2001/012224.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lawrence to operate a facility that would have an adverse disparate racial impact upon them in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We hold that an administrative regulation cannot create an interest enforceable under section 1983 unless the interest already is implicit in the statute authorizing the regulation. The plaintiffs do not have a right enforceable through a 1983 action under the EPA's disparate impact discrimination regulations. We will reverse. We point out that the residents of Waterfront South are predominately minorities and the neighborhood is disadvantaged environmentally.1 Waterfront South contains two Superfund sites. Lawrence's business is the processing of ground granulated blast furnace slag ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971509.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleging that he was improperly terminated in a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982035.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was general manager (GM) of HRC. Argues that she created a genuine issue of material fact on her Title VII claim when she put forth evidence that demonstrated that some of her superiors on the HRC Board of Trustees (Board) favored her termination because they lamented the loss of a particular greens superintendent who had publicly stated that he was not pleased to work for a woman. She alleges that the district court based its summary judgment ruling on an affirmative defense that was improperly raised. Because we determine that summary judgment was appropriate. Are expressed in the light most favorable to her as the nonmoving party. 255 (1986) (stating that an appellate court reviewing a grant of summary judgment is required to view the facts in the light most favorable to the non moving party and must draw all reasonable inferences therefrom). Brinkley was promoted to the position of GM of HRC. Board members asked the staff whether anyone would have difficulty working with Brinkley in that capacity. Where she was the owner/manager/treasurer of a restaurant in Salisbury from 1976 1989 and reported a salary of $30. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/10/971114P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case ultimately was dismissed. The License Agreement was revised by an August 5. Provided prior written notice to Concept was given. Concept was unable to redeem the substitute debenture. Equitable forfeiture was granted on December 19. Each of which is challenged by Klipsch on appeal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200507/04-5061a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0291p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Page 2 who pose an extreme escape risk or who have a clearly demonstrated history of violent acts toward other prisoners and staff. Sibert concluded from his investigation that the allegations were baseless. He was the only person with authority to order redactions. Stamping each page with a statement identifying that it was being delivered to the prisoner. Because it was not marked for possible redaction. Thus was not ruled on by Jackson. This information would be exempt from release and would not have been given to prisoners under internal prison policy and the department's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) policy. Lowery stated in an affidavit that if he had noticed the social security numbers he would have removed them. Prisoners have threatened and taunted the officers. Often incorporating the plaintiffs' social security numbers (which they have committed to memory) into the taunts. Prisoners have even accurately described plaintiffs' children to them. The district court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against Fritz Jackson because it found he was entitled to absolute judicial immunity. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1995/95a1231p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These eleven consolidated[fn1] actions were brought by concerned Pennsylvanians who believed that they were being charged excessive fees and interest on their credit cards and that these charges violated Pennsylvania consumer protection laws. None of the defendants are Pennsylvania lending institutions. The cases were all brought in Pennsylvania state courts and then removed by the defendants to the federal system.[fn2] These cases require that we resolve the conflict between state consumer protection law and federal banking law. We will first consider the district courts' holdings that removal jurisdiction was proper. We will reverse the district courts on this issue. The Supreme Court's conservative extension of the complete preemption doctrine and the application of the Third Circuit's two pronged test establish that federal jurisdiction is lacking in those cases in which the plaintiffs did not amend their complaints to allege federal claims. We will next consider claims particular to these actions. We will affirm the district court to the extent that the court held that plaintiffs' state law claims regarding late charges and over limit fees were substantively preempted. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may95/93-4436.opa.html">LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORP. V. JDC (AMERICA) CORP.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lawyers Title Insurance Corp. v. Because we also conclude that none of the defenses asserted in the foreclosure action are covered by either of the two policies. Would furnish a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may95/93-4436.opa.html">LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORP. V. JDC (AMERICA) CORP.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lawyers Title Insurance Corp. v. Because we also conclude that none of the defenses asserted in the foreclosure action are covered by either of the two policies. Would furnish a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1996/96a1312p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is such a case. It is a class action that seeks to settle the claims of between 250. 000 individuals who have been exposed to asbestos products against the twenty companies known as the Center for Claims Resolution (CCR).[fn2] Most notably. These </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-4088.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concerned that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1995/95a1005p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The question on this appeal is whether the Borough and Enterprise can be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Basing the decision on its finding that Enterprise was not a state actor for section 1983 purposes. We conclude that the district court erred in holding that Enterprise is not a state actor. Will affirm the grant of summary judgment. Factual background and procedural history Enterprise is a private association of volunteers which has served the Borough of Hatboro since 1890. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6A9AA31F4AAD1F6888256AEF005A9B4A/$file/9936147.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although much of what happened here was characterized as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/10/97-1381.htm">97-1381 -- DAVOLL V. WEBB -- 10/25/1999<BR></A><BR> The remaining ADA claims were tried to a jury. Escobedo are all former Denver police officers who were injured in the line of duty and forced to retire due to Denver's policy forbidding disabled police officers from transferring into other vacant positions in the city government. Most of these employees are enrolled in one of two personnel systems: the Classified Service. Which is composed of police officers and firefighters. 500 of which are for full time employment. The Career Service system was set up by a charter which the voters of Denver approved. Candidates that do so are then tested. If the request is granted. There is also a list for those Career Services employees who meet the qualifications and wish to be promoted to the vacant position. Classified Service employees are not permitted to transfer into the Career Service. Must have an oral interview. Police officers that are separated under honorable circumstances may be reemployed without competing with the general applicant pool. <p> According to the city. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F8B414C76D42798E88256E5A00707D26/$file/9936147.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although much of what happened here was characterized as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D64727E1F87230A488256DE4000124DC/$file/0256197.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A United States Postal worker who was delivering mail in Chatsworth. Ileto's sole surviving dependent parent and three of the children who were shot at the JCC filed a complaint in the Los Angeles Superior Court against multiple defendants involved in the manufacture. The case was removed to federal district court. All motions were granted. Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of their public nuisance and state law negligence claims.1 Because the plaintiffs have stated a cognizable claim under California tort law for negligence and public nuisance against 1 When we refer to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-1505_014.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Compensatory damages were awarded against all defendants and punitive damages were awarded against each of the individual defendants. Facts The plaintiffs in this action are seventeen police officers who. Defendant Arthur Jones was the Chief of the Milwaukee Police Department. The governing statute required that he select candidates </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2003/01-14069.opn.html">STEGER V. GEN. ELEC. CO. (1/17/2003, NO. 01-14069)<BR></A><BR> BACKGROUND</STRONG></CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2003/01-14069.opn.html">STEGER V. GEN. ELEC. CO. (1/17/2003, NO. 01-14069)<BR></A><BR> BACKGROUND</STRONG></CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200114069.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are addressed in this appeal. We will not address GE's crossappeal of the district court's allowance of statistical evidence without expert support. 2 2 1 I. Steger's Employment History Elizabeth Steger was hired by GE in 1970 and. Set up a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="622"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F1324CF9AC8A788F88256C3F007606AC/$file/0156576.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We are presented in this case with a question of first impression: does the doctrine of laches apply to nondischargeability complaints brought under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(B) and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4007(b)? The bankruptcy appellate panel ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/11/983539P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The facts in the present case are not disputed. Neset is a farmer in Tioga. That is. It is unlawful to transmit radio signals within the United States without a license or waiver from the FCC. In September 1997 the station manager of KTGO complained to the FCC that Neset was operating an unlicensed radio station in the Tioga area on a frequency of approximately 88.1 mhz. Asserted that his First Amendment rights were at stake and that he could not obtain a license because the FCC no longer issued licenses for low power radio broadcasts. 2 In October 1997. Neset argued that the FCC microbroadcasting regulations are invalid because the FCC failed to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act or the Administrative Procedures Act. The district court found that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over these statutory violation defenses because the doctrine of primary jurisdiction required that Neset first challenge an FCC policy or practice before the FCC and then seek judicial review exclusively in the courts of appeals. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DA4A050DCFAD553288256FFC00572DFC/$file/0335783.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the brief. Was on the brief. Was on the brief for appellee City of Vancouver. I Western States Paving Co. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200210218.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We must determine whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is violated when a code enforcement officer condemns an apartment complex and evicts the tenants without providing the tenants with contemporaneous notice of their right to appeal the condemnation decision. We must then determine whether the tenants' right to contemporaneous notice was established with such clarity at the time of eviction in this case that the chief of the City of Orlando's Code Enforcement Bureau is not entitled to qualified immunity. Threatened to declare the building unfit for human occupancy if the Our recitation of the facts is based primarily on the admitted facts contained in the parties' joint pretrial statement. To the extent that material facts are in dispute. As we must when the issue of qualified immunity is raised in a summary judgment motion. 92526 n.3 (11th Cir. 2000). 2 1 violations were not corrected.2 The owner was informed that the City of Orlando Code Enforcement Board ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5163.html">GABRIEL J. MARTINEZ V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>On the brief was <u>David M. Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Tara A. Of counsel were <u>Aileen M. </span><st1:State><span style='font family:Arial'>DC</span></st1:State></st1:place><span style='font family:Arial'>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Also of counsel was <u>Captain David E. Martinez<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><span style='ms </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FE2C676C3039B58488256E35007C2B7D/$file/0256506.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Clarity is rare. As will appear. Once the draft RAP was finalized. 636.38 was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200613162.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We must determine whether the district court acted properly in concluding that the appellantsa group of plaintiffs alleging claims against appellee Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982368.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/30443BDD97F95D3A882570A4005595EC/$file/0335058.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> To partially enjoin entry of the judgment on the ground that the state court award was inconsistent with the settlement reached in a prior nationwide class action involving L P and over which the court retained jurisdiction. Settled shortly after it was filed. Class claims related to the failure of Inner Seal Siding were released.1 L P also agreed to The settlement agreement required L P to make a minimum payment of $275. Qualified claims were paid from that fund and class members were barred from litigating any claim related to the failure of Inner Seal Siding for a period of four years from the date of the final order and judgment. At which time the claims administrator was ordered to notify L P if the settlement fund proved insufficient to satisfy all approved claims filed before January 1. L P was directed to advise class counsel whether it intended to satisfy the unfunded claims. It was required to make additional payments </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/April1995/95a1020p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are Settlement Classes Cognizable Under Rule 23? 50 E. Are the Rule 23(a) and (b) Findings Required for Settlement Classes? IS THE SETTLEMENT CLASS PROPER HERE? 69 A. Were There Adequate Findings Under Rule 23(a)? 69 B. Could the Class Requisites Have Been Met On The Current Record? 70 1. Is the Settlement Fair. This is an appeal from an order of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania approving the settlement of a large class action following its certification of a so called settlement class. The class members are purchasers. It was subsequently determined. May have had a design defect in their location of the fuel tank. Many of the class members are individual owners (i.e. While others are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051598p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. 3 I. John Kaucher was hired by the County of Bucks in 1999 as a corrections officer at the Bucks County Correctional Facility. Who are responsible for supervising inmates at work locations and in housing units and for transporting inmates between institutions and to and from outside appointments. The job description notes that corrections officers will have daily contact with incarcerated individuals and warns that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012413.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Section 2 the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1998/98a1838p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Waldorf suffered injuries rendering him a quadriplegic in a motor vehicle accident in 1982 when he was 24 years old. Waldorf appeals from the denial of his motion for a new trial on damages and the refusal of the district court to grant him an additur as he contends that the verdict was inadequate and against the weight of the evidence. That we do not have jurisdiction over Waldorf 's appeal. We hold that we have jurisdiction over this appeal and cross appeal and will affirm the district court's orders. 4 This appeal is the third occasion that this case has been before us during the over 13 years that it has been litigated in the federal courts. Waldorf was involved in a two car accident at the four way intersection of Monroe Avenue and North 14th Street in the Borough. He was a passenger in a van driven by Kenneth C. Was riding on a seat that was not bolted down. Instead was secured only by elastic straps. Waldorf was not wearing a seat belt at the time of the accident. Corporal Victor Smith of the Kenilworth Police Department discovered at approximately 11:00 p.m. that the red light was not working. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971501.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> She was charged with investigation of employee theft and shoplifting at the Regional Exchange in Fort Meade. Brown reported to and was evaluated by supervisory exchange detective Timothy Boles. Ansley was supervised by William Boyd. Who was stationed in Texas. Although Boyd was not directly involved with any employment decisions concerning Brown. Brown did not have any conversation with Boyd at that meeting. Approximately seven employees were present when Brown arrived at Boyd's suite. Boles about what had happened and that he did not want to hear anything from me until I decided what I was going to do because he would have to be doing the investigation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2003/023236p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is an appellee and is participating in this appeal. Certain other parties that have been dismissed from the action or are not participating in the appeal. As the parties have done in their briefs. As a matter of convenience we will treat him as the sole appellant in this opinion referring to him as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2705.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLP</SPAN> were on brief for appellant.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199801/95-1614a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on the briefs for petitioner. Was on the briefs. Were on the brief. The Federal Labor Relations Authority ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/04/01-1508.htm">01-1508 -- WELLS V. COLORADO DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION -- 04/18/2003<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962389OR.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> CHUZI & NEW Senior Judge Merhige participated in oral argument but retired prior to the time the order was entered. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). ORDER The parties have jointly moved for a dismissal of the instant appeal pursuant to Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Representing that they have settled their dispute by agreement. We believe we would be remiss were we not to express our concern over the conduct of the United States Attorney during the pendency of this appeal. Which seemingly resulted because the United States Attorney was unwilling to express a view for the United States either in support of or in opposition to the very significant holding of law under review in this court. Has left the court with the firm belief that the integrity of its processes have been compromised. Although the two cases are unrelated. Which was to have been argued and decided by the Supreme Court this Term. Which was likewise settled at the eleventh hour. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2000/98-5802.man.html">MADRAY V. PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS (4/13/2000, NO. 98-5802)<BR></A><BR> The plaintiffs argue that Publix is not entitled to the affirmative defense to vicarious liability for sexual harassment announced by the Supreme Court in <EM>Faragher v. (2) when Publix became aware of the sexual harassment to which the plaintiffs were being subjected. She is now employed by Publix as a part time stock clerk in Athens. Selph was the highest ranking employee in store 118. He exercised supervisory authority over both Holden and Madray until he was transferred to store 61 as an assistant manager in September 1995.</P> <P> From the commencement of his employment as manager of store 118. The plaintiffs were not initially offended by Selph's behavior. Holden stated that Priest was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0340p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> By failing to develop a transition plan for 1 These ind ividuals are Cora L ee B oswo rth. Which was denied. The court also concluded that plaintiffs were not entitled to compensatory or punitive damages because such damages are not available under Title II absent proof of intentional discrimination. Arguing that the court erred in finding that plaintiffs have a private cause of action under Title II to challenge violations of § 35.151. Be altered in such manner that the altered portion of the facility is readily accessible and usable by individuals with disabilities. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1643.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Jenkens & Gilchrist was on brief. Were on brief. Sjogren and Sher & Blackwell were on brief. That the party was not free before the agency to seek to undo the court judgment. To the extent that the FMC's order is prospective and does not involve sums awarded by the judgment entered. Collection costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to the terms of PRMSA's bill of lading to SOS.1 Jurisdiction was under the maritime and 1. PRMSA's lawsuit in federal district court was filed by an agent of PRMSA. The attorneys' fees provision of the tariff upon which the bill of lading was based. It asserted that the attorneys' fees tariff provision was unreasonable under sections 17 and 18(a) of the Shipping Act of 1916. Because the distinction between PRMSA and PRMMI is unimportant to the disposition of this petition. SOS's motion for a stay of the district court proceedings was the first time that SOS argued before the district court that the attorneys' fees provision might be illegal or unreasonable and thus unenforceable because it was unilateral. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2000/98-5802.man.html">MADRAY V. PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS (4/13/2000, NO. 98-5802)<BR></A><BR> The plaintiffs argue that Publix is not entitled to the affirmative defense to vicarious liability for sexual harassment announced by the Supreme Court in <EM>Faragher v. (2) when Publix became aware of the sexual harassment to which the plaintiffs were being subjected. She is now employed by Publix as a part time stock clerk in Athens. Selph was the highest ranking employee in store 118. He exercised supervisory authority over both Holden and Madray until he was transferred to store 61 as an assistant manager in September 1995.</P> <P> From the commencement of his employment as manager of store 118. The plaintiffs were not initially offended by Selph's behavior. Holden stated that Priest was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1865.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Guillemard</SPAN> were on brief. With whom <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1996/96a1245p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the district court's order as to its conclusion that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the second lawsuit and over W.W.'s counterclaim in the first. Will vacate the district court's order to the extent that it rejected jurisdiction over W.W.'s defenses to liability in W.W.'s petition to open judgment. This commitment was valid until October 30. The Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision found that Bell was likely to incur losses as a result of unsafe and unsound practices and appointed the RTC its conservator.[fn2] As a result. We will refer to this case as the removed case. The letter stated: As you are aware. . . . the Motion to Open Judgment that is presently pending. Given the fact that RTC is in receipt of these claims. No further filings are required by my client in order to permit RTC to determine these claims pursuant to 12 U.S.C. If this assumption is incorrect. I will assume that the presentation of the claims of my client in the Motion to Open Judgment are sufficient to permit the RTC to administratively determine such claims. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/02/981892P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This appeal turns on whether Canal Capital Corporation (Canal) is barred by a prior state court action from now seeking to recover unpaid livestock fees from Valley Pride Pack. I. Canal's claim for livestock or yardage fees is based on a 1936 agreement between St. Testified that Rifkin paid such fees when animals were delivered directly to the packing plant. Valley Pride purchased Rifkin's plant in 1986 at a time when the plant was not operating. Including property upon which the cattle walkway was located. Two months later Valley Pride sued in state court to regain use of the walkway and to obtain damages for the period during which its plant was closed because of the removal.1 Canal counterclaimed in three counts for interference with prospective business relations. The trial court dismissed the first count as being without merit and ruled that the third count was properly an affirmative defense. One of Canal's defenses to the breach of contract claim was that the 1936 agreement had merely given the packing plant a license to use the walkway. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3299_043.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction over North American's interlocutory appeal from this order. Were prone to leaks. Were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1623.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Individually and as They Are Members of the Lexington School Committee. Smith were on brief for appellant. LLP were on brief for appellees. The advertisement promoted sexual abstinence and was proffered by a parent. Superintendent and school officials was terminated on defendants' motion for summary judgment. Holding that summary judgment should be entered for Yeo on his claims that there was state action. That each student publication was a public forum. That the decisions not to publish were impermissible view point discrimination. 1997 WL 292173 (1st Cir. The Yearbook was operated entirely by a staff of about sixty students. Staffing decisions were made by students. This staff was headed by two co editors in chief. Yankee Press Education Network. 4 was the Yearbook faculty advisor. Mechem was paid a stipend of less than $2. The Yearbook is financially independent from the school and is funded entirely through the sale of the books to students and advertising. This advertisement section was largely comprised of congratulatory or commemorative ads purchased by students and their families. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct98/96-4118.man.html">FDIC V. LACENTRA TRUCKING, INC. (10/16/1998, NO. 96-4118)<BR></A><BR> Section 1821(d)(13)(D) provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/02/01-1077.htm">01-1077 -- U.S. V. CONSUMER INSURANCE GROUP -- 02/19/2002<BR></A><BR> Holmes is postmaster at the United States Post Office in Poncha Springs. The CIG employees informed Holmes that CIG was receiving the per pound bulk postal rate at the post office in Howard. She also informed the postmaster in Howard that CIG was not entitled to this rate. <p> Almost two years later. Holmes was at the Howard post office to provide postmaster training. She asked the current postmaster whether CIG was receiving the per pound bulk rate. She learned that it was. The Office of the Inspector General and a postal systems coordinator (an auditor) that CIG was defrauding the Postal Service by providing false information in order to obtain a lower postal rate. Although it later became clear that the interviewees were already aware of the fraud. The relator is entitled to a portion of the proceeds recovered in the action or settlement. <u>Id.</u> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/09/01-4131.htm">01-4131 -- YOUREN V. TINTIC SCHOOL DISTRICT -- 09/10/2003<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct98/96-4118.man.html">FDIC V. LACENTRA TRUCKING, INC. (10/16/1998, NO. 96-4118)<BR></A><BR> Section 1821(d)(13)(D) provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1404.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a breach of BOWNES. This time around he was awarded $20. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND The following facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict winner. All reasonable inferences are drawn in his favor. The plaintiffs appellants in this case are the conjugal partnership comprising Joseph Jones and his wife Vernetta. The defendants appellees are the conjugal partnership comprising Arthur Pineda and his wife Toni. The position was offered for a one year term. Judge Acosta was the presiding judge in the San Juan Dupont Hotel Fire Litigation. Who was not a court reporter but aided her husband in producing the transcripts. Which was reluctantly given. Judge Acosta was not impressed with his reporting skills. Pineda never informed Jones that Judge Acosta's authorization was a condition precedent to the oral contract. The Dupont trial was scheduled to proceed in discrete </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0443p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Flying J argues that there was no tangible employment action when it fired but then re hired plaintiff Kyle Keeton the same day and when it laterally transferred Keeton to a different location. We conclude that the termination was not a tangible employment action but that a reasonable jury could have decided that the transfer was a tangible employment action. He stated that he was willing to relocate to other Flying J travel plazas. Judy Harrell was the General Manager and his immediate supervisor. Even though Keeton was not scheduled to work on December 4. Harrell told him that he was fired. Keeton had no warning that his job was in jeopardy. Abdalla had been the manager of the district encompassing Walton when Keeton was hired. In December of 2001 Abdalla was the district manager of another district that included Cannonsburg. His termination was formally changed to a two week suspension. Abdalla told him that he was being </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-6025.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court concluded Valley View's federal claims were precluded by the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion due to a defense it raised in related state litigation brought by Duke. Preclusion is generally a knotty issue. We will refer to them collectively as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1998/98a1795p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We agree with the district court that the federal securities claim of one of the investors is barred by the statute of limitations. We disagree with the district court's disposition of the federal securities claim and conclude that the investors have proffered sufficient evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to (1) whether the law firm made a statement containing a material omission upon which the investors relied. Even when the lawyer did not sign or endorse the document and the investor is therefore unaware of the lawyer's role in the fraud.1 We will reverse the judgment of 1. We later set forth the following specific requirements to hold such a lawyer liable: (1) the lawyer knows (or is reckless in not knowing) that 3 the district court insofar as it granted the law firm's motion for summary judgment on the federal securities claim as to three of the four investors. We will reverse the judgment of the district court on the investors' common law fraud claim. Which claim was timely as to all four investors. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200608/03-7060a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. 2 Ralph L. Abramson was on brief. Circuit Judge: Two District of Columbia (D.C. or District) firefighters who were injured and the families of their two colleagues who died in a May 1999 fire (Firefighters) brought a civil rights action against the District and Donald Edwards. That is. Soon after entering the townhouse the two were separated and Cooper exited the building without Phillips. Unaware that Phillips and Cooper were inside. Relied on a portable radio device rather than the stronger signal mobile radio mounted in his vehicle that he could have used had he established a fixed command post. He told Battalion Chief Wilk that Matthews was still in the townhouse. Unaware that Morgan and Phillips were still inside as well. Ventilation is the process by which firefighters remove a fire's byproducts (such as heat. Including Wilk and Cooper.4 The Firefighters argued Edwards was deliberately indifferent to his duty to ensure that the Department complied with its own standard operating procedures (SOPs) and that his deliberately indifferent conduct deprived the Firefighters of their </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Apr2002/993446.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ray's notice of appeal was filed pro se. Ray's appeal was handled by John P. Who were at the time of briefing students at Seton Hall Law School under the supervision of Professor Romberg. Prison or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/06/97-6437.htm">97-6437 -- STAUTH V. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY -- 06/24/1999<BR></A><BR> <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0032p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Morris claims that she was subjected to sexual harassment and retaliatory harassment by her supervisor. Defendant appellee Brent Likins was appointed the new County Road Engineer. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19996078.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Since the district court will have subject matter jurisdiction over a federal claim upon our remand. WENN was ranked as the number one or two station in the Birmingham market for some period of years before 1996. Continued or repeated verbal abuse of a nature which is ... sexual ... No one should imply or threaten that an applicant's or employee's cooperation or refusal to participate in sexual involvement or discriminatory activity will have any effect on that individual's employment. All complaints will be promptly and thoroughly investigated and corrective action. Will be taken. Donnell would cut off Johnson's microphone while they were on the air. Listeners thought it sounded like Donnell and Johnson were fighting on the air. Owens further testified that Donnell said </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2000/99-6078.man.html">JOHNSON V. BOOKER T. WASHINGTON BROAD. SERV. (11/29/2000, NO. 99-6078)<BR></A><BR> Since the district court will have subject matter jurisdiction over a federal claim upon our remand. WENN was ranked as the number one or two station in the Birmingham market for some period of years before 1996. Continued or repeated verbal abuse of a nature which is ... sexual ... No one should imply or threaten that an applicant's or employee's cooperation or refusal to participate in sexual involvement or discriminatory activity will have any effect on that individual's employment. All complaints will be promptly and thoroughly investigated and corrective action. Will be taken.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2000/99-6078.man.html">JOHNSON V. BOOKER T. WASHINGTON BROAD. SERV. (11/29/2000, NO. 99-6078)<BR></A><BR> Since the district court will have subject matter jurisdiction over a federal claim upon our remand. WENN was ranked as the number one or two station in the Birmingham market for some period of years before 1996. Continued or repeated verbal abuse of a nature which is ... sexual ... No one should imply or threaten that an applicant's or employee's cooperation or refusal to participate in sexual involvement or discriminatory activity will have any effect on that individual's employment. All complaints will be promptly and thoroughly investigated and corrective action. Will be taken.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1994/94a0875p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200608/04-7214a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Defendants Gillian and Uwe Siemon Netto are two among the hundreds of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></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-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042550p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Citizens allege that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0011p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Attempted to have a government witness killed. The parties have stipulated that Chandler is African American. One of the very important questions is whether or not you would be able to serve on the jury if the trial were to last from three to six weeks. Your response was that you are not able to sit on the jury. Have you had an opportunity to think about that response recognizing that it's an important obligation of citizenship to serve on a jury when called. It certainly is inconvenient for everyone? Are you willing to serve if you are selected? If I have to. I will. If you were selected would you then hold it against either of the parties? Would you hold it against the government or the defendants if you were selected to serve? Do you recognize and agree that it is an important service that we are all required to perform from time to time? CHANDLER: I recognize that if I have to do it. Could you tell us if it is not such a great invasion of your privacy as to why you're so reluctant to serve? Do you understand that under our system of law every person is equal and every person is entitled to equal protection of the laws. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2004/032176p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> MA 02210 Counsel for Appellee/Cross Appellant pension fund against Holmes was untimely. As the complaint was filed seven years after the cause of action accrued. We will affirm in part and reverse in part. Is the plan sponsor of a multiemployer fund established under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044514p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge Richard Ranke and other similarly situated individuals in this case are former employees of Eastman Kodak Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTY0MTMtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-6413-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The clothing division into which Vintage Blue was eventually folded. Gordon was a tough manager. Which was frequent. Where she would have personal contact with Gordon. Much of their other communication was by phone. Ferraro was diagnosed with breast cancer. The merger of Vintage Blue into ENC was designed to create economies of scale and cut overhead. Gordon partially blamed Ferraro for Vintage Blue's poor performance and was frustrated by her repeated downward revisions to Vintage Blue's sales projections. She was excluded from the presidents' meetings in Los Angeles. Ferraro's therapist called Kellwood's Human Resources ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2001/991929.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We are asked to review two or ders granting partial summary judgment to the defendant in this ERISA action. If found to have made material misrepresentations to the plaintiffs. I. The factual and procedural history of this case is extensive and has been recounted elsewher e in detail.1 We 1. 58 F.3d 896 (3d Cir. 1995). 3 will explain only the status of the case as it comes to us on this appeal. This is a class action filed on behalf of retirees and disabled former employees of the Sperry. These lawsuits were eventually consolidated. Most of whom were former Sperry and Burroughs employees. The first was that. This was intended to convey not only that the existing plan provided such benefits for life but also that those benefits were vested. The second theory </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0266p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> All of whom are government officials. One count is devoted to federal law and another to state law. Substantive Facts The district court stated the background facts that gave rise to this case as follows: The plaintiffs in this case are a Michigan circuit judge. Nor have plaintiffs moved yet for class certification. Plaintiffs purport to represent all active and retired Michigan judges who are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200113864.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He claimed that his rights under the First Amendment's Speech Clause were violated when Allred and Harland punished him for silently raising his fist during the daily flag salute instead of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance with the rest of his class. He further claims that his Establishment Clause rights were violated by Allred's daily </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511314.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Each state's SIP must </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034700p5.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We must determine what role likelihood of confusion plays in a trademark infringement case where the defendant claims that its use was nominative and fair. LT contends that its use was nominative and fair. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034700p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We must determine what role likelihood of confusion plays in a trademark infringement case where the defendant claims that its use was nominative and fair. LT contends that its use was nominative and fair. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTY0MTMtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-6413-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The clothing division into which Vintage Blue was eventually folded. Gordon was a tough manager. Which was frequent. Where she would have personal contact with Gordon. Much of their other communication was by phone. Ferraro was diagnosed with breast cancer. The merger of Vintage Blue into ENC was designed to create economies of scale and cut overhead. Gordon partially blamed Ferraro for Vintage Blue's poor performance and was frustrated by her repeated downward revisions to Vintage Blue's sales projections. She was excluded from the presidents' meetings in Los Angeles. Ferraro's therapist called Kellwood's Human Resources ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2107.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is corrected as follows: On page 36. Line 9: change </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19988696.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chief Judge: This is an interlocutory appeal by Defendants Appellees General Motors Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/007408.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court determined sua sponte that Hill's pro se petition was untimely and dismissed the action without affording Hill notice or an opportunity to be heard. Hill contends that he was entitled to respond and. He could have demonstrated that either a statutory exception or equitable tolling principles protected his § 2254 petition from dismissal under the limitation period. Is serving a 24 year sentence on 1997 convictions for rape and malicious wounding. Hill filed a pro se application for relief under § 2254.2 We have drawn the facts about Hill's state convictions. The date on which his appeal was affirmed. The date on which his habeas petition was denied from Hill's pro se § 2254 petition. The Commonwealth does not dispute the facts or dates as recounted by Hill. 2 The petition was hand dated June 22. The document also bears two stamped dates which suggest that the petition was received by the clerk's office on August 25 or August 30. The date is not critical. We leave it to the district court to determine the date on which the petition was actually filed for purposes of § 2244(d). 1 HILL v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-3332.html">HORTON V. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-3361.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Federal courts have recognized the right of prisoners to relief if prison officials deny them basic medical care. The vehicle for such suits is 42 U.S.C. 1983. The vehicle is not so clear. Some courts have treated such actions as Bivens actions. 403 U.S. 388 (1971).(2) Others have assumed that there exists a non statutory basis for injunctive action. The question arises whether the actions are barred by sovereign immunity. Very often the nature of the claim and the basis for rejecting sovereign immunity are not addressed.(4) We believe clarification would be useful. Assert that the action is barred by sovereign immunity. Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (rejecting federal prisoners' First Amendment challenge to a BOP regulation prohibiting electric instruments). <hr> the case is properly denominated an action for relief in the nature of mandamus. That sovereign immunity is not a bar. That his claims against the Bureau of Prisons are not properly before us. I. Background and Facts Plaintiff Appellant Ron Simmat was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced by the State of Connecticut to life imprisonment in 1962. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2000/98-8696.man.html">AYRES V. GEN. MOTORS CORP. (11/29/2000, NO. 98-8696)<BR></A><BR> Chief Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2000/98-8696.man.html">AYRES V. GEN. MOTORS CORP. (11/29/2000, NO. 98-8696)<BR></A><BR> Chief Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200706/04-5450a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs were Steven H. With her on the briefs were Steven H. With him on the brief were Jeffrey A. The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires that we deny their motions if on three or more occasions they have brought an action or appeal in federal court that was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033370p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gordon and two corporations of which he is the sole shareholder. The Hospital was entitled to immunity from money damages regarding the professional review actions at issue.1 Thereafter. We will affirm the comprehensive rulings of the District Court2 that resulted in judgment for the Hospital as to all claims. Is the only hospital serving Mifflin and Juniata counties in Pennsylvania. It provides primary and secondary acute inpatient care in addition to 1 The immunity provided by the HCQIA for persons engaging in the peer review process is limited to damages liability. 42 U.S.C. § 11111(a). The Credentialing Policy states in part that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/july96/94-3351.wpd.html">GOLDSMITH V. LEARJET, INC.<BR></A><BR> Including that the Kansas borrowing statute barred the action because the action would have been untimely if filed in Colorado. The court should not have borrowed the Colorado saving statute. Rather should have applied the Kansas saving statute. (3) The court should have tolled the Colorado statute of limitations because Plaintiff Josh Goldsmith is a minor. Now have reviewed the court's prompt response. Arguing that the second action was untimely under the statutes of limitations of both Kansas and Colorado. The Kansas saving statute provides that when an action is dismissed for a reason other than the merits after the statute of limitations lapses. The cause of action arises in Colorado and Colorado law would have barred plaintiffs from bringing an action in Colorado at the time they brought the second action in Kansas. Colorado's savings statute extends the Colorado statute of limitations only ninety days after the dismissal of the original action and applies only when the first action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or improper venue. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1994/94a0698p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Class actions for age discrimination are authorized by section 7(b) of ADEA (codified as amended at 29 U.S.C.A. § 626(b)). Section 16(b) of FLSA is itself modified by the Portal to Portal Act of 1947 (codified as amended at 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 251 262 (West 1985)). Was expressly incorporated into ADEA until 1991. States an opt in class member's claim for relief under FLSA does not commence until the date the opt in member's written consent to join the representative action is filed. Was not expressly incorporated into ADEA. Sperling contends these 102 consents were timely filed because the named plaintiffs' filing of a complaint in a representative action under ADEA legally tolls the statute of limitations. The district court agreed and granted Sperling's motion to legally toll the statute for the 102 persons whose individual actions would have been barred. Involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion and an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec99/98-2498.opn.html">MORTON'S MKT., INC. V. GUSTAFSON'S DAIRY, INC. (12/20/1999, NO. 98-2498)<BR></A><BR> Inc. are retailers of milk. Civil action were reported in February 1988. The newspaper articles discussed the Dairies' agreements among themselves to rig bids for school milk and revealed that the federal government was also scrutinizing the industry. Undertake any investigation into whether the Dairies were also fixing the price of milk to retailers.</P> <P> During late 1987 and early 1988. Information regarding price fixing of wholesale milk prices was contained in each of these guilty pleas. Gustafson's was charged with price fixing in May of 1992. Contending that these actions are time barred by the Act's four year statute of limitations. 15 U.S.C. § 15(b). More than four years before these actions were filed in 1993. Plaintiffs also contended that the statute of limitations was tolled in this case by the Dairies' fraudulent concealment of their price fixing activities. We cannot know whether plaintiffs' actions are time barred unless we know when the statute began to run. We can determine whether and how it was tolled in this case and what impact that tolling has on the scope of plaintiffs' damages. </P> <P>A.<U> The Commencement of the Statute of Limitations </U></P> <P> Under the antitrust laws. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2001/005225.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was hired as of January 29. Cardenas asserts that through 1989 every manager or supervisor in the ISD was a white non Hispanic male. Cardenas was appointed at the G 30 level. The claims raised in Cardenas' 128 paragraph complaint revolve around his contention that he was hired at a lower grade level than merited by the work he was assigned. Was not promoted as merited. Was the subject of retaliation. Was subject to a hostile work environment. Our review of the grant of summary judgment is plenary. 129 (3d Cir. 1991). 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) provides for summary judgment when </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2001/002520.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was the Auction in this Case Permissibl e? 111 D. INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY These are consolidated appeals from the District Court's approval of a $3.2 billion settlement of a securities fraud class action brought against Cendant Corporation and its auditors. Both the settlement and the fee award are challenged in these appeals. The enormous size of both the settlement and the fee award presages a new generation of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3829_022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who are licensed merchant marine officers. 98 Stat. 2863 (1984) (current version at 46 U.S.C. § 2114 (2002)).2 The plaintiffs claim that they were discharged in retaliation for engaging in statutorily protected correspondence with the United States Coast Guard ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec99/98-2498.opn.html">MORTON'S MKT., INC. V. GUSTAFSON'S DAIRY, INC. (12/20/1999, NO. 98-2498)<BR></A><BR> Inc. are retailers of milk. Civil action were reported in February 1988. The newspaper articles discussed the Dairies' agreements among themselves to rig bids for school milk and revealed that the federal government was also scrutinizing the industry. Undertake any investigation into whether the Dairies were also fixing the price of milk to retailers.</P> <P> During late 1987 and early 1988. Information regarding price fixing of wholesale milk prices was contained in each of these guilty pleas. Gustafson's was charged with price fixing in May of 1992. Contending that these actions are time barred by the Act's four year statute of limitations. 15 U.S.C. § 15(b). More than four years before these actions were filed in 1993. Plaintiffs also contended that the statute of limitations was tolled in this case by the Dairies' fraudulent concealment of their price fixing activities. We cannot know whether plaintiffs' actions are time barred unless we know when the statute began to run. We can determine whether and how it was tolled in this case and what impact that tolling has on the scope of plaintiffs' damages. </P> <P>A.<U> The Commencement of the Statute of Limitations </U></P> <P> Under the antitrust laws. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041847p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> In 1992 he was traveling on the New Jersey Turnpike when he was unlawfully stopped. Gibson alleges that the stop and search were part of a pattern of racially discriminatory law enforcement practices undertaken by the New Jersey State Police. Gibson was released from prison after newly obtained This Opinion represents the Opinion of the Court on all issues except the discussion of the Fourth Amendment claims in Part III.A. The Opinion of the Court on those issues is contained in the Opinion of Judge Fuentes filed herewith (hereinafter referred to as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1997/97a1766p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We find that Chowdhury is not dispositive on this issue. Chowdhury did not apply this court's test for determining when it is appropriate to imply a private right of action to enforce regulations. We agree with the overwhelming number of courts of appeals that have indicated. We will reverse. 4 I. The City of Chester is located in Delaware County. Of which 65% is black and 32% is white. Of which 6.2% is black and 91% is white. It further alleges that the Chester facilities have a total permit capacity of 2.1 million tons of waste per year. While the non Chester facilities have a total permit capacity of only 1. That: Each Federal department and agency which is empowered to extend Federal financial assistance to any program or activity. Is authorized and directed to effectuate the provisions of section 2000d of this title with respect to such program or activity by issuing rules. Or orders of general applicability which shall be consistent with achievement of the objectives of the statute authorizing the financial assistance in connection with which the action is taken. 42 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep23/02-60782-CV3.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Today regarding we decide a narrow but in not unimportant courts question and the diversity jurisdiction federal application of the doctrine of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-4041_014.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That statement was wrong. The appeals were a day late. The cover letters sent by the Service noted that appeals had to be lodged within 45 days of the decisions' publications and also noted the precise date when appeals were due. The date was incorrect. The Service nevertheless dismissed their appeals because their submissions were late. The 45 day appeal period was equitably tolled. The Forest Service was estopped from dismissing their appeals. We cite to the 2001 Code of Federal Regulations when considering the regulations in force at the times in question. 4 No. 03 4041 jurisdiction over the action because the plaintiffs did not have standing to seek such redress in a federal court. The Service further submitted that the plaintiffs were not entitled to equitable tolling or equitable estoppel. Bensman could have filed the appeals on time. The court found no evidence of deliberate misconduct on the part of the Forest Service and held that equitable estoppel was inapplicable. Have standing to maintain this action. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep10/02-60782-CV3.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Today regarding we decide a narrow but in not unimportant courts question and the diversity jurisdiction federal application of the doctrine of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/03/99-2287.htm">99-2287 -- CURRIER V. DORAN -- 03/01/2001<BR></A><BR> Regina Sentell are social workers for the Children. Defendant Melba Gonzales is a supervisor for CYF.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1380.html">COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL. V. FUJITSU LIMITED, ET AL.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Joseph M. Of counsel was <u>Dan Goldman</u>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text align:justify'><span style='font size:12.0pt. Argued for defendants appellees.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>Preston Moore</u> and <u>Jun Tsutsumi</u>. Of counsel was <u>James Oliva</u>. Mso bidi language:AR SA'>[1]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a> The University sought to have some of the counterclaims dismissed on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity grounds.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied the University s motion to dismiss Counterclaims 6 11 but stated that it may be necessary to revisit the question of [the University s] waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>Competitive Techs. v. Claiming that the district court s order was immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine of <u>Puerto Rico Aqueduct &. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1997/97a1762p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm.1 I Background and Procedural History On July 28. Was shot and killed in front of a classroom of children by Arcelia Truman ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/09/971143P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That he was subjected to employment discrimination based on his gender. I. This case has its genesis in what is known as the Rajender consent decree. The settlement therein was entered into in 1980 by the University and a class of women academic employees at the University to settle a gender discrimination class action lawsuit that began in the 1970s. Although Maitland was not a party to the decree. He was permitted to express his objections to it. To class members all of whom were women. Was permitted to file a claim to seek a salary increase under the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="581"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2001/001157.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which were allegedly operated as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="581"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FB658D09985CEA1F882572F00055F6E4/$file/0555158.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Appellants Donald and Janet Metcalf were the primary financial backers of a start up company named Adbox. The Metcalfs argued that the counterclaim was against a proper </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="581"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021266A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Final line of text the word </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Mar2002/001979.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Commonwealth1 originally argued that the prisoner's petition was successive and should therefore be dismissed. The Commonwealth conceded that the petition actually was not successive. Offered no alternative legal grounds upon which we could have affirmed the District Court's decision. The Commonwealth argued for the first time that the prisoner's petition was barred by the applicable one year statute of limitations. Then he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine if the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled because the Commonwealth allegedly 1. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2287.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Klickstein & Levy were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. Roche was a general shipper trainee. The claim was tried by the court over five days in May 1993. The total amount awarded to Richardson was $104. The court found that Roche was not discharged for his own protected activity. The court found that he was terminated because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july99/98-4616.man.html">TEFEL V. RENO (7/14/1999, NO. 98-4616)<BR></A><BR> (2) the district court's order denying the INS' motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction.</P> <P> Appellees/Plaintiffs ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2001/99-14162.man.html">DENNEY V. CITY OF ALBANY (4/11/2001, NO. 99-14162)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3238_026.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2143.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. Lewis LLP</SPAN> was on brief. Brought by a company whose hazardous waste was deposited at the Picillo site against a group of people who were involved with the site.</P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/03/96-3018.htm">96-3018 -- SMITH V. MIDLAND BRAKE INC. -- 03/13/1998<BR></A><BR> Plaintiff Robert Smith was employed by the defendant. Plaintiff was on a leave of absence and was receiving workers' compensation benefits. He contends that there were numerous job openings at Midland Brake that should have been made available to him and asserts that defendant either could have obtained or did obtain releases from his physician for him to work in those positions. Contends that it made efforts to return plaintiff to work in different positions at the company but was unable to obtain a written release from plaintiff's physician allowing him to return to work. <p> On September 7. Plaintiff asserted that he was discharged in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). He was discharged in retaliation for pursuing his workers' compensation claim. Summary judgment is appropriate if the record shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. <u>See</u> <u>id.</u>. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1630p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Of <p>which Riso is the sole shareholder. <p>exclusive use and Beauty Time claims to have used the <p>mark exclusively from 1987 to 1991. . Vujevich filed an <p>affidavit in connection with the declaration asserting that <p>he was the sole owner and user of the trademark. These <p>products were distributed under the names VU Skin <p>Systems and DPM Skin Systems. <p>was the owner of the DPM trademark and that Beauty Time <p>was infringing on the trademark. 1058 (Supp. 1997) provides for the cancellation of a prior <p>registration of a mark </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july99/98-4616.man.html">TEFEL V. RENO (7/14/1999, NO. 98-4616)<BR></A><BR> (2) the district court's order denying the INS' motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction.</P> <P> Appellees/Plaintiffs ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2001/99-14162.man.html">DENNEY V. CITY OF ALBANY (4/11/2001, NO. 99-14162)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1630p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Of which Riso is the sole shareholder. Plaintiffs allege that Vujevich had orally assigned the DPM mark to Beauty Time in 1987 for its 2 exclusive use and Beauty Time claims to have used the mark exclusively from 1987 to 1991. Vujevich filed an affidavit in connection with the declaration asserting that he was the sole owner and user of the trademark. These products were distributed under the names VU Skin Systems and DPM Skin Systems. Was the owner of the DPM trademark and that Beauty Time was infringing on the trademark. The amended 1. 15 U.S.C. § 1058 (Supp. 1997) provides for the cancellation of a prior registration of a mark </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/12/001789P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jackson argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because there were outstanding issues of material fact regarding: (1) whether the Department was entitled to the affirmative defense against vicarious employer liability for sexual harassment claims and (2) whether Jackson was constructively discharged. Jurisdiction Jurisdiction was proper in the district court based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. Jurisdiction on appeal is proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 2 1 Background The following facts are based upon the district court order.2 Jackson was employed by the Department as a Secretary II from November 23. Although the investigation was considered inconclusive. Wood stopped by Jackson's office daily to ask how she was doing and to ensure that Gwatney had left the office by 4:30. Gwatney was immediately terminated. Which she claimed was not included in her job responsibilities. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/632DD41FCE1CF2A38825707400583938/$file/0316502.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We accepted jurisdiction and have consolidated them for purposes of decision. 3084.6(c).1 If the issue is not resolved during the informal appeal. The grievant next proceeds to the first formal appeal There are eight situations in which attempted resolution at the informal level is not required. The informal level is not required when a grievance involves </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199904/98-5133a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Peter H. With him on the brief was William H. With him on the briefs were Frank W. Dunn was on the notice of joinder in brief for appellant Joseph P. Rotenberg was on the brief for amicus curiae The Regents of the University of Minnesota. Circuit Judge: The question presented in this appeal is whether states are defendant persons under the False Claims Act. We hold that they are not. I. Ronald Long was the Coordinator of Investigations and Audit for the Bureau of Proprietary School Supervision of the New York State Department of Education. Long's theory was that since the Bureau received a share of the federal funds that SCS fraudulently obtained from the United States. Long was taken off the investigation and then fired in 1992. Was a sweetheart deal that was but another instance of the state's conspiracy with SCS to conceal and perpetuate SCS' fraud a conspiracy that he alleges continued until SCS filed for bankruptcy in 1995. New York ignored evidence of SCS' continuing fraud and falsely represented to the United States that SCS' fraud had ceased and that it was actively monitoring SCS. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-1667a.html">SPRINT COMM CO V. FCC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200514254.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case was brought as a class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. While the case was being prepared for trial. The Dealers' appeal is No. 05 14543. Westgate's appeal is No. 05 15152. This is the second time the Dealers' breach of contract claims against Ford have been before this court. On the Dealers' petition for a writ of The petition for writ of mandamus is No. 05 14254. We have consolidated this petition with the appeals designated in note 2. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/09/98-1275.htm">98-1275 -- MALLINSON-MONTAGUE V. POCRNICK -- 09/19/2000<BR></A><BR> ProBank asserts as follows: (1) it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law under the affirmative defense set forth by the Supreme Court in <em>Burlington Industries v. (2) the district court erred in instructing the jury that Pocrnick was the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr98/95-3255.opn.html">ARMSTRONG V. MARTIN MARIETTA CORP. (4/16/1998, NO. 95-3255)<BR></A><BR> Hull and Stanley Marcus became members of the court after this case was argued and taken under submission. The Supreme Court held that the commencement of a class action suspends the applicable statute of limitations for all asserted members of the putative class </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr98/95-3255.opn.html">ARMSTRONG V. MARTIN MARIETTA CORP. (4/16/1998, NO. 95-3255)<BR></A><BR> Hull and Stanley Marcus became members of the court after this case was argued and taken under submission. The Supreme Court held that the commencement of a class action suspends the applicable statute of limitations for all asserted members of the putative class </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-5133a.html">USA/LONG RONALD E. V. STATE OF NEW YORK<BR></A><BR> Argued the cause for appellant/cross appellee.<p> With him on the briefs was <i>Peter H. With him on the brief was <i>William H. With him on the briefs were <i>Frank W. <p> Hunger</i>. Dunn</i> was on the notice of joinder in brief for <p> appellant Joseph P. Rotenberg</i> was on the brief for <i>amicus curiae</i> The <p> Regents of the University of Minnesota.<p> <p> Before: Wald. <i>Circuit Judge</i>: The question presented in this <p> appeal is whether states are defendant persons under the <p> False Claims Act. We hold that they are <p> not.<p> <p> <p> <b>I.</b> <p> <p> Ronald Long was the Coordinator of Investigations and <p> Audit for the Bureau of Proprietary School Supervision of the <p> New York State Department of Education. The Bureau's funding depended in substantial part on <p> tuition assessments and fines that SCS paid to the Bureau. <p> Long's theory was that since the Bureau received a share of <p> the federal funds that SCS fraudulently obtained from the <p> United States. Frey and <p> other state officials took actions to limit and subvert his <p> investigation.<p> <p> Long was taken off the investigation and then fired in 1992. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-3442.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Francesca Alvaro. With her on the brief were Neil A.G. Garcia had not proven that her actions were involuntary and therefore dismissed Ms. I An adverse action is an official action taken by a federal agency and imposed on an employee. Such official action is by statute clearly within the jurisdiction of the Board. An aggrieved employee can appeal such an action to the Board for a determination as to whether the action was proper. 5 U.S.C. § 7513(d) (2000). It deals with what is known as a constructive adverse action. Although a resignation is ostensibly a voluntary separation from employment. It is possible that an employee can be coerced into resigning by actions of the employing agency. Such an involuntary adverse action is known as a constructive adverse action. Garcia alleges that the constructive adverse action was prompted by a violation of her rights to be free from discrimination in the workplace. It is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/06/03-3069.htm">03-3069 -- ANNETT V. UNIVERSTIY OF KANSAS -- 06/15/2004<BR></A><BR> She was denied tenure in March 1998. Her employment was terminated at the end of the 1998 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/12B5E979646FEF1D88256FCF00033CA7/$file/0156069.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Will & Emery. Precedent that is available in analogous situations. Because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200611582.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1997/97a1705p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whether the obligors on unmatured promissory notes can obtain declaratory relief against the obligees of those notes and have the notes declared void and unenforceable. Whether transactions involving investment securities are covered under section 9.2(a) of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade 2 Practices and Consumer Protection Law ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0334a-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a consolidated case. The Heiser Plaintiffs are individuals who live or have lived in or near Oak Ridge. Who allegedly have cancer or have an increased risk of acquiring cancer or other diseases. The Ball Plaintiffs are African Americans who live or have lived in a community known as Scarboro in Oak Ridge. Plaintiffs claim that they have been harmed through exposure to radioactive and other toxic substances over the period when nuclear weapons were manufactured in Oak Ridge. Defendants are private contractors of the United States government that operate or have operated nuclear weapons manufacturing and research facilities in the Oak Ridge Reservation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jul1998/98a1913p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal from the approval of the settlement of a nationwide class action lawsuit against Prudential Life Insurance Company alleging deceptive sales practices affecting over 8 million claimants throughout thefifty states and the District of Columbia. The class is comprised of Prudential policyholders who allegedly were the victims of fraudulent and misleading sales practices employed by Prudential's sales force. Each cause of action is based on fraud or deceptive conduct. There are no allegations of personal injury. There are no futures classes. The relief awarded includes full compensatory damages consisting of what plaintiffs thought they were purchasing from the insurance agent. There is no cap on the amount of compensatory damages for those who qualify. Although punitive damages are not included in the settlement. Federal subject matter jurisdiction is properly grounded on the alleged violations of the federal securities laws. 6 supplemental jurisdiction is proper because all of the claims arise out of a common nucleus of operative fact. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/95-5258.opn.html">LLAMPALLAS V. MINI-CIRCUITS, LAB, INC. (12/28/1998, NO. 95-5258)<BR></A><BR> Blanch would have Llampallas fired. Told Kaylie that she was quitting because she could not work with Llampallas anymore. Claiming that she was unlawfully terminated </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19955258.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Blanch would have Llampallas fired. Told Kaylie that she was quitting because she could not work with Llampallas anymore. Claiming that she was unlawfully terminated </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/95-5258.opn.html">LLAMPALLAS V. MINI-CIRCUITS, LAB, INC. (12/28/1998, NO. 95-5258)<BR></A><BR> Blanch would have Llampallas fired. Told Kaylie that she was quitting because she could not work with Llampallas anymore. Claiming that she was unlawfully terminated </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982200.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Because we are reviewing a grant of summary judgment in favor of First Union. She was paid hourly. The position of team leader at First Union was a supervisory position. Smith was responsible for implementing and communicating collection procedures. Scoggins subjected Smith to a barrage of threats and gender based insults while she was under his supervision. Scoggins' remarks began when he informed Smith that he would have preferred a male in the team leader position because males are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992393.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. This case is before us for the second time. Was off limits. She was a no good nasty bitch. It was continuous daily. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19955258.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Blanch would have Llampallas fired. Told Kaylie that she was quitting because she could not work with Llampallas anymore. Claiming that she was unlawfully terminated </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1455.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Jason H. With him on the brief were Clyde A. 579 (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054708p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were both </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTQ0OTRfc28ucGRm/05-4494_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/96-2221.htm">96-2221 -- ARCHULETA V. LACUESTA -- 12/03/1997<BR></A><BR> Should be remanded because removal was not authorized by 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1399.html">HUNTER DOUGLAS V. HARMONIC DESIGN<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2738.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While she was employed by the City of Waukegan (the City). Leslie McPherson alleges that she was sexually harassed. Her claims that the City was liable for Copenharve's torts under a respondeat superior theory and her demand that the City indemnify any judgment against Copenharve. She was promoted to Clerical Technician II sometime around September 1999. McPherson was one of two clerical technicians and reported directly to Edna Nieves. Michelle Weland was the office manager. It was Nieves who conducted McPherson's performance reviews. When he asked her what color bra she was wearing. What color is your bra today. (Appellant's Br. 1 It is undisputed that Copenharve was McPherson's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTQ0OTRfc28ucGRm/05-4494_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3239_032.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The benefits of recognition are several. If an organization is officially recognized by the law school. The upside is even more benefits. Groups that register with the No. 05 3239 3 university also get university money (it is not clear how much) and access to meeting space at the SIU student center. CLS is a nationwide association of legal professionals and law students who share (broadly speaking) a common faith Christianity. Members are expected to subscribe to a statement of faith and agree to live by certain moral principles. Is that sexual activity outside of a traditional (one man. One woman) marriage is forbidden. It explained that while </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2003/012312.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Shannon Schieber was raped and murdered in her second floor apartment at 251 S. 23rd Street. The District Court's order denying summary judgment will be reversed. This matter will be remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of Officers Woods and Scherff. I. The following account of the relevant facts reflects the undisputed evidence in the summary judgment record except where the contrary is expressly noted. Were watching television when they heard a noise that made Greeley think that Schieber was in a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0229p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a consolidated case. The Heiser Plaintiffs are individuals who live or have lived in or near Oak Ridge. Who allegedly have cancer or have an increased risk of acquiring cancer or other diseases. The Ball Plaintiffs are African Americans who live or have lived in a community known as Scarboro in Oak Ridge. Plaintiffs claim that they have been harmed through exposure to radioactive and other toxic substances over the period when nuclear weapons were manufactured in Oak Ridge. Defendants are private contractors of the United States government that operate or have operated nuclear weapons manufacturing and research facilities in the Oak Ridge Reservation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept99/97-3458.man.html">WRIGHT V. SOUTHLAND CORP. (9/3/1999, NO. 97-3458)<BR></A><BR> We conclude that direct evidence of employment discrimination is evidence from which a trier of fact could conclude. That an adverse employment action was taken against the plaintiff on the basis of a protected personal characteristic. Wright was the manager of a 7 11 convenience store in Kissimmee. At which time he was discharged.</P> <P> The Southland Corporation owner of the 7 11 chain asserts that it fired Wright because of continuing merchandise control problems. Wright argues that he was discharged in retaliation for his filing of a claim of age discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec99/98-5206.man.html">AM. FIRST FED., INC. V. LAKE FOREST PARK, INC. (12/23/1999, NO. 98-5206)<BR></A><BR> Lake Forest argues (1) that the district court erred in granting judgment on the promissory note because it was not enforceable under Florida law. The Resolution Trust Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept99/97-3458.man.html">WRIGHT V. SOUTHLAND CORP. (9/3/1999, NO. 97-3458)<BR></A><BR> We conclude that direct evidence of employment discrimination is evidence from which a trier of fact could conclude. That an adverse employment action was taken against the plaintiff on the basis of a protected personal characteristic. Wright was the manager of a 7 11 convenience store in Kissimmee. At which time he was discharged.</P> <P> The Southland Corporation owner of the 7 11 chain asserts that it fired Wright because of continuing merchandise control problems. Wright argues that he was discharged in retaliation for his filing of a claim of age discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19985206.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lake Forest argues (1) that the district court erred in granting judgment on the promissory note because it was not enforceable under Florida law. The Resolution Trust Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19985206.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lake Forest argues (1) that the district court erred in granting judgment on the promissory note because it was not enforceable under Florida law. The Resolution Trust Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec99/98-5206.man.html">AM. FIRST FED., INC. V. LAKE FOREST PARK, INC. (12/23/1999, NO. 98-5206)<BR></A><BR> Lake Forest argues (1) that the district court erred in granting judgment on the promissory note because it was not enforceable under Florida law. The Resolution Trust Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CBFA0109216785C488256C6A00602F11/$file/0156203.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was notified via first class mail on August 23. She concluded that sanctions were appropriate under 11 U.S.C. § 362(h) because Eskanos knew of the bankruptcy filing on September 6. It did not have knowledge of the August 23 notice until it registered the notice into its computer system on September 12. Jurisdiction of this court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). Whether the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) have been violated is a question of law reviewed de novo. Whether a party has willfully violated the automatic stay is a question of fact reviewed for clear error. The amount of sanctions imposed for a willful violation of the stay is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Section 362(a) Imposes an Affirmative Duty to Discontinue Collection Actions While a Bankruptcy Appellate Panel in this circuit has held that creditors have an affirmative duty to discontinue post ESKANOS v. Our court does not have a published opinion dealing with the issue. The first and most important step in construing a statute is the statutory language itself. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/99-1258.htm">99-1258 -- JOSEPH V. WILES -- 08/04/2000<BR></A><BR> We are asked to determine whether a variety of threshold. Reverse and remand in part. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F7FA4E8DA707E57788256EEB00781702/$file/0216604.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Must prove individualized reliance where that proof is otherwise necessary to establish actual or proximate causation. Their challenges are based on Burford abstention. None of which is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1242.html">CONSOLIDATED EDISON V. O'LEARY<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-2181.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The principal obligation at issue in this case is encompassed within 7(a)(2) of the ESA. That section requires an acting agency (allegedly the Forest Service) to consult with FWS to ensure the former's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200212054ord2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Habeas petitioners and § 2255 movants have sought to circumvent the AEDPA's restrictions on second round collateral attacks in federal courts. One of the most popular vehicles used in the attempted end runs is a Fed. We entered an order granting hearing or rehearing en banc in three cases in order to answer some common questions that have arisen about the use of Rule 60(b) motions to obtain relief from judgments that denied § 2254 relief (in two of the cases before us). Which was after this case was submitted for decision. That is. 4) was it an abuse of discretion for the district court to deny the Rule 60(b) motion in his case? In the sequence in which the panel decisions or orders were issued in them. A. A decade ago at a retrial Stephen Mobley was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1991 murder of a Domino's Pizza employee during an armed robbery. Who had been the district attorney when the prosecution began but no longer was. He told the jury that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200505/04-7063a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs were Susan L. With him on the brief were Robert J. In 1993 she was assigned to work as an administrative assistant in the Office of the Major at the D.C. In 1995 Larry Corbett was promoted to the position of Major. In August 3 1997 Corbett was promoted to Deputy Warden. In November Corbett's father died and Roebuck reluctantly agreed to have dinner with Corbett in order to console him. Told Corbett she was asleep. Sometime in January 1998 Corbett told Roebuck she should wear her hair up </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2001/002257.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was previously operated as a monopoly overseen by the several states. Conditions of such arrangements are set forth in interconnection agreements established between the carriers. The state utility commissions are empowered. Arguing that they were immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution. The PUC and Verizon each appealed and the appeals were consolidated. We have jurisdiction over the final decision of a District Court. We conclude that the PUC and the Commissioners are not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court under the 1996 Act. We will. We will affirm the District Court in part and reverse it in part. Is able to compete with an ILEC without having to bear the prohibitive cost of building its own telecommunications network. Both an ILEC and a CLEC are required to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3991_019.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case examines whether a Title VII plaintiff who is wrongly terminated should be foreclosed from pursuing her claims where her employer eventually reinstates her with back pay. Primarily because the district court erroneously found that Phelan was not subject to an adverse employment action. The boiler room is part of Cook County's Buildings and Grounds Department. She was the target of sexually offensive comments and solicitations. Kelly Freeman was responsible for investigating complaints of sexual harassment. Phelan did not immedi No. 04 3991 3 ately do so because Callaghan told her that she should not have further contact with Kelly Freeman. Which she said was the result of a July 9. Phelan was notified by the Cook County Hospital police that she needed to file a report with the Chicago Police Department to further the prosecution of her case. The two hospital employees who assaulted Phelan were suspended without pay while the matter was investigated. Phelan was directed not to report back to work until a suitable resolution was determined and she was notified that she would be paid while the hospital sought to resolve the situation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/10/951962P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This action was brought in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Albert Burnham and Ronald Marchese. Plaintiffs sought a declaration that Ianni's actions were unconstitutional. I. Background The underlying facts of this case are generally not in dispute. at 397. Which are at the The Kohns center of this dispute. Were originally part of a visual exhibit conceived of and created by the Kohns while they were students at UMD. faculty advisor. convey to were both members of the UMD history club. For which Burnham was the The Kohns' objective in displaying the exhibit was to the history faculty's diverse interests. The photographs were then juxtaposed with written descriptions of the subject's academic background. Approximately one year before the photographs of Burnham and Marchese were removed from the display case. Sandra Featherman was appointed to the post of UMD vice chancellor. Was circulated through the UMD system and distributed on and around campus. memorandum referred to the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032898p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This appeal requires us to decide whether this holding is consistent with Robinson v. Is not prejudiced by the delay. We hold that it is. That the petition was untimely. We will therefore affirm the order of the District Court denying the petition on that ground. I. Facts and Procedural History Long was found guilty by a jury in Indiana County. His post trial motions were denied and he was sentenced to life in prison. In August 1995 new counsel was appointed under the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act. It was denied. It was denied as an untimely state post conviction petition. As the merits of Long's claims are not at issue here we will not provide an exhaustive list. Long alleged that: (1) he was deprived of a fair trial in that his motion for severance was denied and in that witnesses were not sequestered. (2) his statement to police was admitted in violation of Miranda v. That any habeas claim that could fairly be said to have been raised at all levels either on direct appeal or in the first state post conviction petition was exhausted. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-2138.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Howard Charles and Ortiz Toro & Ortiz Brunet Law Offices were on brief. Were on brief. These details are not relevant to the legal issues posed on appeal. Though Martinez was not scheduled to begin his shift until 4:00 a.m. Martinez alleges that he was on duty from the moment he arrived even before his shift began because from that point forward he was subject to the shift commander's 2 orders. A fellow officer who was on duty at the time. Inquired if Martinez was afraid. First telling Valentin: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021158.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Rebekah Homesley (Homesley) was awarded $200. Homesley was awarded $165. Robert Yarborough (Yarborough) was Homesley's supervisor. Yarborough told Homesley he had just eaten lunch but had not known her name was lunch. Told Homesley that he was going to eat lunch and then grinned and wiped his mouth. Yarborough came into a welding booth where Homesley and another manual welder were discussing how to weld a fixture. The case was tried before a United States Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 1 4 HOMESLEY v. Yarborough replied that he was her boss and he would do as he liked and there was nothing she could do about it. What if an employee is having problems with sexual harassment? </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/00/00-3771.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The challenged promotions were made pursuant to an affirmative action plan by which blacks. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTM5MjItY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3922-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court found that Plaintiff Appellee Dennis Paese was entitled to benefits under a long term disability plan provided by his employer. Rather is an affirmative defense. Which was issued by Hartford and governed by ERISA. Could not perform the essential duties of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972721.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> During which the Sam's workers cast votes indicating whether they desired Union representation.1 The factual discussion that follows is drawn from the ALJ's findings. A. As employees and management at Sam's were gearing up for the election. Union matters were a frequent topic of conversation. While they were alone in an office that she hoped that the Union won the elec 1 The employees voted against Union representation by a vote of 88 to 52. 2 According to the testimony of Sam's general manager Kent Kramer. This organizing campaign was the first attempt by a union to organize in the retail divisions of Wal Mart Stores. 3 tion. It is not clear from the record which of the two women actually made the statement that she thought Sam's would close. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/10/002490P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. The individual defendants in this case were all involved in related business enterprises engaged in selling sexually explicit adult entertainment material. (Broadway Visuals) and are the directors of the company. This location was only two blocks from the adult bookstore operated by Broadway Visuals on Hennepin Avenue. This claim was denied. That the claim for loss of a going concern by Golden Spike was therefore fraudulent. The MCDA alleged that this scheme was devised so that the resulting tax savings could be used to compensate Alan Segal for his investment in the failed Golden Spike enterprise. 3 Golden Spike's check register indicates a payment to Segal in the amount of $16. Concluding that this action is collaterally estopped by reason of the state court condemnation judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate if the record </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/04/03-8012.htm">03-8012 -- KENNARD V. COMSTOCK RESOURCES INC. -- 04/05/2004<BR></A><BR> The Indian leases are subject to regulation by the Secretary of the Interior who acts as a fiduciary for the Tribe. The MMS is responsible for (1) collecting royalties. Wright speculated that Comstock was underpaying him and others in the area. Relator Kennard researched and investigated public records and discovered that the Indian leases might have expired. They concluded that Comstock was underpaying royalties to the Tribe and also that Comstock knew that it was underpaying the Tribe. Relators sent the required </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="559"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991566.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Her immediate supervisor was Local Sales Manager Mitchell Maund. Who was promoted to that position in 1992. While the two were watching an R rated movie rented on Maund's instructions. Maund was out of town that day. Williams left her job with Spartan and is now unemployed and in counseling. The notice of appeal was timely. Reasoning that a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="559"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1997/97a1742p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PERSONS UNKNOWN WHO HAVE ATTEMPTED TO OBSTRUCT CONSTRUCTION WORK ON PLAINTIFF'S LAND. A crucial issue is the location of certain boundary lines. We will affirm the district court's order as certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The order was certified as final within the terms of Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). The facts and disputes presented in this case are complex and multifarious. We will recite only those facts essential to deciding the issues on appeal. At stake were the title to and boundaries of parcels located in the Hansen Bay and Newfound Bay Estates in the East End Quarter of St. John.1 Included in the relief requested was the appointment of Eric Christian as Administrator of the Estate of James George Sewer. To Danish Colonial times when the rural parts of the Virgin Islands were divided into large tracts for agricultural purposes called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="559"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F3A817DDA98587C8882572B80054FFF4/$file/0635011.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1 found that proposed FCRPS operations for 2004 The agency is now NOAA Fisheries. STATE OF IDAHO through 2014 would not jeopardize the thirteen area salmonid species that are listed as threatened or endangered. NMFS and the State of Idaho (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="559"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1997/97a1742p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PERSONS UNKNOWN WHO HAVE <p>ATTEMPTED TO OBSTRUCT CONSTRUCTION WORK ON <p>PLAINTIFF'S LAND. A <p>crucial issue is the location of certain boundary lines. <p>Under the unique circumstances presented here. We will affirm the district court's <p>order as certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure <p>54(b). <br wp= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/july96/94-6299.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. CENTURY HEALTHCARE CORP.<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This provision bars qui tam suits that are based upon allegations of fraud already publicly disclosed. Because we conclude plaintiff's suit was not based upon publicly disclosed information. She was employed as a consultant to. It was her responsibility to monitor compliance with applicable Medicaid requirements. The defendants continued to submit noncomplying claims to the government that ultimately were paid by Medicaid. Only three copies of the Hughes Report were made: one copy was given to the DHS programs administrator. A second copy was provided to the defendants. No copies of the Hughes Report were released to the general public. Nor was this report available to the public except upon a written request for the specific record and approval from the DHS legal department. Because Congress sought to achieve </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/01/02-7016.htm">02-7016 -- TIMMONS V. WHITE -- 01/08/2003<BR></A><BR> He is entitled to seek de novo review of the remedy awarded without re litigating the merits of his discrimination claim. Timmons learned that McAAP officials had in fact extended the appointment of one of the employees whose appointment was to expire at the same time as his. Timmons was discriminated against based on disability when his temporary appointment was not extended. The same amount of time as the similarly situated employee whose appointment was extended </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-1655a.html">DEPT ARMY V. FLRA<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1844.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 11. Replace </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0179p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleging that TCI's opposition to SPG's tender offer was a breach of the fiduciary duties of the TCI Board. No. 03 1609 not have subject matter jurisdiction over the case. Had an interest in the litigation that would be impeded or impaired by a disposition in its absence but could not be joined as a defendant because two general partners were citizens of the same state as plaintiff Glancy. The question is whether that absentee partnership is an indispensable party pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(b) such that the action must be dismissed rather than proceed in the partnership's absence. We note that the following rendition of facts is based upon our reading of the documents compiled by the parties at an early stage of the litigation. The enterprises of the Taubman family is complex and laden with acronyms. TCI is a publicly traded corporation that was incorporated in Michigan in 1973 and that has its principal place of business in Michigan. TCI is organized as a corporate Real Estate Investment Trust ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1713_037.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the basis of any of the theories the plaintiffs have presented to us. Some or all of their claims are entitled to go forward. It concluded that the federal statute of limitations applicable to the plaintiffs' claims was not tolled during the pendency of certain state class actions in the California courts. Which were necessarily based on state rather than federal antitrust law. Whether viewed as a question of the time when the plaintiffs reasonably could have discovered that Morgan had anything to do with their injuries or viewed as a question of equitable estoppel and fraudulent concealment. The facts taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs could support a finding that their suit was timely. That the plaintiffs' claims against Sumitomo and Global were correctly dismissed. We therefore limit our discussion of the facts (taken for present purposes in the light most favorable to plaintiffs) to those that are of particular relevance. In the underlying actions that were consolidated under the multidistrict litigation (MDL) statute. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/97-6354.man.html">UNITED STATES V. CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED NEAR HIGHWAY 195(12/31/1998, NO. 97-6354)<BR></A><BR> Woods contends that summary judgment should not have been granted because (a) she did not receive proper notice of the forfeiture action and (b) there are disputed material facts concerning the posting of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200311960.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. * This is Belinda Hulsey's appeal from a summary judgment entered against her in the Title VII sexual harassment lawsuit she filed against her former employer. We view the evidence the way the district court should have viewed it. That the court should not have thrown out Hulsey's case without a trial. The restaurant was one of nine in Alabama owned and managed by Pride Restaurants. She was 17 years old. Garrison was either 20 or 21. 2 About ten to fourteen days after Hulsey began working. She had Krystal tell Garrison that she was not interested. The night after Krystal told Garrison that Hulsey was not interested in him. The three were closing the restaurant together. Even though the girls' grandmother was waiting for them in the parking lot. That he was [her] boss. Promising that he would </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2000/985193.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleging they violated his constitutional rights because he was abused by the person with whom he was staying while in DYFS custody. Was admitted to the John F. Nicini told them that he was afraid of his father. Nicini continued to have difficulty at home and in school. DYFS was informed on October 9. That Nicini was not at school and that he had previously told the assistant principal that he would not return home.1 On October 10. That Nicini had been located and that he had repeated his refusal to return home and again stated that his father was abusive. Although the parties have not educated us as to the meaning of this agreement. After Nicini was located. Trigiani was unsure after Nicini'sfirst appointment on January 3. What happened thereafter is not clear from the record or the appendices submitted with the parties' briefs. Apparently Nicini was not admitted to JFK at that time. 1991 notes that Nicini was at JFK Hospital with an infected hand and might require admission to treat the infection. Bonnie Nicini reportedly stated that the plan was to hospitalize Nicini for depression. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1520.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fitz Gibbon</SPAN> were on brief. Sapirstein</SPAN> was on brief. The plaintiff replies that the extension was improvidently granted (and. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19976354.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Woods contends that summary judgment should not have been granted because (a) she did not receive proper notice of the forfeiture action and (b) there are disputed material facts concerning the posting of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/97-6354.man.html">UNITED STATES V. CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED NEAR HIGHWAY 195(12/31/1998, NO. 97-6354)<BR></A><BR> Woods contends that summary judgment should not have been granted because (a) she did not receive proper notice of the forfeiture action and (b) there are disputed material facts concerning the posting of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DC763D6CA9638EBC88256B5E005D7616/$file/0016568.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We do not decide whether use of the prior findings at least in some fashion was improper. We conclude the procedure adopted here was flawed because it did not meet the requirements of our fair notice doctrine. While appeal of that dismissal was pending. We have discretion to remand a case to the district court for further consideration when new laws likely to influence a decision have become effective during the pendency of an appeal. Whether the PLRA exhaustion require2402 ment is an affirmative defense or a pleading requirement is an issue of first impression in this Circuit. We adopt the rule of the majority of circuits and hold that it is an affirmative defense. Facts and Procedural Background Wyatt is an inmate incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison in Ione. Defendants do not dispute that Wyatt's religious beliefs are sincerely held or that dreadlocks are a means of practicing the Rastafarian religion. That require him to cut his hair. 1 Female inmates are not subject to the same regulations.2 Wyatt has been disciplined by prison officials for refusing to comply with the regulations. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2001/005026.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Claimed she was subjected to harassment and ultimately terminated. Is an undergraduate and graduate educational institution. Is a state college of New Jersey. 2 considered the evidence and applied certain legal principles. We will therefore reverse the grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings. Facts Most of the underlying facts are undisputed. Where there is a dispute. Abramson was the only Orthodox Jew employed in the School of Education at WPC. The days she missed on account of Jewish holidays were not counted as sick days. An untenured professor's academic performance was to be reviewed on an annual basis. Retention and tenure decisions in Abramson's department are first considered by the Curriculum and Instruction Retention Committee ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19976354.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Woods contends that summary judgment should not have been granted because (a) she did not receive proper notice of the forfeiture action and (b) there are disputed material facts concerning the posting of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/831635D7ABFA2C2388257242000209C2/$file/0573064.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chief Judge: This is a petition to review a decision of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4F7778C44FE40B548825706D0056C41A/$file/0316791.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that we have appellate jurisdiction and affirm. Who were officers and/or directors of Boston Chicken. Inc. are the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/00-1171.htm">00-1171 -- HAYNES TRANE SERVICE AGENCY V. AMERICAN STANDARD INC. -- 08/27/2002<BR></A><BR> The contract was for an indeterminate period and stated that it could </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-6148.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The officers were entitled to qualified immunity. It is undisputed that Mr. McCollum told Officer Wilson he was going to repossess a car and wanted Officer Wilson to be aware of the situation.(2) Mr. McCollum did not have the title to a car with him. The Pontiac was owned by Mrs. Was not the collateral securing Mr. Marcus was not home. Were there. It is disputed whether Officer Wilson was alerted by the confrontation and drove over on his own initiative or did so because Mr. Officer Wilson was soon joined by three other officers. Although the officers may have looked at Mr. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (2) The dissent states that there is no evidentiary support in the record for this statement. Although the officers stated that repossession was a civil matter in which the police could not be involved. Defendants assert that no one was threatened with force or arrest. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001185.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 4 the name </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1998/98a1810p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The issue we must address on this appeal is whether Pennsylvania's Workers' Compensation Act. The purpose of Act 44 was to contain the spiraling costs of medical treatment for work related injuries. It is these provisions of Act 44 which create the utilization review process and the corresponding supersedeas that are challenged in this action. Utilization review is a process whereby medical providers assess the reasonableness or necessity of current. Section 531(5) provides the mechanism by which utilization review is invoked. The decision to invoke utilization review is made independently by the employer or insurer. 7 A. Utilization review is invoked when an employee. The Bureau reviews the Initial Request to ensure that it is properly completed i.e. That all information required by the form is provided. If the Initial Request is improperly completed (i.e. If the Initial Request is completed properly. The request is approved and the party requesting review must serve a copy of the Initial Request upon the remaining interested parties. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/01/97-9556a.htm">97-9556A -- HRI, INC. V. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY -- 01/06/2000<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1197.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kleger</U> was on brief for appellant.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3779_031.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That motion was denied. Facts Spamhaus is a non profit company limited by guarantee and organized under the laws of the United Kingdom. It is an internet watchdog group in the business of identifying and blocking internet </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1766.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.A. were on brief for appellants. P.A. and Julianne Cloutier were on brief for appellee Amy Bierbaum. Cabell and Hale and Dorr were on brief for appellees Verrill & Dana. McClennen & Fish were on brief for appellee RECOLL Management Corporation. Hochadel & Libby were on brief for appellee Fleet Bank of Maine. The issue is one of first impression. We have attached them in an appendix to our opinion. 2. As will be discussed infra. We believe the court erred in determining that this action was jurisdictionally barred. Section 3730(e)(3) states: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/99-1344.htm">99-1344 -- WEINMAN V. FIDELITY CAPITAL APPRECIATION FUND -- 08/21/2001<BR></A><BR> Any and all additional parties who either have joined or will join the said Committee. Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-7008a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With </P> <P>him on the briefs were Kevin C. Was on the brief for </P> <P>amicus curiae District of Columbia Financial Responsibility </P> <P>&. On the brief </P> <P>were Brendan V. </P> <P>the District of Columbia contends that the officers are enti </P> <P>tled to qualified immunity because. It was not </P> <P>clearly established prior to Eric Butera's death that the </P> <P>officers' conduct would violate these rights. </P> <P>the appeal presents two questions of first impression in this </P> <P>circuit: (1) whether the District of Columbia can be held </P> <P>constitutionally liable for failing to protect an individual who </P> <P>is not in custody from harm inflicted by a third party. </P> <P>through which Eric Butera might have succeeded in proving a </P> <P>constitutional violation. Was not clearly established prior to </P> <P>his death. The officers were entitled to qualified immu </P> <P>nity. We also hold that there is no parental due process right </P> <P>to the company of an adult child who is independent. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/01/97-9556.htm">97-9556 -- HRI, INC. V. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY -- 01/06/2000<BR></A><BR> The effect of state adjudications against a tribe on EPA's authority to assess whether lands are Indian country. Dismissing in part and remanding in part. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2002/02-10223.opn.html">LOVE V. DELTA AIR LINES (10/31/2002, NO. 02-10223)<BR></A><BR> We reverse.</SPAN></P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0034p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleging that female corrections officers have been treated differently from similarly situated male corrections officers and accordingly have been denied promotions. Though they did not specify the conduct they sought to have enjoined. Because Title VII cases in which plaintiffs seek individual compensatory damages are not appropriately brought as class actions under Rule 23(b)(2) because such individual claims for money damages will always predominate over requested injunctive or declaratory relief. I. Factual and Procedural Background The facts of this case have been stated in the two prior district court opinions and the prior decision of this court. We therefore adopt the background as set forth in the opinion of the first panel of this court to deal with this case: [Belmont] is a prison operated by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections. Some of whose positions are covered by Ohio's civil service laws while others are covered by collective bargaining agreements with three distinct unions. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2002/02-10223.opn.html">LOVE V. DELTA AIR LINES (10/31/2002, NO. 02-10223)<BR></A><BR> We reverse.</SPAN></P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200101/00-7008a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Kevin C. Was on the brief for amicus curiae District of Columbia Financial Responsibility & Management Assistance Authority. On the brief were Brendan V. The District of Columbia contends that the officers are enti tled to qualified immunity because. It was not clearly established prior to Eric Butera's death that the officers' conduct would violate these rights. The appeal presents two questions of first impression in this circuit: (1) whether the District of Columbia can be held constitutionally liable for failing to protect an individual who is not in custody from harm inflicted by a third party. Through which Eric Butera might have succeeded in proving a constitutional violation. Was not clearly established prior to his death. The officers were entitled to qualified immu nity. We also hold that there is no parental due process right to the company of an adult child who is independent. The officers were entitled to summary judgment on all claims brought under 42 U.S.C. s 1983. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/04/03-5074.htm">03-5074 -- CONATZER V. MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL BUILDING SERVICES CORP. -- 04/13/2004<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff seeks review of the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendant on plaintiff's claims of sexual harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0073p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The plaintiffs appellants are four title insurance companies that do business in Michigan: First American Title Company (a subsidiary of First American Corporation). The defendants appellees are the Registers of Deeds of five counties in Michigan: Lapeer. First American contends that this no resale condition is an anticompetitive practice that violates the Sherman Antitrust Act. We affirm the dismissal of the Sherman Act claims with regard to the challenged practices of the Tuscola County Register because those practices are covered by state action immunity from antitrust liability. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A register of deeds ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1995/94a0944p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This appeal is before the court for rehearing in banc to clarify the proper standard for a jury charge in a pretext case alleging age discrimination.[fn1] Defendant Insurance Company of North America ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/06/053504P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> David Stern was a patient of the physicians for approximately four years. He was told that his cancer was in an advanced state and that his condition was terminal. These items of damage are all recoverable under Missouri law in a wrongful death claim. Holding that Ruth could not satisfy the requirement under Missouri law that she plead and prove that her son could have maintained a cause of action for personal injuries had he survived. The statute was amended in 2005. Because this is a diversity case. Such claims are brought pursuant to statute. Would have entitled such person to recover damages in respect thereof. The person or party who . . . would have been liable if death had not ensued shall be liable in an action for damages. The defendant may plead and prove as a defense any defense which the defendant would have had against the deceased in an action based upon the same act . . . which caused the death of the deceased. Which action for damages the deceased would have been entitled to bring had death not ensued. § 537.085. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982555.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Because we conclude that no rational jury could have failed to find that PSB established an affirmative defense to liability on the harassment claim. Watkins was hired by the Baltimore. The Baltimore office was overseen by Charles Fisher. Who was vice president of operations for PSB. Our review is for abuse of discretion. The facts set forth in the text are those viewed in the light most favorable to Watkins. Relevant conflicts in the evidence are identified in the accompanying footnotes. 2 Watkins testified. Watkins told Site Supervisor Hazel Dowling that Kelley had fondled Watkins' breasts and put his hands down her pants as she was changing clothes in the uniform room.3 Although Watkins indicated that she did not wish to pursue the matter. That Watkins told him that the incident occurred on the day she was rehired by Fisher after having been terminated by Nicola for poor job performance. The termination was rescinded on or about the first of July. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/02/041118U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This opinion is being filed by the remaining judges of the panel pursuant to 8th Cir. The sidewalk itself is not owned. Described the sidewalk where she was lying as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200210223.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Love was stricken with polio at the age of three and is paralyzed. That the restroom was too small to accommodate her. That she was not afforded privacy in the restroom. 49 U.S.C. § 41705.1 In her The ACAA was enacted as § 404(c) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958. Was codified at 49 U.S.C. § 1374(c). It was amended and recodified in 1994 at 49 U.S.C. § 41705. Subsections (b) and (c) of § 41705 were added by the Wendell H. May not discriminate against an otherwise qualified individual on the following grounds: (1) the individual has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. (2) the individual has a record of such an impairment. (3) the individual is regarded as having such an impairment. (b) Each act constitutes separate offense. Love sought a declaration that Delta had engaged in discrimination by not ensuring that its facilities and services were accessible to disabled persons. (2) What remedies are available to private litigants? The issue of whether a statute creates by implication a private right of action is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1880.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lamond with whom McDonald & Associates was on brief for appellants. Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law of the Boston Bar Association were on brief for intervenor. With whom Boston Police Department Legal Advisor's office was on brief for City of Boston. Was on brief for appellee. This is an appeal from the district court's granting of summary judgment in favor of Defendants City of Boston. The BPD believed that promoting Ruiz was necessary to avoid violating an amended 1980 federal court consent decree. That the promotion was narrowly tailored to meet that goal. Officers who pass the exam are placed on an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0329p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The announcement stated that: The successful [General Counsel] candidate must have the following minimum qualifications: (1) J.D. or L.L.B. from an accredited law school. At least ten of which must have been as full time. The search was conducted exclusively by University Trustee Roger Dickson. One of the candidates on Dickson's list was associate general counsel Ronald Leadbetter. Other than the fact that Leadbetter was an associate with the general counsel's office who oversaw some litigation at the University of Tennessee's Memphis campus. There is little information in the parties' briefs concerning Leadbetter's credentials. Deputy General Counsel Mizell was another candidate whose name appeared on Dickson's list. She was a former editor in chief of the University of Tennessee Law Review and she met all of the job requirements for General Counsel. Mizell was recommended by General Counsel Brogan. It was clear to him from the outset of the 15 minute interview that Gilley was not interested in his qualifications for the position since the interview involved little more than </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0199p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Seeking a declaration that it was not required to defend or indemnify J & L in a personal injury action in state court relating to a logging accident that occurred on November 13. Was preparing to haul a load of timber from a J & L logging site. 2004ction was whether Shields was an employee of J & L at the time of his injury and. Facts J & L is a small. Is a fifty eight year old man who has worked in or around the logging industry most of his adult life. Which were garaged at his house and were maintained primarily by him. J & L hired Shields's trucks and drivers when it needed loads hauled and did not have any available trucks or drivers of its own. Although there was no formal contract between them. The payment arrangement between Shields and J & L was somewhat complicated. Shields was paid by the load for his work hauling for J & L. Shields was listed as an employee on the J & L payroll registers. He received a weekly payroll check of $250 from which taxes and health insurance premiums were withheld. He also received a check from the general account from which no withholdings were taken. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2000/982164.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to decide whether the affirmative defenses of setoff. This appeal raises a question as to whether the creditor whose affirmative defenses were extinguished by the Bankruptcy sale received constitutionally adequate notice such that failure to object would result in a waiver of its affirmative defenses and its deemed consent to the transformation of the debtors' contract claims into unimpeachable accounts receivable. Were not extinguished by the Bankruptcy sale. Was constitutionally inadequate. We will reverse the judgment of the District Court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Folger acquired substantially all of the assets of three bankrupt companies through a bankruptcy auction </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></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-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0521n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was a tenured professor of Psychology at Shelby State Community College ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/06/96-6134.htm">96-6134 -- CURTIS V. OKLAHOMA CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION -- 06/16/1998<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/00-1303.htm">00-1303 -- COLORADO CROSS DISABILITY COALITION V. WILLIAMS -- 08/29/2001<BR></A><BR> Williams is a Denver attorney who. Is paralyzed from the chest down and uses a power wheel chair for mobility. The door to the store is recessed from the storefront and adds another barrier to wheelchair access of one to three inches. <p> In 1996. Concluding that Plaintiff failed to establish that removal of architectural barriers at the four locations was readily achievable. Including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction or restraining order for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1345.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is about a neighborhood conflict that disintegrated into violence. Our jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. 1291. We affirm. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. (I App. at 115) The Maygers and Hiemer are long time residents of the subdivision as well as friends. Are responsible for the ditch's upkeep and administration. (Id. at 162) Because the ditch's head gate is on the Marinos' property. The Maygers are entitled to use an irrigation easement on both sides of the ditch to access the head gate and perform ditch maintenance. (Id. at 46) The court ruled that the Marinos were entitled to receive their full share of irrigation water and. Returned to the Maygers' residence. (1) This allegation is based on testimony given during the hearing on Sprague Mayger's motion to have his restraining order lifted. They [Mayger and Hiemer] were the ones to come and contact us in regards to anything going on and ask for advice. Hiemer was later taken to MCSD by a sheriff's deputy. Charged with first degree assault before he was released. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E6F7D86C0D07E46788256DAB00804CAD/$file/0235958.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case is the latest round in a long simmering legal feud between an Alaska Native corporation and a municipality over ownership of land on St. The district court found that the City's claims were barred by the six year statute of limitations that Alaska law imposes on lawsuits by municipalities. Because the City's affirmative defenses are likewise barred by the statute of limitations. Windswept Pribilof Islands were one of the reasons that the United States bought Alaska from Russia in 1867. The fur seal trade on the Pribilof Islands was the only viable commercial prospect of any significance. The City was entitled to a reconveyance from TDX for certain municipal purposes. The parties' disagreement centered on the amount of land TDX was required to reconvey to the City under 43 U.S.C. § 1613(c)(3) and the use restrictions that TDX could impose on the reconveyed land. The two sides reached a settlement that was ultimately approved by the City Council at a public meeting in early 1988. The City's case was later transferred to federal court in Alaska. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2003/0138052.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> MD 21201 Amicus Law Professors in support of Appellant *** Joining Professor Lipson on the brief are Professors Ralph Brubaker. Introduction This is an appeal from an Order of the District Court. The question on appeal is whether the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Hartford Underwriters Ins. While the question in Hartford Underwriters was one of a nontrustee's right unilaterally to circumvent the Code's remedial scheme. Our conclusion is consistent with the received wisdom that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/june97/95-4114.wpd.html">OHLANDER V. LARSON<BR></A><BR> Was adopted by the signatory nations </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0153n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1 was (1) denied her constitutional right to substantive due process. Rebecca Cay Caldwell will be identified in the text of this opinion only as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1440.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Crow were on brief for appellant. P.C. were on brief for appellee. Reliance appeals the trial court's ruling that ERISA preemption is an affirmative defense which Reliance waived by failing to plead it timely. He was diagnosed with severe depression. There was conflicting testimony at trial as to whether Wolf actually was entitled to the unpaid remainder of his salary. Stating that Wolf had neither proved that he was a full time employee when he became disabled nor that he was totally disabled. That Wolf was late giving notice of his claim. That Wolf's state law claims were preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1575.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lucas is an African American male who has been employed with the CTA since 1993. Lucas was hired as a track inspector. Maintaining and repairing sections of track and surrounding right of ways to ensure the tracks were safe for CTA trains. The Tie Handler machine is used to stack railroad ties prior to their insertion or after their extraction. He only was permitted to operate that machine three times. He was often assigned to work on the Tie Handler machine. This request also was to no avail. 1 Because this is an appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment. Lucas checked the box that indicated that he was alleging race discrimination by his supervisor. Lucas details the days he was permitted to work on the machine and his efforts in securing more work for himself on the machine he preferred. This request was denied. A position in which he was no longer supervised by Blatz. Lucas asserts that he was aware of the finding of cause but not aware either that the finding was discredited upon review or that the managers were not disciplined in any way. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2003/991324.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Enough is Enough. In which the Court held that our decision affirming the District Court's grant of a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3501.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case was certified to us under Fed. The district court further made it clear that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200014340.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The three Plaintiffs are white females who applied unsuccessfully for admission to the University's Fall 1999 class. The University's freshman admissions policy does not unlawfully discriminate on the basis of race because the policy is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest in ensuring a diverse Honorable Harlington Wood. Student body diversity is not a compelling interest sufficient to withstand the strict scrutiny that courts must apply to government decision making based on race. Because even assuming that student body diversity is a compelling interest. The University's 1999 freshman admissions policy is not narrowly tailored to achieve this interest. Plaintiff Jennifer Johnson's complaint was filed separately. Eventually was consolidated with the complaint of Plaintiffs Aimee Bogrow and Molly Ann Beckenhauer.1 All three Plaintiffs had recently been denied admission to UGA. Therefore were. Johnson was offered admission to UGA after filing this lawsuit. They alleged that UGA's use of gender violated Equal Protection and Title IX.2 Named as Defendants were the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTQ5MzItY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-4932-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Cablevision had violated the uniform rate requirement of 47 U.S.C. § 543(d) 2 1 Broder's Notice of Appeal also describes various interlocutory orders that are merged into the final judgment. 2 Codifying Section 623(d) of the Communications Act of 1934. We conclude that both removal and dismissal were proper. At the time the complaint in this case was filed. The Basic Cable rate was $10.50 per month and the Family Cable rate was amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992. This rate was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1995/95a1214p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that the action was not time barred and that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/07/963916P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Wisland argues on appeal that Wisconsin law should have The Honorable John B. That her process was timely served. 1991 Wisland was driving her motorcycle through South Dakota when several boxes of drinking straws fell from a truck in front of her. She lost control of her motorcycle when it rolled over the straws and was injured in the resulting accident. The truck was owned by Admiral Beverage. The driver was its employee Paul Mayer. Wisland is a Wisconsin resident and returned to that state after the accident where she was treated for her injuries. Mayer is a South Dakota resident. Admiral Beverage is incorporated in Wyoming but does business in South Dakota. The copies were received by the addressees on August 9. Admiral Beverage and Mayer were served on August 10. Defendants moved to dismiss Wisland's complaint on the grounds that the Wisconsin district court lacked personal jurisdiction and was not the proper venue. Defendants' motions were never addressed by that court. A decision to grant summary judgment is reviewed de novo. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/02/973972P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have appellate jurisdiction over the district court's final order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 22 1 BACKGROUND FACTS Most of the facts are not disputed. The following statement of facts is taken in large part from the district court's memorandum opinion and order. Fried is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/03/97-4019.htm">97-4019 -- SUTTON V. UTAH STATE SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF AND BLIND -- 03/01/1999<BR></A><BR> An amended complaint was filed in October 1996 which expanded the plaintiff's claims to allege a federal civil rights violation under 42 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1497.html">KOYO SEIKO V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0226p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jordan's racial discrimination claims were dismissed by the district court via summary judgment. P. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/993320.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On an alter ego theory because Eastern should have pursued this claim in the context of Delta's bankruptcy case. We will reverse the District Court's order granting Mahan's motion for summary judgment. Therefore we will affirm as to that order. We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal under 28 U.S.C. Facts and Procedural History Eastern was party to a sales agency contract with Bestone. Which is solely owned by Mahan. Was one of a group of companies owned or partially owed by Mahan. The cases were administratively. Eastern was quite aggressive in challenging Delta and its dealings with affiliated entities at every turn of the bankruptcy case and repeatedly asserted that Delta had been used for the benefit of the affiliated companies. Arranged for employment of special counsel that was not disinterested by virtue of its prepetition claim against Delta. Asserting that counsel was a prepetition creditor of Delta and thus was not disinterested. Alleging that they were not disinterested because they previously had performed services for Millington. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034033p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At issue is whether a putative class representative's claim is mooted by a Rule 68 offer of judgment so as to defeat federal subject matter jurisdiction in a suit requesting class wide relief. We will reverse and remand. That case was vacated and reheard by the Court en banc. Arguing Weiss's claim was rendered moot because the Rule 68 offer provided him the maximum damages available under the statute.3 For this is accepted. An offer not accepted shall be deemed withdrawn and evidence thereof is not admissible except in a proceeding to determine costs. If the judgment finally obtained by the offeree is not more favorable than the offer. Weiss argues his claim was not rendered moot by the Rule 68 offer. Is whether defendants' Rule 68 offer mooted the claim. When the issues presented in a case are no longer </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052403p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the orders in part and reverse in part and will remand the matter to the district court for further proceedings. The Parties and Their Agreement Plaintiff Elliott & Frantz is an industrial construction equipment sales and service provider incorporated under the laws of Pennsylvania with its principal place of business in that state. Defendant Ingersoll Rand is a manufacturer and supplier of industrial construction equipment incorporated under the laws of New Jersey with its principal place of business in that state. Elliott & Frantz and Ingersoll Rand entered into a written Distributor Selling Agreement (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/06/992853P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Perry plant is divided into three sections: the kill floor. Where hogs are killed. The sections are organized into numerous production lines. Each of which is responsible for a different facet of hog processing. The lines are composed of line workers. A utility position is usually the first step towards promotion to such management support jobs as trainer. The lines are managed by front line supervisors and general supervisors. Supervisors are managed by plant superintendents. Who are responsible for all production functions. Who is the highest level manager in the plant. The Perry plant also employs a personnel director who is responsible for addressing employee grievances. The authority to terminate employees is vested in the plant manager and the personnel director. She was dating James Madison. An African American man who was also employed at the Perry plant. The couple married in 1996 and have two children. Was a reliable worker. 3 Madison presented a great deal of evidence at trial to show that she was subjected to a continuing pattern of racial and sexual harassment during her employment and that supervisors and managers failed to take action in response to her complaints. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/September2004/034033p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At issue is whether a putative class representative's claim is mooted by a Rule 68 offer of judgment so as to defeat federal subject matter jurisdiction in a suit requesting class wide relief. We will reverse and remand. That case was vacated and reheard by the Court en banc. Arguing Weiss's claim was rendered moot because the Rule 68 offer provided him the maximum damages available under the statute.3 For this is accepted. An offer not accepted shall be deemed withdrawn and evidence thereof is not admissible except in a proceeding to determine costs. If the judgment finally obtained by the offeree is not more favorable than the offer. Weiss argues his claim was not rendered moot by the Rule 68 offer. Is whether defendants' Rule 68 offer mooted the claim. When the issues presented in a case are no longer </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200511/04-7181a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Jonathan Halperin. With him on the brief were Robert J. Telling her she was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></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-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1428.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was James Caffentzis. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel was Maria Pagan. McDermott Will & Emery LLP. With him on the brief was Raymond Paretzky. Of counsel was David J. Motions Systems was one of three domestic producers of pedestal actuators. The ITC promptly investigated </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/09/983775P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Harmon's management was unaware of its employees' practices until the personnel manager filed his report in November 1987. While Harmon was cooperating with the MDNR. While the EPA's administrative enforcement action was pending. The ALJ found that a civil penalty against Harmon was appropriate in this case. A federal court must defer to the agency's interpretation only if it finds that the agency's interpretation is consistent with the plain language of the statute or represents a reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. If authorization is granted. Once authorization is granted by the EPA. It cannot be rescinded unless the EPA finds that (1) the state program is not equivalent to the federal program. (2) the state program is not consistent with federal or state programs in other states. Or (3) the state program is failing to provide adequate enforcement of compliance in accordance with the requirements of federal law. Is authorized to administer and enforce a hazardous waste program pursuant to the RCRA. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199804/97-1116a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Schaerr were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Honig was on the brief for intervenors Missouri State Conference of Branches of the NAACP. Was on the brief for the United States as amicus curiae. Rosman was on the brief for amici curiae Center for Individual Rights and National Religious Broad casters. May were on the brief for amicus curiae American Center for Law and Justice. Both stations are housed on the campus of the Church's Concordia Semi nary and. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-1116a.html">LUTHERAN CHCH MO V. FCC<BR></A><BR> Schaerr</i> were on the briefs.<p> <p> <p> <i>Daniel M. Were on the brief. <i><p> Robert B. Honig</i> was on the brief for intervenors Missouri <p> State Conference of Branches of the NAACP. Was on the brief for the United States as <i><p> amicus curiae.</i><p> <p> <i>Michael E. Rosman</i> was on the brief for <i>amici curiae</i> <p> Center for Individual Rights and National Religious Broad <p> casters. <i>Michael P. May </i><p> were on the brief for <i>amicus curiae</i> American Center for <p> Law and Justice.<p> <p> Before: Silberman. Both stations <p> <p> <p> are housed on the campus of the Church's Concordia Semi <p> nary and. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2721.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Murray</SPAN> were on brief for appellant.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></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-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B183678A8E37575C8825733200598D1E/$file/0516427.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND This suit stems from incidents inappropriate in any work environment and made all the more egregious here because they were perpetrated on the plaintiff by her direct supervisor. M&O Agencies is the legal name of the Arizona corporation which does business as The Mahoney Group. We will defer to the practice of the parties and refer to the corporate defendant as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/05/042538P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> They saw that the car's windshield had been shattered and there was an imprint where a person's head had struck the windshield. The Crystal Police Department did not have a canine unit. Which he thought could have been used as a burglary tool or weapon. Which Baker believed could have been the fruits of a burglary. Baker testified that because officers did not know whether they were looking for a criminal suspect or an innocent injured person. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F934FB14E553C7F488257346004A035C/$file/0516517.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dissent by Judge Bea Michael Chertoff is substituted for his predecessor. Plaintiffs allege that discriminatory acts began after Border Patrol Agent Rowdy Adams ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/01-1077.htm">01-1077 -- U.S. V. CONSUMER INSURANCE GROUP -- 02/10/2003<BR></A><BR> Modrejewski told Holmes </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5FF68FA2B47DAF0A88256E5A00707BE8/$file/9935579.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sanchez claimed that he was verbally harassed by some male co workers and a supervisor because he was effeminate and did not meet their views of a male stereotype. Sanchez further asserted that he was terminated in retaliation for opposing the harassment. Sanchez was subjected to a relentless campaign of insults. The remarks were not stray or isolated. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2001/99-12527.opn.html">FOGADE, FONDO DE GARANTIA DE DEPOSITOS Y PROTECCION BANCARIA V. ENB REVOCABLE TRUST (8/28/2001, NO. 99-12527)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021413.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> To enforce the principle that `no one is above the law'. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3081.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The question before us in this appeal is a narrow procedural one: can this court review the district court's decision to remand the case to the state court in which it was originally filed? We conclude that the best way to interpret the district court's order is as one finding that it had no subject matter jurisdiction over the claims that were 2 Nos. 01 3081 & 01 3418 remanded. Even if we are wrong and the order was simply a decision to remand all supplemental state claims to the state court. We would exercise our jurisdiction to find that there was no abuse of discretion in that decision. Was filed in Illinois state court by injured passengers and the estates of those killed as a result of the collision. The additional defendants were the manufacturers. Two from that group are relevant to this appeal: Illinois Central. GE claimed that any lawsuit these plaintiffs were bringing was inevitably and necessarily based on a federal question. Thus removal was available under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and (b).). Which is a federal instrumentality. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991055.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nottoway County contends that its decision to deny the permit was indeed supported by </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1171.html">ROTHE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, V. DEPT OF DEFENSE<BR></A><BR> Argued</p> <p class=MsoNormal>for plaintiff appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1BBD47ED3D1EA70F88256A8B0059B629/$file/9935579.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sanchez claimed that he was verbally harassed by some male co workers and a supervisor because he was effeminate and did not meet their views of a male stereotype. Sanchez further asserted that he was terminated in retaliation for opposing the harassment. Sanchez was subjected to a relentless campaign of insults. The remarks were not stray or isolated. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2001/99-12527.opn.html">FOGADE, FONDO DE GARANTIA DE DEPOSITOS Y PROTECCION BANCARIA V. ENB REVOCABLE TRUST (8/28/2001, NO. 99-12527)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/977A3690A89BE17D8825722D007DA4DA/$file/0415788.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Challenge the United States Department of Agriculture's ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199912527.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The plaintiffs in this lawsuit are the Venezuelan agency. Zamora were former shareholders and controlling board members of Corpofin. Inc. are business entities that are directly or indirectly controlled by the individual defendants. Several Venezuelan banks were forced to seek 3 financial assistance from FOGADE. Was one such bank. The individual defendants were minority shareholders and controlling board members of Bancor. Was owned by Corpofin. The individual defendants were also minority shareholders and controlling board members of Corpofin. Upon a finding that Corpofin was related to Bancor and that Corpofin had very large unguaranteed debts with Bancor. Who is responsible for marshaling the corporation's assets for the benefit of creditors. Those documents were dated May 9. The corporate structure was as follows: Corpofin. There is evidence that the May 9. 1994 transactions did not actually occur on that date but that the documents were instead backdated. Whether they were backdated or not does not enter into our decision. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3DDE5561DCF13F0588256E5A00707BD7/$file/9915896.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> By refusing to reinitiate consultation with itself about the effect that an incidental take permit issued to Simpson for the northern spotted owl might have on two other species the marbled murrelet and the coho salmon. The marbled murrelet and the coho salmon were added to the threatened species list after the FWS issued the spotted owl permit to Simpson. Therefore reinitiation of consultation was not required. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994) and we affirm. The term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200507/03-7143a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs were Robert J. With him on the brief were Robert M. It places others in programs geared to youths who have committed less serious crimes or seem relatively likely to stay out of trouble. No minimum standards were required of District providers generally. Who did have experience with at risk youths but. Nor did these doors have locks. Doors leading into individual units did have locks. All of which was the case at Queenstown </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/03/943780P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Co Executor of the Estate and Last Will and Testament of Frank S. Co Executor of the Estate and Last Will and Testament of Frank S. Co Executor of the Estate and Last Will and Testament of Frank S. Because prior administrative review of claims against the FDIC is a prerequisite to judicial review of such claims. Tri State mailed notice to Merchants that it was revoking the refinancing agreement due to Merchants' breach of the agreement. The FDIC was appointed receiver.2 In December. Because Tri State is a debtor of Although Tri State had Merchants. Notice was not mailed to Tri State. the FDIC for the breach of contract by Merchants. actual knowledge of the receivership. Tri State and the FDIC began a review of Tri State's obligations under the agreements between Tri State and Merchants. correspondence between Tri State and the FDIC. the loan agreements were enforceable. The FDIC finished its review and analysis of the agreements and concluded that At no time did the FDIC inform Trito the FDIC under a formal claims The FDIC was also appointed receiver for Metro North. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0280p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although both of these grounds were inapposite. The district court's dismissal is therefore AFFIRMED. Is a tract of land owned by the state and maintained by Eastern Kentucky University as a wildlife refuge and research facility. The Woods are designated a National Natural Landmark as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/78A05448111539FD88256E6000767CD0/$file/0256283.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We must decide whether service of process by an American plaintiff on an English defendant through regular mail to a post office box is valid under the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents1 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F0029609F01B5F6A88256FBF00779D73/$file/0217305.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are presented with three questions. The first is whether. It is feasible to join the Navajo Nation as a party. We hold that it is feasible to join the Nation in order to effect complete relief between the parties. Because the EEOC is an agency of the United States. The second is whether the EEOC's claim presents a nonjusticiable political question. The third is whether the district court erred in dismissing the EEOC's claim that Peabody failed to keep records as required by Title VII. They are qualified. 493 (2003) (explaining that the Department of the Interior's approval is necessary before the leases become effective). If the lease terms are violated. Alleging that Peabody was unlawfully discriminating on the basis of national origin by implementing the Navajo employment preference. As well as unspecified other non Navajo Native Americans for positions for which they were otherwise qualified. On the Navajo and Hopi reservations and on the tribes' joint land have been extensively litigated. Navajo employment preference provisions also have been the subject of prior litigation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6645929D6075AFA288256A820062E821/$file/9915896.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> By refusing to reinitiate consultation with itself about the effect that an incidental take permit issued to Simpson for the northern spotted owl might have on two other species the marbled murrelet and the coho salmon. The marbled murrelet and the coho salmon were added to the threatened species list after the FWS issued the spotted owl permit to Simpson. Therefore reinitiation of consultation was not required. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994) and we affirm. The term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061463p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an interlocutory appeal from the District Court's denial of Viacom's summary judgment motion. Viacom seeks to have James Ruehl's complaint under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1699.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Cullen & Butters was on brief for appellants. P.C. were on brief for appellees. On the grounds that Appellants' claims are time barred under ERISA's six year statute of limitations. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The following facts are summarized in the light most favorable to Appellants. Was formed as a pension and profit sharing plan for the employees of the J. It is subject to ERISA. The Plan's accounts were handled by Hegenbart. If the recommendation was not accepted. At no time was Hegenbart given power of attorney or discretionary authority over the accounts. The Plan was charged commissions of about 3.5% for the sale of the CATS purchased in 1985. The first was purchased in June of 1985. (ii) there was not expected to be a public market for their investment. (iii) there were risks involved. Appellants were sent prospectuses which similarly disclosed risks involved when they purchased $40. The record shows that the portfolio review dated October 1988 lists as the market value what was actually the face amount of the interests in the limited partnerships. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/02/023747P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Compact was created and entered into by five member states and was also enacted into law by Congress. Nebraska was selected as the site for the facility. The Commission is a plaintiff in this case. This action was originally brought against Nebraska and the Commission by utility companies from the five Compact states: Entergy Arkansas. The defendants named in the Commission's complaint were the State of Nebraska. The case was tried to the district court for two months. It found that Nebraska had not carried out its obligations under the Compact in good faith and that the Commission was entitled to recover over $97 million for funds and work expended in the thwarted attempt to construct the radioactive waste disposal facility. Some of which were decided against it on earlier appeals. We have already addressed the Compact and related issues in a series of earlier appeals in this case. 207 F.3d 1021 (8th Cir. 2000) (Nebraska did not have veto power over low level radioactive waste export permits). V. Each member state is represented on the Commission by one representative and is entitled to a single vote. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1995/94a0954p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: FACTS AND BACKGROUND The operative facts giving rise to this mandamus application are set forth in the civil complaint of respondents Alan D. In September 1991 Lindsey and Coughanour were involved in disputes with security guards at an indoor shopping mall on Route 51 in West Mifflin Borough. They were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/09/00-4036.htm">00-4036 -- STIDHAM V. PEACE OFFICER STANDARDS AND TRAINING -- 09/24/2001<BR></A><BR> Background</strong> <p> Appellant is a certified peace officer in the state of Utah. The state agency empowered to regulate the certification of peace officers employed in Utah.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1637.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellees. Grumman's most intriguing argument presented below as both a defense and a counterclaim is that DG illegally maintained its monopoly in the market for service of DG computers by unilaterally refusing to license ADEX to Grumman and other competitors. The antitrust claims are intriguing because they present a curious conflict. Must tolerate short term harm to the competitive process when such harm is caused by the otherwise lawful exercise of an economically potent </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1727.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C.</SPAN> was on brief. Were on brief. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AE67263D30D1823A88256A10006132BB/$file/9955259.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: These three appeals are the latest round in a seemingly never ending bout of litigation between Mydrin. The first is from an order of the district court declining to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act. The second is from the district court's order declining jurisdiction and remanding a separate declaratory relief action subsequently brought in state court by Mydrin against Travelers and removed to the district court by Travelers (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1279.html">PHOENIX PETROLEUM V. U.S.F.E.R.C.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C35DD8755B28039788256E530077F226/$file/0157065.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> McGinest alleges that he was placed in dangerous working conditions because of his race. McGinest claims that he was denied a promotion in late 1998 due to his race and in retaliation for filing an EEOC complaint. GTE responds that it was unable to promote him due to a hiring freeze. The court found that the incidents comprising the hostile work environment claim were sporadic. It found that McGinest was unable to produce sufficient evidence that GTE's stated reason for failing to promote him was a pretext. GTE SERVICE CORP. 3007 whether the denial of the promotion was prompted by a discriminatory motive. I. BACKGROUND George McGinest is an African American employee of GTE. McGinest was initially hired as a lineman. Because this case was decided on summary judgment. Although GTE is now owned by Verizon. We continue to refer to it by the name under which it was sued. 1 3008 MCGINEST v. Although the majority of these incidents were not accompanied by explicit racial comments. McGinest testified at his deposition that Noson's behavior and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1DB1A0891D1AA4C688256E5A00707A95/$file/9955259.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: These three appeals are the latest round in a seemingly never ending bout of litigation between Mydrin. The first is from an order of the district court declining to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act. The second is from the district court's order declining jurisdiction and remanding a separate declaratory relief action subsequently brought in state court by Mydrin against Travelers and removed to the district court by Travelers (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2002/001979.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Can waive the state's defense of the statute of limitations that is set forth in the AntiTerrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0B2E526E11618CBA88257210007B1F4A/$file/0435253.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case presents the question whether a state prisoner who contends that he is actually innocent. Whose principal witness is coerced by the state into not testifying on his behalf. Roger Smith is currently serving a life sentence with a 30 year minimum term. The claims were procedurally defaulted. All we decide is that. Both the facts and the law are complex. The exception on which he relies is known as the Schlup </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031326.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We believe that the court did have jurisdiction. The Plan provides that salaried and hourly employees cannot use vacation benefit days and will not be paid any vacation benefits upon termination of their employment until and unless they have completed. The purpose of the letter was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061140p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the right to a jury trial on state law claims brought in federal court is governed by state. Marra and DiGravio had no right to have a jury decide their PHRA claims. Is responsible for developing and operating public housing in the City of Philadelphia. Edward Marra and Albert DiGravio were both employed in supervisory positions in the Inspections Division of PHA's 3 Design and Construction Department.1 DiGravio served as a Rehabilitation Supervisor. Marra's direct supervisor was Georgette Galbreth. Are recounted below. He was responsible for arranging and overseeing the inspection of houses that had been rehabilitated by PHA to ensure compliance with all pertinent housing codes. Among the several housing inspectors who worked under Marra were DiGravio. Formal notices of appointment were sent to both Paladino and Wright but later rescinded after George Fields. Although his salary and job duties were not materially affected by the demotion. Finding that PHA had discriminated against them in violation of Title VII and the PHRA.4 Fields and three other PHA employees (no one of whom is of particular relevance to our case) were also named as defendants. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-4151.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> After the examination the raw scores were standardized. What followed was this lawsuit alleging that promotions resulting from the exam violated the plaintiffs' rights under the Equal Protec 2 Nos. 02 4151 & 02 4241 tion Clause of the United States Constitution. When their attempt was rejected. The original plaintiffs were 326 nonminority Chicago police officers who took the 1985 88 promotional examination for the rank of sergeant. The City defended the promotions based on the plan on the grounds that (1) they were necessary to maintain the operational effectiveness of the CPD. (2) they were necessary to remedy past discrimination in hiring and promotions. (3) they were necessary to avoid a claim that the City's past policies were a violation of Title VII under an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/79D70EA6168252BE88256A820062D30E/$file/9915625.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: While litigation concerning the constitutionality of a state statute was pending in state court. Holding that because the federal court plaintiffs could have intervened in the state court proceedings. They were obligated to do so. Each system is competent to decide federal constitutional issues. Each is entrusted with doing so in appropriate cases. Although there 8610 are limited circumstances in which such abstention by federal courts is appropriate. Those circumstances are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4D18EB86B610C3B788256E5A00707BD6/$file/9915625.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: While litigation concerning the constitutionality of a state statute was pending in state court. Holding that because the federal court plaintiffs could have intervened in the state court proceedings. They were obligated to do so. Each system is competent to decide federal constitutional issues. Each is entrusted with doing so in appropriate cases. Although there 8610 are limited circumstances in which such abstention by federal courts is appropriate. Those circumstances are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/96-4104.htm">96-4104 -- WOODMAN V. RUNYON -- 12/24/1997<BR></A><BR> At issue in this appeal is Ms. Woodman's allegation that she is a qualified individual with a disability. Where she was responsible for separating incoming and outgoing mail. Her injury was subsequently diagnosed by her treating physician as thoracic outlet syndrome and Ms. Distribution clerks are governed by a collective bargaining agreement between the USPS and the American Postal Workers Union. Section 546 provides: <p> To the extent that there is adequate work available within the employee's work limitation tolerances. In the work facility to which the employee is regularly assigned. That work constitutes the limited duty to which the employee is assigned. <p> Aplt. Assignments to such preferred duty positions without competitive bidding would violate the terms of the collective bargaining agreement unless adequate work is not available within the assignee's craft. Woodman was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome in her left wrist and arm.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1996/96a1330p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hutchinson was a member of the original panel which heard argument in this appeal on March 6. 1995 before the appeal was resolved. Judge Mansmann was designated to serve in his place on the reconstituted panel. ** Honorable Jane A. It would have discharged Delli Santi in any event. Since there was legally sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. We will vacate the district court's judgment as a matter of law on the affirmative defense for CNA. We will also vacate the district court's conditional grant of a new trial because. The verdict was not against the clear weight of the evidence. We will. We will return this case to the district court for entry of judgment on the jury verdict. She was a first party claims handler. Although CNA's home office is located in Chicago. When Farah told her this was untrue and there were two men in field positions at grade level 36 (a higher level). I didn't think it was right. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1996/96a1420p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was attempting to return on foot to her nearby apartment. The facts alleged will sustain a prima facie case of a violation of Kneipp's Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right and her liberty interest in personal security under the theory that city police officers increased the risk of harm to Kneipp which ultimately resulted in the severe damages she sustained. Samantha and her husband Joseph were returning on foot from a night of drinking at a tavern in Bucks County. Samantha was visibly intoxicated she smelled of urine. Was unable to walk without assistance. The Kneipps were only one third of a block from their home. Samantha was leaning on Officer Tedder's car. Joseph left Officer Tedder and crossed over to the other side of the street where the police cars were situated. Joseph told one of the officers that he had a babysitter watching his son and that he was supposed to be home by now. Samantha was leaning on the front of a police car in the presence of several police officers. Joseph testified that he assumed that because Samantha was drunk. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/02-8016.htm">02-8016 -- NICODEMUS V. UNION PACIFIC CORPORATION -- 02/13/2003<BR></A><BR> Background</center> <p> Plaintiffs appellees are Wyoming landowners (1) Warren Nicodemus. Plaintiffs claim that Union Pacific's rights of way over their land are easements and that plaintiffs retain the servient tenement in the underlying land. That </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-9008.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alicea Law Offices</SPAN> was on brief. Ndez</SPAN> were on brief. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1995/95a1140p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The goods were carried by rail from Milwaukee to Seattle by plaintiff Burlington Northern Railroad Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-3458.html">KEWLEY V. DEPT. OF HHS<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/04/00-2221.htm">00-2221 -- HARRISON V. EDDY POTASH INC. -- 04/30/2001<BR></A><BR> 1291 and affirm. <p> <center>I.</center> <p> The relevant underlying facts of this case were set forth in detail in our opinion in <u>Harrison v. 112 F.3d 1437 (10th Cir. 1997) (<u>Harrison I</u>): <p> Plaintiff is a resident of Carlsbad. Is a New Mexico corporation doing business in Eddy County. Brown is a supervisor employed by Potash. Plaintiff began working for Potash as an underground potash miner in May 1992 and was the only female working with a crew of approximately 30 men [and was one of only two women miners in the entire operation]. Was plaintiff''s supervisor and was in charge of delegating duties and assigning work to plaintiff. Brown was the first person she was required to call if she was sick or wanted to take vacation. Brown was also involved in the disciplinary process. <p> The miners at Potash had a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-2674_021.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jumah was convicted by a jury of knowing possession of a listed chemical. Jumah's primary defense was that he was acting under public authority when he committed the acts giving rise to the charge. Jumah was a confidential source for the federal Drug Enforcement Administration ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/08/063021P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> One of which is known as the Urban Campus. Gilbert served as Urban Campus Provost2 of DMACC's Urban Campus and was responsible for the operation and administration of that campus. Was ranked twelfth. An application was submitted by another African American candidate. The title for this position later was changed to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1719.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Schwartz LLP</SPAN> were on brief. Was on brief. We must sort out which of the plaintiff's claims are timely. Are legally cognizable and sufficiently supported. As those claims are timely. The state law claim is time barred and its federal analogue runs afoul of an inexpugnable affirmative defense the employer's swift. Giving the nonmovant the benefit of all reasonable inferences that those facts will bear. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0142p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ohio is the milieu for this appeal. At issue is a significant question of whether federal courts have the ability to hear claims filed pursuant to § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept99/98-2580.man.html">MAY V. ILLINOIS NAT'L INS. CO. (9/29/1999, NO. 98-2580)<BR></A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge:</P> <P> The plaintiff administrator ad litem of a probate estate brought this suit to recover against the automobile liability insurer of the decedent for bad faith refusal to settle a damage claim for death and injuries resulting from an automobile accident in which the decedent was at fault. A judgment was obtained by a third party against the estate for personal injury/wrongful death damages in excess of the insurance coverage. Is barred unless the estate itself is liable in the probate proceeding to the third party claimant for the excess damages. The amount the insured is obligated to pay constitutes the extent of damages.<EM> See Swamy v. If a deceased insured's estate is not obligated to pay the excess judgment. Turns on a point of Florida probate law as to whether the estate itself is obligated to pay the judgment in excess of $1 million. That liability turns on an interpretation of the statutory law of Florida concerning the requirement for filing a claim in the state probate proceeding.</P> <P> The district court held on a motion for summary judgment filed by the insurance company that liability on the judgment was barred because the judgment creditor failed to file a statement of claim in the probate proceeding within the time required by Florida law.</P> <P> The plaintiff administrator ad litem. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9839C5CC60750B50882570AB00749118/$file/0216325.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Ernesto Lira was for several years placed in administrative segregation. Because prison officials determined that he was affiliated with a prison gang and posed a threat to prison safety. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Lira is a former inmate of the California corrections system. Where he was immediately </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/10/97-2150.htm">97-2150 -- ARMIJO V. WAGON MOUND PUBLIC SCHOOLS -- 10/28/1998<BR></A><BR> Armijo ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept99/98-2580.man.html">MAY V. ILLINOIS NAT'L INS. CO. (9/29/1999, NO. 98-2580)<BR></A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge:</P> <P> The plaintiff administrator ad litem of a probate estate brought this suit to recover against the automobile liability insurer of the decedent for bad faith refusal to settle a damage claim for death and injuries resulting from an automobile accident in which the decedent was at fault. A judgment was obtained by a third party against the estate for personal injury/wrongful death damages in excess of the insurance coverage. Is barred unless the estate itself is liable in the probate proceeding to the third party claimant for the excess damages. The amount the insured is obligated to pay constitutes the extent of damages.<EM> See Swamy v. If a deceased insured's estate is not obligated to pay the excess judgment. Turns on a point of Florida probate law as to whether the estate itself is obligated to pay the judgment in excess of $1 million. That liability turns on an interpretation of the statutory law of Florida concerning the requirement for filing a claim in the state probate proceeding.</P> <P> The district court held on a motion for summary judgment filed by the insurance company that liability on the judgment was barred because the judgment creditor failed to file a statement of claim in the probate proceeding within the time required by Florida law.</P> <P> The plaintiff administrator ad litem. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/04/97-1239a.htm">97-1239 -- MCGARRY V. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO -- 04/29/1999<BR></A><BR> Footnote number one is misnumbered. We need not consider McGarry's claim on <u>Notari</u>/<u>McDonnell Douglas</u> analysis. <p> A copy of the corrected opinion is attached. <p> Sincerely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/04/97-1239.htm">97-1239 -- MCGARRY V. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN -- 04/29/1999<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002419.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This appeal arises from two related cases that were consolidated in the district court. A driver employed by Wheaton lost control of his truck and hit a motel and restaurant that were owned by Intown and insured by Transcontinental Insurance Company. Although Intown was involved in other litigation against Wheaton in 1997. 217.96 representing lost revenues and loss of reputation and good will that the insurance payment had not covered. Was the real party in interest in the Transcontinental action. The court determined that Transcontinental was not the real party in inter 4 INTOWN PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT v. Intown's only apparent challenge to the summary judgment ruling is its contention that the Intown and Transcontinental actions. Were two parts of an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19982580.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge: The plaintiff administrator ad litem of a probate estate brought this suit to recover against the automobile liability insurer of the decedent for bad faith refusal to settle a damage claim for death and injuries resulting from an automobile accident in which the decedent was at fault. A judgment was obtained by a third party against the estate for personal injury/wrongful death damages in excess of the insurance coverage. Is barred unless the estate itself is liable in the probate proceeding to the third party claimant for the excess damages. The amount the insured is obligated to pay constitutes the extent of damages. If a deceased insured's estate is not obligated to pay the excess judgment. Turns on a point of Florida probate law as to whether the estate itself is obligated to pay the judgment in excess of $1 million. The district court held on a motion for summary judgment filed by the insurance company that liability on the judgment was barred because the judgment creditor failed to file a statement of claim in the probate proceeding within the time required by Florida law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042363p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse. Fasold was thirty three 1 years old in 1986 when he began In its memorandum opinion. The District Court erroneously stated that Fasold was born September 24. When he was in 2 1 his work as a detective at the Montgomery County District Attorney's Office.2 During his first two years with the District Attorney's Office he worked in the Major Crimes Unit. In 1988 he went to the Narcotics Unit where his primary duty was the care. He was transferred back to the Major Crimes Unit where he spent the next eight years. His primary responsibility was the investigation of white collar crime. Fasold was told that effective January 2. He was being transferred back to the Narcotics Unit. Fasold was uncomfortable with the proposed move because of his lack of experience in Narcotics (the drug dog aside) and his positive work experiences and evaluations in Major Crimes. Fasold remembered that the detectives in Narcotics were expected to work with informants and to make undercover buys tasks for which Fasold felt ill suited. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043926p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was one of the nation's largest installers of asbestos insulation. The products coverage in each policy was capped by a $1 million per occurrence limit and a $1 million aggregate limit. The operations coverage is limited by a $1 million per occurrence limit but has no aggregate cap. Meaning that Travelers' exposure to asbestos claims arising from ACandS's operations during the years 1976 79 was potentially unlimited. Both parties were to conduct a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/24CB44D4ABF7AFD088256DA2005DA6D6/$file/0356498.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> California voters will be asked to cast a ballot on some of the most important issues facing the State. Forty four percent of the electorate will be forced to use a voting system so flawed that the Secretary of State has officially deemed it </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2003/021437.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> WHOSE NAMES ARE CURRENTLY UNKNOWN Estate of Robert Cecil Smith. We will affirm in part and reverse in part the district court's order granting summary judgment and will affirm its discovery orders without prejudice to the Smiths seeking to reopen discovery on the remand we are ordering. Several members of the state police were familiar with Smith. The Smiths allege that through these contacts the state police came to know that Smith was in fragile physical and mental health. Was required to be free from stressful situations and to take medication. That certain troopers were aware that Smith suffered from PTSD and experienced flashbacks. Troopers James Marasco and Nicholas Scianna of Troop L went to Smith's residence at approximately 10:30 p.m.1 Marasco responded to Shafer's complaint even though Smith's residence was outside his assigned geographic patrol area. The troopers did not have an arrest warrant or a search warrant. Rodriguez </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1053.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellant Superior Court of Puerto Rico for the District of Arecibo. Bonnet Rosario was on brief for appellants Rivera Santos. William Ramirez Hernandez with whom Nora Vargas Acosta was on brief for plaintiffs. Jeanne Finberg and National Senior Citizens Law Center were on brief for intervenors appellees. The Superior Court judgment was based on a determination that Casa Marie was operating in violation of local zoning ordinances and JDA restrictive covenants. A. The Opening and Expansion of Casa Marie The Jardines de Arecibo housing development was established in 1967. Each property in the development is subject to restrictive 3 covenants allowing only detached single family residences. Was established by Maria Pla Placencio on a dead end street in a section of JDA zoned residential (R 3). Elder care facilities are not allowed except as a variance. Casa Marie was granted a six month provisional DSS license to operate an elder care facility on Lots 19 and 20. Casa Marie was denied a permanent DSS license due in part to the discovery that the A.R.P.E. 1As these endorsements were not seriously at issue. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></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-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1187.html">LEATHERMAN V. COOPER UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT FOOTNOTES 1 COOPER ALSO ASSERTS ON APPEAL THAT THE POCKET TOOL DESIGN’S INHERENT FUNCTIONALITY PRECLUDES TRADE DRESS PROTECTION UNDER THE LANHAM ACT. 2 COOPER’S ASSERTED PUBLIC DOMAIN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ARE AS FOLLOWS: 33. LEATHERMAN IS ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING TRADE DRESS CLAIMS IN THE VARIOUS LEATHERMAN MULTIFUNCTION TOOL[S] BY REASON OF LEATHERMAN’S FAILED ATTEMPT TO SECURE FEDERAL PATENT PROTECTION FOR THE TOOL. 34. LEATHERMAN’S STATE TRADE DRESS CLAIMS ARE PREEMPTED BY THE FEDERAL LAW. 35. LEATHERMAN’S FEDERAL TRADE DRESS CLAIMS ARE BARRED BY REASON OF LEATHERMAN’S FAILED ATTEMPT TO SECURE FEDERAL PATENT PROTECTION FOR THE VARIOUS LEATHERMAN TOOLS. 36. COOPER IS ENTITLED TO MAKE, USE AND SELL THE CRESCENTâ TOOLZALLä TOOL UNDER THE FEDERAL PATENT LAWS. 37. LEATHERMAN DEDICATED THE CONFIGURATION AND DESIGN OF THE VARIOUS LEATHERMAN MULTIFUNCTION TOOLS TO THE PUBLIC BY DISCLOSING, BUT NOT CLAIMING, THE CONFIGURATION AND DESIGN IN AN ISSUED UNITED STATES PATENT. 38. THE CONFIGURATION AND DESIGN OF THE VARIOUS LEATHERMAN TOOLS IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. COOPER’S DECLARATORY JUDGMENT COUNTERCLAIM IS AS FOLLOWS: 1. THIS COUNTERCLAIM SEEKS A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT LEATHERMAN IS PRECLUDED UNDER THE FEDERAL PATENT LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, 35 USC, FROM PREVENTING, OR ATTEMPTING TO PREVENT, COOPER FROM MAKING, USING, OFFERING TO SELL, SELLING OR EXPORTING THE CRESCENTÒ TOOLZALLä TOOL. THIS COURT HAS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THIS COUNTERCLAIM UNDER 28 USC §§ 1338, 2201, AND 2202.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/07/953157P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bobby Davis brought this action after she was raped at her place of business by a detainee in the custody of the Fulton County sheriff's department. 1992 she was working alone in At that the store when she was assaulted and raped by Lawrence D. Department. time Hull was a detainee in the custody of the Fulton County Sheriff's He was being held at the FCDC pending disposition of criminal charges of burglary and theft. The denial of the claim for loss of consortium is not challenged on appeal. Hull pled guilty to aggravated assault and was sentenced to five years probation. In December 1991 a petition for revocation of probation was filed based on the new charges of burglary and theft. 2 3 2 1 Hull caused any problems as a trustee before the attack on Davis.4 On the morning of May 13. Who was the duty jailer5 at the FCDC on that day. Which was parked directly behind the jail. She asked Bost to open the cell Bost opened because she was carrying a load of groceries at the time. agency. Cunningham was responsible for supervising Hull while he was out of the cell. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0002p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Beecher Community School District ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/08/963210P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Magill was an active judge at the time this case was submitted and assumed senior status on April 1. Before the opinion was filed. United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. 3 3 was informed that when [the Panel] needed to select a replacement for Edwin Ailts. [the Panel] should advertise the position in a publication of national circulation to reach all persons who might be interested so [the Panel] could have an open. I assumed at that time that he was referring to the Chief Probation Officer position which would be vacated upon my retirement since I had only recently indicated my intention to retire and I was unaware of any other vacant positions. This was a brief conversation with Judge Wolle and the comment was made by him in passing. Ailts that the Administrative Office was recommending an aggressive effort on the part of the COURT to recruit minorities and females as candidates for the Chief Probation Officer position which was becoming vacant. A biweekly publication of the Probation Division of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts that was circulated nationwide to all probation officers. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052927p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></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-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BF7AED3870353A3E88256C8D00576B6C/$file/0135472.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> CV 01 00010 EJL Ann Veneman is substituted for her predecessor. P. 43(c)(2). Dale Bosworth is substituted for his predecessor. We have received amicus briefs from: Washington Legal Foundation and United States Senators Larry E. VENEMAN that the Roadless Rule was promulgated without proper process and that it is invalid. An appeal was taken in both cases by intervenors. We consolidated the appeals and have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). That plaintiffs have standing to challenge the Roadless Rule. The co plaintiffs joined with the Kootenai Tribe are: the BlueRibbon Coalition. There are now 58.5 million acres of inventoried roadless areas in the National Forest System. 2.8 million acres of roadless areas have been developed by the Forest Service. Against the Forest Service on This is perhaps reminiscent of George Orwell's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2095.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Even though Harley Davidson was seeking the equitable remedy of rescission rather than tort damages. Its misrepresentation claim was barred under Wisconsin's economic loss doctrine. This system is designed to enhance customer satisfaction with ownership. A failure to respond is deemed an approval. Then PowerSports would have had 60 days following that rejection to file with the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to determine if the rejection violated Florida law. No. 02 2095 3 dealers are required to have an on site owner operator. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/12/02-1492.htm">02-1492 -- STEELE V. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS -- 12/29/2003<BR></A><BR> Steele was taken from his cell and placed in the special housing unit at the United States Penitentiary in Florence. Steele's belongings were missing. He asserted that the grievance procedure is generally inaccessible to inmates because the mandatory first step requires cooperation of a staff member. The administrative review by correction officials is intended </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/10/96-4040d.htm">96-4040D -- HARTOG V. WASATCH ACADEMY -- 10/28/1997<BR></A><BR> Any such sharp dichotomy... </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021885.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The defendant contends that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to set forth any objective evidence that the product was damaged under the terms of the insurance policy and that the plaintiff cannot maintain the breach of contract claim because it failed to adhere to a two year period of limitation set forth in the insurance policy. (Edwards) is a wholesale seller of Virginia ham. (4) certification from the FDA that the meat is contaminated and cannot be sold. While Edwards was waiting for the results of the tests from Microbac. Samples of the repackaged product were also sent to Microbac Edwards & Sons notified its insurance agent of the ammonia incident on October 7. It is not clear from the record whether this would be regulated by the FDA or the USDA. The plaintiff stated in its brief that the USDA is the agency that regulates meat products. The plaintiff was informed that. The meat packer had the responsibility for assuring that the product was safe for human consumption and the USDA remained neutral until the product had been released into commerce. 1 4 EDWARDS & SONS v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/11/01-1464.htm">01-1464 -- MAESTAS V. LUJAN -- 11/26/2003<BR></A><BR> Lujan was her supervisor prior to her August promotion. Was her formal supervisor after the promotion. Maestas he was in love with her and wrote her letters to that effect. (2) whether that right was clearly established (3) such that a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have known that his conduct violated that right. <em>Garramone v. She argues that even if it was not error to submit the qualified immunity issue to the jury. The instruction itself was substantively erroneous. 1983 instruction was substantively erroneous. <p> Mr. Qualified immunity is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1995/95a0988p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is the plan administrator of PNG's pension plan. The gravamen of Taylor's claim is that statements regarding the retroactivity of the pension plan's early retirement incentive program. Who was not a member of the Annuities and Benefits Committee. Address the important question presented whether a plan administrator is liable for statements made by individuals who have been selected as non fiduciary agents by the plan administrator to assist it in discharging its fiduciary obligation to administer a plan. Even though such individuals are formally employees of the plan sponsor. Who is not a fiduciary. Conclude that the defendants are responsible for any material misstatements made by Burgunder to Taylor regarding possible changes in PNG's pension plan since. Burgunder was acting. We will. The named fiduciary and plan administrator of the pension plan is the Annuities and Benefits Committee. Which is made up of employees of both CNG and PNG. The members of this committee are the relevant defendants in this action.[fn1] Burgunder was not a member of the Annuities and Benefits Committee. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jul1998/98a1904p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The appellant did not object to the condition at the time it was imposed. Is the owner and developer of the shopping center. D'Andrea was not a party to the underlying construction contract. The architect for the project.2 The case was assigned to a United States magistrate judge for pretrial and discovery matters. The magistrate judge warned that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr98/96-8792.man.html">PACHECO DE PEREZ V. AT&T CO. (4/29/1998, NO. 96-8792)<BR></A><BR> Dismissed the consolidated actions under the doctrine of <EM>forum non conveniens.</EM></P> <P> The threshold question on appeal is whether. The district court should have remanded the case back to the Georgia state court for lack of federal jurisdiction. Although there is complete diversity among the parties. Removal of a case on diversity grounds is not permitted if one or more of the defendants is a citizen of the state in which the suit was originally filed. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Because the individual defendants in this case are Georgia citizens. That the presence of the Georgia defendants should not prevent removal of the plaintiffs' lawsuits because the Georgia defendants were fraudulently joined in order to defeat original diversity jurisdiction.</P> <P> The defendants further assert that federal question jurisdiction exists in this case under four alternative theories. They argue that the plaintiffs' complaint presents a substantial federal question because the plaintiffs must rely on a federal treaty to prove that they have standing to proceed in the Georgia state courts. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr98/96-8792.man.html">PACHECO DE PEREZ V. AT&T CO. (4/29/1998, NO. 96-8792)<BR></A><BR> Dismissed the consolidated actions under the doctrine of <EM>forum non conveniens.</EM></P> <P> The threshold question on appeal is whether. The district court should have remanded the case back to the Georgia state court for lack of federal jurisdiction. Although there is complete diversity among the parties. Removal of a case on diversity grounds is not permitted if one or more of the defendants is a citizen of the state in which the suit was originally filed. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Because the individual defendants in this case are Georgia citizens. That the presence of the Georgia defendants should not prevent removal of the plaintiffs' lawsuits because the Georgia defendants were fraudulently joined in order to defeat original diversity jurisdiction.</P> <P> The defendants further assert that federal question jurisdiction exists in this case under four alternative theories. They argue that the plaintiffs' complaint presents a substantial federal question because the plaintiffs must rely on a federal treaty to prove that they have standing to proceed in the Georgia state courts. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19968792.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As potentially liable defendants.3 Defendant AT&T is listed as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/97-2952.opn.html">GONZALEZ V. LEE COUNTY HOUS. AUTH. (12/2/1998, NO. 97-2952)<BR></A><BR> A reasonable person in Moran's position would not have known that Gonzalez's letter of September 28. A reasonable person in Moran's position would have known that her termination of Gonzalez's employment was unlawful. <U>See</U> . Moran told Gonzalez that she did not want a black person placed in a vacant elderly housing unit.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1222.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Proctor & Hoar LLP were on brief. With whom Laura Steinberg and Sullivan & Worcester LLP were on brief. Ropes & Gray were on brief. P.C. were on brief. We determine that Cablevision is unlikely. We further conclude that Cablevision is unlikely to prevail on its Chapter 93A claim in this action. I. FACTS The facts are largely taken from the opinion of the district court. These are undisputed. The few points of disagreement are noted. Because key aspects of this case involve changes that have occurred over time and actions that are alleged to have been untimely. The electricity and cable television businesses were once entirely distinct enterprises. Cablevision is equally well established in Boston as a provider of cable television. Although its two franchise agreements with the City have been non exclusive. Both Boston Edison and Cablevision have needed to install conduit under the streets of Boston. Which is the division of the City's Department of Public Works responsible for construction projects involving City streets. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054164p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the order of August 12. The Parties ASTM is a Pennsylvania non profit corporation whose mission is to provide a forum for volunteer technical experts to 2 develop and publish standards for materials. These committees are broken down further into 2. Has a six member Executive Committee that acts on its behalf when the full Board is not in session. Defendant Corrpro is in the business of providing corrosion control and cathodic protection (i.e. Defendant Baach was the Executive Vice President of Sales and Marketing for Corrpro. Defendant WRA is primarily in the business of providing mathematical and statistical consulting services. Rogers was President of WRA. Rogers was a member of Corrpro's Board of Directors from sometime in the mid 1990s until 2001 or 2002. Guidelines do not prohibit an individual from participating in a standard setting activity by reason of his association with or employment by a company with a financial interest in the technical standard on which he is working. Under ASTM Bylaw No. 10.1: 3 Any person who was or is a party. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTMzMDAtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3300-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The District Court having determined that CareFirst is not a member of the class and therefore lacks standing and authority to object to the settlement agreement on its own behalf or to opt out of the Settlement Agreement. All portions of the brief of Linda Cahn except those related to her own claim for attorneys fees were stricken. Only those arguments put forward by the remaining Movants Appellants are considered in this Opinion as to the other issues. 4 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 amended Settlement Agreement. Assuming either of the preceding questions is answered in the affirmative. Serious questions have been raised as to whether four of the class action representative plaintiffs plan participants and beneficiaries who apparently suffered neither economic nor 1 2 3 4 5 6 Insured plans pay set premiums to an insurance company in exchange for full payment of their members' prescription drugs. Retain for themselves the obligation of paying for the prescription drugs provided to their beneficiaries and participants. 5 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 medical injuries resulting from the PBM's alleged wrongdoings have Article III standing to assert. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19968792.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which Defendant AT&T is listed as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2001/97-4578.man.html">UNITED STATES V. GILBERT (3/16/2001, NO. 97-4578)<BR></A><BR> The subsequent proceeding would be needless because the order of forfeiture upon which the Government relies is invalid. We affirm the district court's denial of the Government's motion to force the Gilberts to file third party petitions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1963(</SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/97-2952.opn.html">GONZALEZ V. LEE COUNTY HOUS. AUTH. (12/2/1998, NO. 97-2952)<BR></A><BR> A reasonable person in Moran's position would not have known that Gonzalez's letter of September 28. A reasonable person in Moran's position would have known that her termination of Gonzalez's employment was unlawful. <U>See</U> . Moran told Gonzalez that she did not want a black person placed in a vacant elderly housing unit.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19962772.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Defendants/appellees ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1BBE99A82D53440288256C2B005015A5/$file/0155038.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LUI were consolidated. As the removed action was essentially a counterclaim to the claims initially brought in federal court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The two attractions contemplated were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2001/97-4578.man.html">UNITED STATES V. GILBERT (3/16/2001, NO. 97-4578)<BR></A><BR> The subsequent proceeding would be needless because the order of forfeiture upon which the Government relies is invalid. We affirm the district court's denial of the Government's motion to force the Gilberts to file third party petitions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1963(</SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200313540.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court dismissed Dadeland's claim for two primary reasons: (1) Dadeland did not satisfy the conditions precedent for bringing a bad faith claim and (2) Dadeland was barred from bringing this claim under principles of res judicata because Dadeland could have included this claim in its prior arbitration proceedings against the Sureties. Because we find that this case turns on important questions of state law for which there is no controlling precedent. Miami Dade County owns the property and is the lessor of the land on which the project is situated. Dadeland is the obligee. Walbridge is the principal. The defendant insurance companies are the Sureties. The Sureties are obligated to take certain steps to ensure that the construction is completed. The project was completed. After the project was opened and the tenants had moved in. Dadeland's consulting engineer advised the plaintiffs about certain construction defects and urged them to have the project inspected. Which set forth a timetable of tasks that Dadeland was required to perform to bring the project into compliance with the building code. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may98/95-8557.man.html">UBOH V. RENO (5/18/1998, NO. 95-8557)<BR></A><BR> When the causes of action alleged in the complaint accrued and whether these claims are time barred. The following facts as alleged in the complaint are undisputed: In 1992. The application for the wiretap was based in part on affidavits provided by agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Uboh subsequently was indicted. Uboh was also indicted on three counts related to the importation of narcotics. Uboh also was the sole defendant denied bond. That the district court denied him bond solely due to Gordon's assertion that Uboh was involved in illegal drug activity.</P> <P> The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the claims were time barred. The federal defendants were entitled either to absolute or qualified immunity. The allegations were insufficient to state a constitutional violation. The court reasoned that the statute of limitations for a <EM>Bivens</EM> claim was analogous to Georgia's two year personal injury statute of limitations and that. When his bond was denied on appeal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2000/995230.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> In this appeal we are called upon to decide whether a federal cause of action should be implied to permit a plaintiff to sue an employee of the Internal Revenue Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C6174802957C1E1688256E3500552E84/$file/0236057.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which marks the second time the parties have been before us. The responsibilities of the Idaho Public Utility Commission to review and approve certain conduct of PacifiCorp challenged in this case by the Snake River Valley Electric Association ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200311975.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from a district court order denying the bondholder plaintiffs' motion to certify a class action and dismissing their complaint without prejudice on the grounds that they. Their case is not yet ripe. Of the dismissal. 2 1 issue was governed by a trust indenture.2 The bondholders were the intended third party beneficiaries of the trust indenture. A master trustee was appointed to oversee the transaction and collect payments as they became due. 1998.3 It is alleged that. It claims that it was unaware that the bondholders' perfected security interest had lapsed. S. Bank The security interest was perfected when the original UCC 1 financing statement was filed on December 22. It was effective for a five year period. Within six months prior to the expiration of the five year period beginning on the date the original financing statement was filed. The UCC 3 was due to be filed anytime from June 22. This was considered an event of default under Section 801 of the bond trust indenture. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/july97/94-3344.wpd.html">TYLER V. CITY OF MANHATTAN<BR></A><BR> The district court ruled that compensatory damages for mental and emotional injury were not available under the ADA absent intentional discrimination. The district court further concluded that Tyler had not claimed he was subjected to intentional discrimination. No cause exists for this court to resolve an issue raised not by Tyler but by the United States as amicus: whether compensatory damages are recoverable for unintentional violations of the ADA. Is disabled within the meaning of the ADA.(2) He is partially paralyzed and essentially unable to read. Sitting by designation. (1) The City suggests that the district court's judgment was not a final. Appealable judgment because it ordered only injunctive relief and the district court necessarily retains jurisdiction over the parties until they have complied with the terms of the injunction. An order or judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it resolves all substantive issues on the merits and effectively ends the litigation. There was thus a final. Tyler was free to appeal from anything in that judgment or the court's prior. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2363.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was sexually molested by Carol Rigsbee ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1385.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are able to address the substance of their appeal but. Conclude that they have not adduced facts from which a reasonable jury could find a violation of Title VII. We affirm.(1) (1) Two other individuals who were plaintiffs in the district court are not before us in this appeal Josefa C. Diaz elected not to appeal and AngelicaNunez was dismissed from this litigation prior to our decision. <hr> I Summary judgment follows when a moving party points to the absence of factual support on an element essential to the non movant's case. The Clinic argues that the plaintiffs in this case have failed to present record evidence sufficient to suggest that they filed timely Title VII charges with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-4115.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Indiana where they had stopped to eat after attending a school soccer game.1 As 1 The facts described in this paragraph are those that gave rise to the Hodgkins' first challenge to the Indiana Curfew law. The statute was revised and the Hodgkins challenged the new statute. The police took Colin and his friends to a curfew sweep processing site where he was given a breathalyser test and escorted to a bathroom where he was required to submit a urine sample to be tested for drugs. Both tests were determined to be negative. It is a curfew violation for a child fifteen (15). 1 (...continued) though the facts that follow are those that gave rise to the initial lawsuit and are not those of the case before us today. They are included in order to give context and background to the current dispute. 4 No. 01 4115 (2) after 11 p.m. on Sunday. A third statute in force at the time of Colin's arrest exempted from application of the curfew statute any child who was: (1) accompanied by the child's parent. These statutes formed what we will call Indiana's prior curfew law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-1116c.html">LUTHERAN CHCH MO V. FCC<BR></A><BR> <i>Circuit Judges.</i><p> <p> <p> <p> <i>O R D E R</i> <p> <p> Respondent's and Intervenor's Suggestions of Rehearing <i><p> En Banc</i> and the response thereto have been circulated to <p> <p> <p> the full court. The taking of a vote was requested. It is<p> <p> <b>Ordered</b> that the suggestions be denied.<p> <p> <b>Per Curiam</b><p> <p> <b>FOR THE COURT:</b><p> <p> Mark J. Dissenting from the denial of the <p> suggestions of rehearing <i>en banc</i> is attached.<p> <p> <p> <p> A statement filed by <i>Circuit Judge</i> Tatel. Dissenting from the denial of <p> the suggestions of rehearing <i>en banc</i> is also attached.<p> <p> <p> <p> <i>Circuit Judge</i> Rogers would grant the suggestions of re <p> hearing <i>en banc</i>.<i><p> </i><p> <p> <p> <i>Circuit Judge</i> Garland did not participate in this matter.<p> <p> <p> Separate statement filed by <i>Chief Judge</i> Edwards. The panel in this case has created a constitu <p> tional issue where none exists.<p> <p> At issue are equal employment opportunity regulations <p> promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission <p> ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3711_019.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Facts No. 04 3711 LLCC is a community college located in Springfield. Who is a Caucasian female. Hiring for the position was governed by LLCC's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199809/97-1116c.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> O R D E R Respondent's and Intervenor's Suggestions of Rehearing En Banc and the response thereto have been circulated to the full court. The taking of a vote was requested. It is Ordered that the suggestions be denied. Dissenting from the denial of the suggestions of rehearing en banc is attached. Dissenting from the denial of the suggestions of rehearing en banc is also attached. At issue are equal employment opportunity regulations promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2000/98-5685.man.html">UNITED STATES V. DELEVEAUX (3/9/2000, NO. 98-5685)<BR></A><BR> We find that justification is available as an affirmative defense to this strict liability offense and that the court properly instructed the jury that Deleveaux must prove justification by a preponderance of the evidence.</P> <P><CENTER>I. That the pistol described in the indictment was a firearm in and affecting commerce.</P> <P> At trial. Deleveaux testified and acknowledged that as a convicted felon he was not supposed to possess a firearm. This pistol had been placed in the attic crawl space that was accessible through the master bedroom of his residence. Deleveaux was not residing in the home. Deleveaux stated that he had moved out in October 1996 and was just there for a visit when his wife showed him the gun. The Shooting</EM></P> <P> It is undisputed that. Deleveaux's theory of defense was that he was justified in possessing the pistol on May 23. The Government and Deleveaux presented conflicting evidence about the events that spurred Deleveaux to use the pistol.</P> <P> Deleveaux testified that he heard banging at his front door while he was upstairs. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may98/95-8557.man.html">UBOH V. RENO (5/18/1998, NO. 95-8557)<BR></A><BR> When the causes of action alleged in the complaint accrued and whether these claims are time barred. The following facts as alleged in the complaint are undisputed: In 1992. The application for the wiretap was based in part on affidavits provided by agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Uboh subsequently was indicted. Uboh was also indicted on three counts related to the importation of narcotics. Uboh also was the sole defendant denied bond. That the district court denied him bond solely due to Gordon's assertion that Uboh was involved in illegal drug activity.</P> <P> The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the claims were time barred. The federal defendants were entitled either to absolute or qualified immunity. The allegations were insufficient to state a constitutional violation. The court reasoned that the statute of limitations for a <EM>Bivens</EM> claim was analogous to Georgia's two year personal injury statute of limitations and that. When his bond was denied on appeal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2000/98-5685.man.html">UNITED STATES V. DELEVEAUX (3/9/2000, NO. 98-5685)<BR></A><BR> We find that justification is available as an affirmative defense to this strict liability offense and that the court properly instructed the jury that Deleveaux must prove justification by a preponderance of the evidence.</P> <P><CENTER>I. That the pistol described in the indictment was a firearm in and affecting commerce.</P> <P> At trial. Deleveaux testified and acknowledged that as a convicted felon he was not supposed to possess a firearm. This pistol had been placed in the attic crawl space that was accessible through the master bedroom of his residence. Deleveaux was not residing in the home. Deleveaux stated that he had moved out in October 1996 and was just there for a visit when his wife showed him the gun. The Shooting</EM></P> <P> It is undisputed that. Deleveaux's theory of defense was that he was justified in possessing the pistol on May 23. The Government and Deleveaux presented conflicting evidence about the events that spurred Deleveaux to use the pistol.</P> <P> Deleveaux testified that he heard banging at his front door while he was upstairs. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/087B09197EEEEB2D88256D9B0059A7F5/$file/0135887.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> When the party seeking attorneys' fees under the rule is not a prevailing party within the meaning of that statute. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1920VOL1.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. Middleton</SPAN> were on brief. Were on brief. The Blind Vendors' claim is that New Hampshire did not give proper </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-4279.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Prasad on the ground that the claim against him was barred by the two year statute of limitation found in 78 14 4(1) and that the limitation period in that statute was not tolled by application of 78 12 35. The district court granted summary judgment to Sulzer on the ground that the claim against it was barred by the two year statute of limitation found in 78 15 3. Summary judgment is appropriate </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1214.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He claimed Defendants knowingly presented or caused to be presented false valuations of royalties owed to the Government for carbon dioxide (CO2) production in violation of 31 U.S.C. (1)The Latin phrase </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1289.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> believed that plaintiff intended to initiate a new civil action. I. BACKGROUND The resolution of this appeal requires a detailed discussion of the procedural background of two separate actions Ä Civil Action No. 06 CV 0545 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan99/97-9102.op2.html">COATES V. SUNDOR BRANDS (1/14/1999, NO. 97-9102)<BR></A><BR> Who is the non moving party in this case. Coates was transferred to the storeroom. The pair was isolated from other employees. Coates and Long were supervised by Nancy Christman. Who in turn was supervised by technical systems manager Lloyd McLean.</P> <P> On October 19. Who was also an ordained minister. Sanders several times asked Coates how things were going. Coates indicated that things were fine. Christman asked Coates if the matter she wished to discuss was personal or professional. When Coates responded that it was personal. Christman said that she was too busy to talk with her at that time about personal matters. Who was preparing for an imminent departure to Japan on business. G consultant who was visiting the Sundor plant. Christman informed Long that he was suspended without pay pending an investigation and that he was not to contact Coates. Is whether Sundor had adequate notice of the harassment and. Whether it took adequate remedial steps to abate it.</P> <P> This inquiry is made easy by the fact that Sundor's own promulgated sexual harassment policy clearly specified the steps a victimized employee should take to alert the employer of harassment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001553.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is not an unconstitutional taking under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Because the district court would have possessed subject matter jurisdiction over a coercive action by Drain against Columbia Gas alleging that Columbia Gas's use of the fifty foot easement over her property constituted an unconstitutional taking of her property under the Fourteenth Amendment. I. A detailed statement of the facts involved in this case is set forth in our opinion in Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. The district court concluded that West Virginia law governed the question of the easement's width and that under that state's law Columbia Gas was entitled by virtue of the right of way agreement to a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkwOThfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9098_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because there is no demonstrated conflict with state law that would require federal common law rule making in this case. Federal common law rule making is only appropriate if the operation of state law would </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0392p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AFEE2304A90E4CFC882571DA00788818/$file/0416449.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Employees may not waive rights or claims arising under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1862.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C.</SPAN> was on brief for defendants appellants.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C25E6A7250B675AA88256CDE005F0872/$file/0255201.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (4) Appellants were not permitted to assert affirmative defenses to the Commission's Application in district court. NASD disciplinary orders are subject to review by the Commission. Commission decisions are appealable to the United States Courts of Appeals. 15 U.S.C. § 78y(a)(1). B. McCarthy and Blodgett McCarthy and Blodgett were officers of Atlanta One. McCarthy served as its president and was registered as a general securities principal. Blodgett was the company's vice president and was registered as a securities principal and an options principal. The commissions charged by Appellants were so excessive that it was virtually impossible for their clients to break even. Only 24 percent of Appellants' options were ever sold at a profit. The NASD District Committee found that Atlanta One's commissions were excessive and unfair. They were held to be in violation of Article III. McCarthy and Blodgett were fined $75. They were also suspended for thirty days and ordered to requalify before acting again in any capacity requiring qualification within the securities industry. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan99/97-9102.op2.html">COATES V. SUNDOR BRANDS (1/14/1999, NO. 97-9102)<BR></A><BR> Who is the non moving party in this case. Coates was transferred to the storeroom. The pair was isolated from other employees. Coates and Long were supervised by Nancy Christman. Who in turn was supervised by technical systems manager Lloyd McLean.</P> <P> On October 19. Who was also an ordained minister. Sanders several times asked Coates how things were going. Coates indicated that things were fine. Christman asked Coates if the matter she wished to discuss was personal or professional. When Coates responded that it was personal. Christman said that she was too busy to talk with her at that time about personal matters. Who was preparing for an imminent departure to Japan on business. G consultant who was visiting the Sundor plant. Christman informed Long that he was suspended without pay pending an investigation and that he was not to contact Coates. Is whether Sundor had adequate notice of the harassment and. Whether it took adequate remedial steps to abate it.</P> <P> This inquiry is made easy by the fact that Sundor's own promulgated sexual harassment policy clearly specified the steps a victimized employee should take to alert the employer of harassment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/12/98-1112.htm">98-1112 -- SOUTHWAY V. CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA -- 12/09/1999<BR></A><BR> Provides: <p> Subject to existing international agreements to which the United States is a party at the time of enactment of this Act. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/11/98-1312.htm">98-1312 -- DINH V. RENO -- 11/18/1999<BR></A><BR> Background Facts and Procedures</strong></center> <p> Plaintiff Tuong Huan Van Dinh<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov98/97-9102.ma2.html">COATES V. SUNDOR BRANDS, INC. (11/13/1998, NO. 97-9102)<BR></A><BR> Who is the non moving party in this case. Coates was transferred to the storeroom. The pair were isolated from other employees. Coates and Long were supervised by Nancy Christman. Who in turn was supervised by technical systems manager Lloyd McLean.</P> <P> On October 19. Who was also an ordained minister. Sanders several times asked Coates how things were going. Coates indicated that things were fine. Christman asked Coates if the matter she wished to discuss was personal or professional. When Coates responded that it was personal. Christman said that she was too busy to talk with her at that time about personal matters. Who was preparing for an imminent departure to Japan on business. G consultant who was visiting the Sundor plant. Christman informed Long that he was suspended without pay pending an investigation and that he was not to contact Coates. We note that this case is controlled by the recently decided cases of <EM>Faragher v. Plaintiffs whose filings predated the announcement of the liability standard for employers under Title VII are not required to have anticipated this standard in their pleadings. <EM>See Burlington Industries. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-3089_059.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is an unlikely place for considering a case involving seven Nigerian citizens suing an eighth Nigerian for acts committed in Nigeria. The path the plaintiffs are pursuing is. Was a member of the junta and was Nigeria's head of state for the last year of the junta's reign. Alleging that he was behind the atrocities. The specific issue which gives rise to this interlocutory appeal is the decision that the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act of 1976 (FSIA). Does not apply to individuals and thus General Abubakar is not immune from suit. That General Abubakar is entitled to common law immunity for the year that he was head of state. The situation in Nigeria at the time of these events was unstable. A number of military rulers were overthrown. A presidential election was held. The highest governmental body was the Provisional Ruling Council (PRC). It was composed of military officials No. 03 3089 3 and a few civilians. Whoever was the current military ruler was the chairman of the PRC. Plaintiff Hafsat Abiola is the daughter of Nigerian prodemocracy activists. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19939345.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 90 L.Ed.2d 735 (1986) (plurality opinion) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2684.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Caroline Sitar's employment with the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) was short lived. Sitar was one of the few women to work for INDOT in its historically male Westfield Unit. She was transferred and terminated before the end of six months. INDOT claims that the reason for the brevity of Sitar's tenure was unsatisfactory performance. Sitar believes that it was the result of sex discrimination. Sitar's duties were to include the following tasks: Individual will perform road maintenance work requiring use of small tools. Also will mow grass. Will also plow snow during inclement weather and haul road maintenance materials. The first six months of Sitar's employment were probationary. She was assigned to INDOT's Westfield Unit in the Tipton Sub District. Her direct supervisor was James (Sonny) Pedigo. Where off color jokes and lewd stories about women were not uncommon. He also instructed the crew to tone it down and watch what they were saying around Sitar. Sitar was new and unfamiliar with workplace procedures. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2003/02-10555.opn.html">NAT'L PARKS CONSERVATION ASS'N V. NORTON (3/18/2003, NO. 02-10555)<BR></A><BR> Accordingly the National Park Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0116p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Page 2 The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on the grounds that UPS did not have proper notice of the harassment such that it could be held vicariously liable for it. For the hostile environment that was allegedly caused by Eli Brock. Eli Brock was the manager of the Claims Department during the entire two and a half year period in which Knoop worked in that group. There were several instances where Brock behaved inappropriately towards her. Knoop contends that Brock told sexual jokes in front of her and others that she felt were inappropriate. She was wearing overalls for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/942360.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. This second narration is taken. Hourly employees alleged that they were forced to work </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov98/97-9102.ma2.html">COATES V. SUNDOR BRANDS, INC. (11/13/1998, NO. 97-9102)<BR></A><BR> Who is the non moving party in this case. Coates was transferred to the storeroom. The pair were isolated from other employees. Coates and Long were supervised by Nancy Christman. Who in turn was supervised by technical systems manager Lloyd McLean.</P> <P> On October 19. Who was also an ordained minister. Sanders several times asked Coates how things were going. Coates indicated that things were fine. Christman asked Coates if the matter she wished to discuss was personal or professional. When Coates responded that it was personal. Christman said that she was too busy to talk with her at that time about personal matters. Who was preparing for an imminent departure to Japan on business. G consultant who was visiting the Sundor plant. Christman informed Long that he was suspended without pay pending an investigation and that he was not to contact Coates. We note that this case is controlled by the recently decided cases of <EM>Faragher v. Plaintiffs whose filings predated the announcement of the liability standard for employers under Title VII are not required to have anticipated this standard in their pleadings. <EM>See Burlington Industries. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/04/044155P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was later diagnosed with cerebral palsy. Who was 15 years old at the time. She was told by her doctor at the health center that when she went into labor. Ingram was admitted to Deaconess on December 16. Who was employed by People's Health Centers. T.L. was transferred to Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital for specialized care and treatment. An attorney was retained on Ingram's behalf. Which Ingram alleges was caused by Lam's negligence during the delivery. That the doctors were employed at federally supported health centers. Were working within the scope of their employment at the time of T.L.'s birth. The government was granted leave to substitute the United States for the doctors. Arguing that the complaint was barred by the statute of limitations. Holding that Ingram's cause of action accrued when T.L. was transferred to Cardinal Glennon Hospital on December 18. Because Ingram was informed that T.L. had </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2003/02-10555.opn.html">NAT'L PARKS CONSERVATION ASS'N V. NORTON (3/18/2003, NO. 02-10555)<BR></A><BR> Accordingly the National Park Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200310570.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We find that removal was not precluded by the CAA and was thus proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). Has given the individual states a great responsibility for ensuring that national air quality standards are attained within their geographical areas. State and local governments are 2 required to develop plans that provide for implementation. So long as they are not less stringent than the national standards. The Navy facilities located in Jacksonville are subject to both the State and City air pollution regulations. The City does not claim that any are continuing in nature. While this motion was pending. The Navy argued that dismissal of the case was proper because the City instituted this action purely to recover punitive penalties. That the case was otherwise properly removed. Although the issue of removal was not certified in the interlocutory appeal. It is properly before this Court because a § 1292(b) appeal brings up the entire district court order. It was pursuant to § 1442(a)(1) that the Navy removed the case against it to federal district court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-2495.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was set to expire in the fall of 1998. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/08/001132P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who at all relevant times was a corrections officer at the Moberly Correctional Center (MCC) in Moberly. Charrier was ordered to pay Foulk one dollar in nominal damages plus interest and costs. Jurisdiction Jurisdiction was proper in the district court based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. Jurisdiction is proper in this court based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notices of appeal were timely filed pursuant to Fed. Background Factual history The following summary of underlying facts is based upon the evidence presented at trial. Foulk was seen by Dr. Foulk was admitted to the infirmary. When he was awoken by corrections officer Shawn Bates. Who told Foulk it was time to eat. Foulk told Bates that he was not hungry and wanted to be left alone. Foulk was again awoken and told to eat. Foulk was again awoken by 3 corrections officers. He was still feeling the effects of the medication and once again fell back asleep. Foulk was not offered medical assistance. He was put into solitary confinement in a cell that had no running water and only dry paper towels to wipe his face. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/10/96-4040.htm">96-4040 -- HARTOG V. WASATCH ACADEMY -- 10/28/1997<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0285p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was struck and killed by a car traveling 40 miles per hour in a 25 mile per hour zone on the street in front of their house. Among the Garrison Avenue residents who complained to city officials about the speed limit was Kimberly Schroder. Schroder told the police that Garrison was being used as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/oct97/96-4040.wpd.html">HARTOG V. WASATCH ACADEMY<BR></A><BR> The correct sentence should read: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200405/03-5169a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/10/96-4040a.htm">96-4040A -- HARTOG V. WASATCH ACADEMY -- 10/28/1997<BR></A><BR> The correct sentence should read: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052275p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The appropriate remedy is the granting of a defense motion for a more definite statement under Federal Rule 12(e). We will vacate the District Court's order insofar as it relates to qualified immunity and remand to the District Court with instructions to order the plaintiffs to file a more definite statement. We will reverse the District Court's order denying defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim with respect to the claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1986 against Wendy Potts Fleegal and the claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1986 against Sam M. We will also reverse the District Court's order denying defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim with respect to the unlawful taking claim under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Insofar as the claim is brought against the Individual Defendants. I. This is a civil rights action brought by Anthony W. Plaintiffs have pursued the transfer of a restaurant liquor license The complaint purports to assert an unlawful taking claim under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1568.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLP</SPAN> were on brief. Daniels</SPAN> and <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7C81F03FE01AD572882572D400599507/$file/0456880.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ORDER The plaintiff appellant's petition for panel rehearing is GRANTED. 2007 WL 446582 is WITHDRAWN. Is filed with this Order. The parties are not precluded from filing further petitions for panel and en banc rehearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Food and drug inspectors are peace officers and carry firearms. Adams was offered the position she sought. Her actual hiring was conditioned upon her successful completion of a background investigation. CDHS then advised Adams it was unable to accommodate her medical restrictions. The SPB granted Adams's appeal and advised her she would be appointed to the FDI position within 120 days unless she was unsuccessful in the balance of the selection process. Arguing that she should be appointed to the FDI position immediately because the selection process ended when she was deemed medically qualified. Sending emails and letters to CDHS employees in which Adams's tone was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0101p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As the issues raised in this appeal are matters of first impression among the courts of appeals. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/01/02-1254.htm">02-1254 -- COLORADO ENVIRONMENTAL CAOLITION V. WENKER -- 01/07/2004<BR></A><BR> The RACs are designed to be representative of major groups with interests in federal lands. The district court concluded both that the FACA and the regulations were too vague to provide a meaningful legal standard to adjudicate the plaintiffs' claims. We conclude that the individual plaintiffs Peters and Houdek do have standing to bring this action. The Secretary of the Interior is instructed by the statute toestablish advisory councils of not less than ten and not more than fifteen members appointed by him from among persons who are representative of the various major citizens' interests concerning the problems relating to land use planning or the management of the public lands located within the area for which an advisory council is established. <p> 43 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/957694B.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 6 the phrase </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/10/033266P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who is Hispanic. Griffith complains that he was suspended and then denied retraining. As some district courts have concluded. The third step in the McDonnell Douglas analysis must be modified </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971409.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Opinion issued 9/8/00 is vacated. The Morgans contend that Interstate's claim for money damages should not have been presented to the jury. We are of opinion that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Its judgment is vacated and the case remanded for dismissal for that reason. The Morgans asserted that the district court did not have jurisdiction because Interstate's complaint did not include a request for 1 The complaint alleged only state law questions on account of the business agreements between the parties. There is no such allegation in the complaint in this case. 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) provides that: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2126.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 and reverse and remand for further proceedings. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. As was necessary to obtain a building permit. The site was allegedly zoned for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-2026.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Caron was convicted of possessing rifles. Because at least three of Caron's five predicate felony convictions were for crimes of violence. He was subject to sentence enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/04/051748P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND MFA is a regional agriculture cooperative which employs 1900 people. Operates 150 retail facilities and is headquartered in Columbia. Cottrill was hired by MFA as a bookkeeper in 1987 and Combs as a part time bookkeeper in July of 2001. Adkins constructed a peephole through one wall in order to view Cottrill while she was in the women's restroom. The back of the mirror was covered with black paper except for the portion aligned with the peephole. Cottrill did not know or have any suspicion that Adkins was viewing her through the peephole. Cottrill was treated by a series of doctors but never received a precise diagnosis. She stated that she did not know what was causing the rash from 1998 until 2000. Believed that the rashes were caused by the sticky substance thereafter. Cottrill experienced a burning sensation for thirty minutes and concluded that there must have been a foreign substance on the toilet paper. Combs did not experience skin rashes and stated that she was unaware of Cottrill having rashes during the time that Combs worked at the Albany facility. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1D4FB9758086EF9688256F0B005928DD/$file/0216537.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Porter alleged that she was the victim of continuing sexual harassment. She asserts that the district court erred in holding as a matter of law that her sexual harassment claim was barred because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200404/03-5163a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/03/993064P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court denied the motion for class certification on the grounds that (1) the proposed class definition of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-3077enbanc.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Theodore B. With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel was Donald E. With him on the brief were Jeffrey G. Of counsel on the brief were Ronald L. With him on the brief were Martha B. Because the VEOA is subject to equitable tolling and Kirkendall is entitled to a hearing on his USERRA claim. Was chosen to fill the position. All of which were denied. The board has no authority to decide whether DoL should have waived the 60 day deadline. The board affirmed the AJ's decision that the VEOA claim was precluded for failure to timely file. The board held that Kirkendall's assertion that he was not selected based on his status as a disabled veteran was cognizable. That Kirkendall had offered no proof that his veteran status was a substantial or motivating factor in his nonselection. Review was denied. Cir. 2006) (per curiam order). 05 3077 3 The order granting en banc review asked the parties to brief three issues: (1) Is the 15 day period for filing appeals to the Merit Systems Protection Board set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(d)(1)(B) subject to equitable tolling? (2) Is the 60 day period for filing a claim with the Secretary of Labor set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(a)(2)(A) subject to equitable tolling? (3) Are all veterans who allege a USERRA violation entitled to a hearing under 5 U.S.C. § 7701? </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/055417p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While she was employed by the Department of Defense at the Defense Supply Center in Philadelphia ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1994/94a0702p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These loans were evidenced by the following seven promissory notes: 1. a $185. This letter is at the heart of this action. The letter was signed by William Carlough. The following are the most significant provisions of the letter: (1) the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F4D3A1D6C33176BB88256B25006141CB/$file/9916102.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: At issue in these consolidated cross appeals is whether the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's provision of Incidental Take Statements pursuant to the Endangered Species Act was arbitrary and capricious under Section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act. Each of the Incidental Take Statements was set aside. Where there either was no evidence that the endangered species existed on the land or no evidence that a take would occur if the permit were issued. We also find that it was arbitrary and capricious for the Fish and Wildlife Service to issue terms and conditions so vague as to preclude compliance therewith. Analyzes twenty species of plants and animals and concludes that the livestock grazing program was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species affected nor was likely to result in destruction or adverse modification of the designated or proposed critical habitat. The matter was adjudicated by way of cross motions for summary judgment. It then held that the Fish and Wildlife Service's issuance of an Incidental Take Statement for both the razorback sucker and the pygmy owl was arbitrary and capricious. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0ABCF760237A199288256E5A00707D8F/$file/9916102.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: At issue in these consolidated cross appeals is whether the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's provision of Incidental Take Statements pursuant to the Endangered Species Act was arbitrary and capricious under Section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act. Each of the Incidental Take Statements was set aside. Where there either was no evidence that the endangered species existed on the land or no evidence that a take would occur if the permit were issued. We also find that it was arbitrary and capricious for the Fish and Wildlife Service to issue terms and conditions so vague as to preclude compliance therewith. Analyzes twenty species of plants and animals and concludes that the livestock grazing program was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species affected nor was likely to result in destruction or adverse modification of the designated or proposed critical habitat. The matter was adjudicated by way of cross motions for summary judgment. It then held that the Fish and Wildlife Service's issuance of an Incidental Take Statement for both the razorback sucker and the pygmy owl was arbitrary and capricious. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct97/96-2772.opa.html">FLORIDA DEP'T OF BUS. REGULATION V. ZACHY'S WINE AND LIQUOR, INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Florida Dep't of Bus. STATEMENT OF THE CASE<p> <p> Defendants/appellees ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/994142.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Colton's primary argument on appeal is that because the government offered no evidence that he made any affirmative misrepresentations or breached any fiduciary. He cannot be held to have violated the federal bank fraud statute. So that the district court can vacate two of the bank fraud convictions because they were multiplicious. 000 and so his sentence should have been enhanced. Which was originally titled the Dennis A. He removed Ellis Koch as a trustee because Koch was known to be closely associated with him. For payment because Riggs believed that the property value was insufficient to cover the loan in light of certain environmental and financial problems jeopardizing the Wal Mart contract. Who was now practicing law in Annapolis. Laskin testified that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1003.html">SCOSCHE V. VISOR GEAR<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-3278.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Cosgrove's claims were time barred under applicable Kansas statutes of limitations and dismissed his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Cosgrove was a minor child in the protective. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This Order and Judgment is not binding precedent. Cosgrove was initially placed in the Brumley foster home until he left in 1992. He was subject to. Defendants were aware of the abuse and trauma inflicted by the defendant foster parents. Willfully and wantonly subverted and covered up repeated complaints and reports of abuse and trauma knowing that the abuse and trauma was so abhorrent as to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2415.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1033.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gallart</SPAN> and <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct97/96-2772.opa.html">FLORIDA DEP'T OF BUS. REGULATION V. ZACHY'S WINE AND LIQUOR, INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Florida Dep't of Bus. STATEMENT OF THE CASE<p> <p> Defendants/appellees ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1994/94a0791p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The question before us is the proper standard for granting summary judgment in a claim arising under Title VII in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in St. The plaintiff generally must submit evidence which: 1) casts sufficient doubt upon each of the legitimate reasons proffered by the defendant so that a factfinder could reasonably conclude that each reason was a fabrication. Or 2) allows the factfinder to infer that discrimination was more likely then not a motivating or determinative cause of the adverse employment action. We will affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment. At that time the Commission was comprised of five divisions. Read was at all times satisfied with Fuentes' performance. Waters was fond of Fuentes. Was advised to apply for the new positions that interested him. Fuentes and four others were eventually interviewed for that position. Agreed that several of the other interviewees were better qualified than Fuentes for that position. Who is Latino (Puerto Rican). A conclusion which the defendants have never challenged. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200605/05-7044a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Joseph D. Circuit Judge: After he was terminated for a 2 purported lack of candor. Whether it was due to a lack of candor. He was promoted in 1996 and served as Distribution Project Engineer. One of the people Mastro supervised was a probationary employee. Harsley was arrested and jailed after he confronted an ex girlfriend and threatened to kill her and burn down her home and place of employment. He was absent from work beginning Tuesday. The date Mastro learned Harsley was actually in jail is the crux of the dispute that eventually led to Mastro's termination. Harsley claims he was always candid about his circumstances. Requesting two days of vacation because he was in jail. Telling Mastro that he was still incarcerated and needed more vacation time. Contends he was unaware Harsley was in jail until Wednesday afternoon or Thursday morning of that week. He did not know at the time that Harsley was in jail. Nor did he have reason to suspect as much. Asked Harsley if he was in jail. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2001/002428.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the orders of the district court. Is the founder and majority shareholder of two small capitalization medical services businesses EquiMed. The average market price was computed by taking the average of the stock's closing prices for the five days immediately prior to the exchange request. The structure of the second note ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1146.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Smith & Cohen were on brief for Donald Thomas Scholz. Given and Goldstein & Phillips were on brief for Paul F. Dispute whether royalties from record albums have been accounted for and paid to each other. The appeal is from a final judgment by the district court after a jury trial. Appellant and cross appellee Donald Thomas Scholz ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2368.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. P.A. were on brief. That such negligence was actionable under applicable state law. Was stamping innersoles by means of a marker machine. Her hair was drawn into the vacuum created by the high speed rotation of a drive shaft that delivered power to an adjacent </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2003/013234p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The District Court granted summary judgment for the City because there was no genuine issue of material fact and concluded that deliberate indifference by city policymakers had not been demonstrated. The District Court also granted summary judgment for Stewart and Caffey because it concluded that the 2 Appellants' federal claim was barred by a prior state judgment. We will affirm. Was at the residence of Angela Morris. Morris dialed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/06/02-2254.htm">02-2254 -- RIO GRANDE SILVERY MINNOW V. KEYS -- 06/12/2003<BR></A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may98/94-5083.man.html">UNITED STATES V. CITY OF HIALEAH (5/7/1998, NO. 94-5083)<BR></A><BR> 42 U.S.C. § 2000e <EM>et seq.</EM> Other parts of the consent decree have been approved and entered. They are not in question. One such part requires the City to hire as police officers and firefighters thirty blacks from a pool of prior applicants who were qualified but had been denied employment. The part of the decree the district court refused to enter would have granted retroactive competitive seniority to those thirty new black employees.</P> <P> The district court. We agree with the district court that the retroactive seniority part of the proposed consent decree would have diminished the seniority rights of incumbent employees. Which are legally enforceable rights guaranteed to them by their collective bargaining agreements. Or a finding that the provision was necessary and appropriate to remedy discrimination proven during a trial at which all affected parties had an opportunity to participate. We also conclude that the cross appeal is moot.</P> <P><CENTER><STRONG>I. The Hialeah workforce was approximately 17% black. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200214427.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The three plaintiffs in this case are Salvadoran refugees who claim that they were tortured by soldiers in El Salvador during the course of a campaign of human rights violations by the Salvadoran military from 1979 to 1983. Claims that he was kidnaped by government soldiers on or about December 12. 1980 and that he was tortured until January 5. When he was released. Arce alleges that he was shot in the foot and hand. Claims that she was abducted by Salvadoran soldiers on December 26. Gonzalez alleges that she was burned with cigarettes. Had a bed frame balanced on her stomach when she was eight months pregnant. Claims that he was kidnaped on June 13. Mauricio alleges that he was interrogated while he had his hands strung up behind his back. He also claims that during his interrogation he was severely beaten with a metal bar covered with rubber. The defendants in this case are Jose Garcia. Both defendants moved to the United States in August 1989 and have since been residing in this country as permanent residents. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/026266.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was represented by counsel in district court. Argues that he was entitled to an opportunity to address the timeliness of his petition under Hill v. Which requires a federal habeas court to notify a pro se petitioner that his petition is subject to dismissal under § 2244(d) when the state has not yet filed a responsive pleading or otherwise invoked the limitations bar. We affirm the district court in this case because McMillan was ultimately afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard on the timeliness of his petition. McMillan was convicted in North Carolina state court of felonious restraint. Which was denied on September 15. McMillan then filed what was styled as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may98/94-5083.man.html">UNITED STATES V. CITY OF HIALEAH (5/7/1998, NO. 94-5083)<BR></A><BR> 42 U.S.C. § 2000e <EM>et seq.</EM> Other parts of the consent decree have been approved and entered. They are not in question. One such part requires the City to hire as police officers and firefighters thirty blacks from a pool of prior applicants who were qualified but had been denied employment. The part of the decree the district court refused to enter would have granted retroactive competitive seniority to those thirty new black employees.</P> <P> The district court. We agree with the district court that the retroactive seniority part of the proposed consent decree would have diminished the seniority rights of incumbent employees. Which are legally enforceable rights guaranteed to them by their collective bargaining agreements. Or a finding that the provision was necessary and appropriate to remedy discrimination proven during a trial at which all affected parties had an opportunity to participate. We also conclude that the cross appeal is moot.</P> <P><CENTER><STRONG>I. The Hialeah workforce was approximately 17% black. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1340.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. Invest Almaz also contends that the jury was not properly instructed on a claim that. Was formed for the purpose of investing the pensions and savings of the parent company's employees. Invest Almaz's intent was to build housing for the parent company's retired employees and also to sell OSB for needed hard currency in the export market. Invest Almaz came to the conclusion that it would be more cost effective to purchase the equipment from an existing plant in North America and have it transported back to Russia. </FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200407/01-1258a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981659.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. This case is another case arising from the fraudulent loan scheme orchestrated by Edward J. Reiners' fraud was uncovered Philip Morris was not involved in any way with Project Star and in fact there was no such project and the banks involved in the Project Star credit facility lost large sums of money. Because Signet was a lead bank and arranged for the participation of several of the other banks. Many of these banks have sued Signet. Although the facts behind Reiners' scheme have been described elsewhere. They are repeated here insofar as they are relevant to the present appeal. Nelson and Mooney were familiar with Reiners' name from prior deals in which Reiners had executed documents on behalf of Philip Morris for computer leasing transactions. Nelson repeated to Mooney the story that Reiners had told him that Reiners was still employed with Philip Morris and that Project Star was a top secret project being conducted offshore by Philip Morris which required large amounts of computer equipment. The participation of Philip Morris was a vital component of the security for the loans. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec94/92-6778.man.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>In re Birmingham Reverse Discrim. Circuit Judges.<p> <p> PER CURIAM:<p> <p> The Court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor of it (Rule 35. The Suggestion(s) of Rehearing En Banc are DENIED.<p> HATCHETT. The <i>en banc</i> worthy issues that the court has declined to rehear include:<p> (1) What factual changes must occur before a district court is justified in modifying a consent decree involving racial discrimination. Local government affirmative action programs?<p> (3) What weight must a district court give to statistical disparities between the proportion of minorities a public employer hires and the proportion of minorities willing and able to do the work?<p> (4) To what extent are long term goals allowable in consent decrees between public bodies and minority citizens?<p> (5) Who are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1999/981762.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal of the District Court's dismissal under Fed. These rulings are now challenged on cross appeal. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court on all issues. The cases were consolidated in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under 28 U.S.C. 000 individual plaintiffs claim to have suffered physical injuries caused by defective orthopedic bone screw devices affixed to the pedicles of their spines during spinal fusion surgery. Which are intended to stabilize the spine and achieve fusion of the vertebrae. Consist of rods or plates that are screwed into the vertical axis of the lumbar spine. Plaintiffs have undergone surgery to have the devices removed. There are two types of omni actions. 7 The Plaintiffs' Legal Committee ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200608/04-5359a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Eric R. With him on the brief was Katherine J. The Act grants the Secretary of the Interior jurisdiction over all wild free roaming horses and burros on federal lands and directs the Secretary to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/07/02-6212.htm">02-6212 -- BRYANT V. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I-38 OF GARVIN COUNTY -- 07/02/2003<BR></A><BR> Oklahoma ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0279p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Substantive Facts Defendant MTA is an association of approximately 700 member companies in the metalworking industry in Michigan. Plaintiff is a licensed insurance agent in the state of Michigan. While Plaintiff was initially hired as a salaried employee. Plaintiff was deemed an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec94/92-6778.man.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>In re Birmingham Reverse Discrim. Circuit Judges.<p> <p> PER CURIAM:<p> <p> The Court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor of it (Rule 35. The Suggestion(s) of Rehearing En Banc are DENIED.<p> HATCHETT. The <i>en banc</i> worthy issues that the court has declined to rehear include:<p> (1) What factual changes must occur before a district court is justified in modifying a consent decree involving racial discrimination. Local government affirmative action programs?<p> (3) What weight must a district court give to statistical disparities between the proportion of minorities a public employer hires and the proportion of minorities willing and able to do the work?<p> (4) To what extent are long term goals allowable in consent decrees between public bodies and minority citizens?<p> (5) Who are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1688.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nolen was entitled to absolute qua sijudicial immunity and that Mr. Nolen was entitled to 2 No. 01 1688 qualified immunity. It is the unanimous opinion of the court that Mr. Nolen is not protected by absolute quasi judicial immunity. It is the opinion of the majority of the panel that Mr. A third member of the panel is of the opinion that Mr. Nolen is not entitled to qualified immunity on that claim. Snyder alleged that he was estranged from his wife. That his wife was in sole possession of his non marital property. That he was incarcerated in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections. That his assets were at substantial risk because his wife had indicated to Mr. His actions in `whiting out' [the] same was an `impermissible encroachment of judicial authority.' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2502.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/12BFFB6D3CF0E52F88256E010072FEFE/$file/0256272.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Over a German toy company which has questioned her ancestry by asserting that Barbie was a copy of its doll and that Mattel had infringed its patent and other intellectual property rights. That lawsuit was resolved by a dismissal with prejudice of those and other claims. It presumably also helps to explain why a lawsuit was filed in Germany in May 2001 by G&H. That motion was denied by the district court. Mattel's entire lawsuit was dismissed by the district court. We conclude that the subject matter of Mattel's current lawsuit which concerns and is essentially defined by the claims currently asserted by G&H in Germany is sufficiently related to the action filed in California by G&H in 1961 to support personal jurisdiction over G&H in the current case. I. BACKGROUND At the center of this case is the question of whether Mattel. Unfairly copied a doll produced by G&H known as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1394.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> Russell E. A magistrate judge ordered Freeman to file an amended complaint alleging specific facts (1) supporting the claims he is asserting. Holding that it is not an affirmative defense. Freeman's claims would have been unavailing. Section 1997e(a) of Title 42 provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1176.html">POLYMER INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS COMPANY V. BRIDGESTONE<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief was <u>Jenny L. Ohio 2002).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Because PIPCO s infringement claim was a compulsory counterclaim under Fed. Mso bidi font family: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug99/98-6054.man.html">PULLIAM V. TALLAPOOSA COUNTY JAIL (8/12/1999, NO. 98-6054)<BR></A><BR> Plaintiff was terminated.</P> <P> Plaintiff brought the instant action against Tallapoosa County (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTE3MDUtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1705-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> J.) held that Michigan law shields pharmaceutical companies from products liability claims unless there is. The power of states to govern in this field is considerable and undisputed. 756 (1985) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug99/98-6054.man.html">PULLIAM V. TALLAPOOSA COUNTY JAIL (8/12/1999, NO. 98-6054)<BR></A><BR> Plaintiff was terminated.</P> <P> Plaintiff brought the instant action against Tallapoosa County (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19943423.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is now before us for the second time. appeal are: The issues presented on (1) whether a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee can assert a bad faith claim against an insurer when the underlying cause of action accrued after the named insured was discharged in bankruptcy. (2) if such a claim is found to be cognizable. What is the measure of recovery. (3) whether the bankruptcy trustee is entitled to prejudgment interest. The measure of recovery is the Honorable William C. The trustee is not entitled to prejudgment interest. I. BACKGROUND The general factual background for this case is described in detail in Camp v. Is the insurer of Dr. On several occasions both before and after Kimbell's petition was filed. Paul could not be liable for bad faith refusal to settle because its insured Kimbell was bankrupt and could not be held personally liable for the excess judgment. Such that the named insured was never personally liable for any amount of the judgment. A second question certified to the Florida Supreme Court involved the construction of particular policy language and is not repeated here. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/may96/94-4236.wpd.html">SEAMONS V. SNOW<BR></A><BR> The word pendent is misspelled as pendant. Larsen's name was misspelled as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1438.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lise Iwon and Laurence & Iwon were on brief. Murphy were on brief. LLP were on brief. Parks & Whitman were on brief for defendants. Kenneth Smith seek to recover damages for alleged sexual abuse they suffered when they were minors. Plaintiff appellants allege that the perpetrators of this sexual abuse were priests serving in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence. The defendant appellees are the priests. The churches to which the priests were assigned (collectively. Plaintiff appellants appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of all defendant appellees on the ground that plaintiff appellants' claims are barred by the statute of limitations. BACKGROUND Because these appeals focus on the specific issues of whether plaintiff appellants' claims of childhood sexual abuse are time barred. It is not necessary to provide a complete account of the allegations set forth in the complaints. We will. Plaintiff appellants seek to recover damages under various state law tort theories for the alleged sexual abuse they suffered when they were minors. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-3020.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. The Agency also conducted background checks using the Decennial Applicant Name Check ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTE3MDUtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1705-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> J.) held that Michigan law shields pharmaceutical companies from products liability claims unless there is. The power of states to govern in this field is considerable and undisputed. 756 (1985) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="494"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-8015.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Flom LLP</U> were on brief. Urmy LLP</U> were on brief. <U>Circuit Judge</U>.</STRONG></FONT><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="494"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200512327.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> District Judge: This appeal raises the question: under what circumstances will a creditor be barred from later bringing an action against a co creditor based upon state law claims if. That Kodak was precluded from bringing the New York action by the doctrine of res judicata as a result of orders issued by the bankruptcy court in a bankruptcy filed by Atlanta Retail. We hold that res judicata does not bar the New York action because Kodak could not have received a full remedy in the contested Wolf bankruptcy proceedings and because the same nucleus of operative fact was not presented in the two actions. The judgment of the district court is reversed and the injunction is vacated. Entered into an agreement ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="494"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19942929.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Southeast Bank was declared insolvent. The FDIC was appointed receiver. We said that when a financial institution receivership case is removed to federal court following the entry of a state court judgment. This rule was first set out in Jackson v. Which adds 3 days to the prescribed time to act or to respond after notice is served by mail. Was not applicable to Rule 59. Plaintiffs within 60 days after their administrative claims were denied were required to take some action </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="494"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991650.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sales and Miller have moved to dismiss this appeal. Arguing that the appellants have waived their right to assert either immunity. After they were not reappointed as Assistant Registrars for the City of Lynchburg. Which was denied. Mason is now a defendant in only his individual capacity. Because he is no longer a member of the Electoral Board. Mason and Grant were the only parties to file the summary judgment motions that are the subject of this appeal or to file a notice of appeal from the quashing of those motions. Are thus the only defendants appellants now before this court. 3 This court reversed and remanded for a new trial in Sales v. Asserting that they were immune from suit under the doctrines of qualified and sovereign immunity. That it was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="494"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/72CE026C1B6B0DBE88256C3E0057E8AD/$file/9935472.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> CV 88 00379 BJR OPINION James Ziglar is substituted for his predecessor Doris Meissner. P. 43(c)(2). *John Ashcroft is substituted for his predecessor Janet Reno. Powell is substituted for his predecessor Madeline Albright. Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs Appellees are illegal immigrants and organizations assisting such immigrants who seek to legalize their status under a legalization program in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="494"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/10/01-4043.htm">01-4043 -- MARKER V. PACIFIC MEZZANINE FUND -- 10/30/2002<BR></A><BR> PMF concedes that the interest charged on the loan was usurious and does not contest the district court's order to pay TTI double the interest that it paid on the loan. The loan was subject to the provisions of the SBIA. Any surplus from the sale is given to the borrower. The borrower remains liable for any deficiency if the sale's proceeds are inadequate to satisfy the debt. (<u>Id</u>.). PMF notified TTI that the loan was in default. That payment in full was due. The WHI Note was due on December 31. TTI argues that PMF's enormous gain on a usurious loan violates the SBIA and that return of the promissory notes<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr2001/996054.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These are consolidated appeals from the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in a two tiered legal malpractice action governed by New Jersey law. The seeds of this case were sown in the early 1980s when Plaintiff Dixon Ticonderoga Company (Dixon) sold a piece of industrial property to a company named the Dixon Venture (Venture). Defendant William O'Connor who was affiliated with Defendant Schumann Hanlon & Panepinto (the Schumann firm) represented Dixon in connection with the sale. V enture sued Dixon to recover clean up costs that it was forced to incur in connection with the sale. Dixon claims that this judgment was the dir ect result of O'Connor's negligence. Who during all relevant times was affiliated with Defendant Franzblau Dratch. O'Connor and the Schumann firm moved to have the claims against them dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) as time barred. It was granted by the District Court. As we will explain. We conclude that the first element was satisfied in either late 1984 or early 1985. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></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-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/M830.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> McDermott Will & Emery LLP. With them on the brief were Paul Devinsky and Natalia V. Also on the brief were Terrence P. With her on the brief were James T. Of counsel on the brief were Albert L. With him on the brief was Pankaj Venugopal. Also on the brief were Constantine L. With her on the brief were William L. With him on the brief was Steven C. Of counsel on the brief was Judith M. With him on the brief were Jay R. Of counsel on the brief was Keith A. With her on the brief was Peter J. Of counsel on the brief were Robert C. Of counsel on the brief were Scott A.M. With him on the brief were Steven C. With her on the brief were Harold J. Also on the brief were Charles S. With him on the brief was Richard J. With him on the brief were Kenneth W. Also on the brief were Marc S. Of counsel was Herbert C Wamsley. With him on the brief was Monica Mucchetti Eno. With him on the brief was Simon J. Of counsel on the brief was Vicki G. With him on the brief was Philip J. Of counsel on the brief were Peter J. LLC ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2001/00-14340.opn.html">JOHNSON V. BD. OF REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF GEORGIA (8/27/2001, NO. 00-14340)<BR></A><BR> The three Plaintiffs are white females who applied unsuccessfully for admission to the University's Fall 1999 class. The University's freshman admissions policy does not unlawfully discriminate on the basis of race because the policy is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest in ensuring a diverse student body. Student body diversity is not a compelling interest sufficient to withstand the strict scrutiny that courts must apply to government decision making based on race. Because even assuming that student body diversity is a compelling interest. The University's 1999 freshman admissions policy is not narrowly tailored to achieve this interest. Plaintiff Jennifer Johnson's complaint was filed separately. Eventually was consolidated with the complaint of Plaintiffs Aimee Bogrow and Molly Ann Beckenhauer.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1995/95a0986p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These consolidated appeals have been taken from judgments and orders in three civil actions against the City of Philadelphia and certain of its former officials and employees. The court is divided on the disposition of various issues and on certain issues there are majorities consisting of each of the three possible combination of judges. On other issues the court is unanimous. In this opinion I will set forth the ultimate conclusions reached and also will set forth the majority view on some points and my own view on other points. Judges Scirica and Lewis are filing separate opinions. As a matter of convenience I largely will deliver this opinion in the first person. Judge Scirica and I conclude that all the individual defendants are immune because their actions on May 13. We will affirm the grant of summary judgment to defendants Wilson Goode. Will reverse the denial of summary judgment on the section 1983 claims to defendants Brooks. Judges Scirica and Lewis conclude that the City of Philadelphia is not entitled to summary judgment on the section 1983 claims and accordingly we will affirm the district court's denial of summary judgment to the city on those claims. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1307.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Norman Roy Grutman and Grutman Greene & Humphrey were on brief. Mahoney & Miller were on brief. Vetter & White were on brief. Was a vendor to Sammartino. The gold was made available in daily allotments for SI's manufacture of fine jewelry. A field warehouse was established under the auspices of SLT Warehouse Company (SLT). Putnam was to be paid for the metal as and when the manufacturer sold the jewelry which it made from the gold. Learned that Putnam's carrier was planning to cancel existing coverage. Pateman was the lead underwriter.1 In July 1987. Sammartino notified Putnam that substantial amounts of the vendor's gold were missing. Putnam filed claim under the Lloyd's policy for 1Lloyd's marine policy no. 243440200 was syndicated and. That Pateman was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1996/96a1463p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review is plenary. Lot l2 is a 39 acre tract split zoned into two categories: approximately one half is zoned single family residential. The remainder is zoned for office and service facilities. Associates asserts it was forced to accept conditions as part of the developer's agreement which restricted the lot from being developed and foreclosed proper access to the site. Suit was not filed until August 2. Because this action is brought about as a result of the defendant's failure to use its eminent domain powers. We agree with Associates that the standard mode of taking is through a sovereign's use of its eminent domain powers. It is alleged that a governmental body has effectuated a taking without recourse to eminent domain proceedings. Associates also contends the policy underlying statutes of limitations is not advanced by its application to inverse condemnation actions. Federal causes of action are subject to time limitations. The Supreme Court determined that the most appropriate statute of limitations in a § 1983 action is the state personal injury statute. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2001/00-14340.opn.html">JOHNSON V. BD. OF REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF GEORGIA (8/27/2001, NO. 00-14340)<BR></A><BR> The three Plaintiffs are white females who applied unsuccessfully for admission to the University's Fall 1999 class. The University's freshman admissions policy does not unlawfully discriminate on the basis of race because the policy is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest in ensuring a diverse student body. Student body diversity is not a compelling interest sufficient to withstand the strict scrutiny that courts must apply to government decision making based on race. Because even assuming that student body diversity is a compelling interest. The University's 1999 freshman admissions policy is not narrowly tailored to achieve this interest. Plaintiff Jennifer Johnson's complaint was filed separately. Eventually was consolidated with the complaint of Plaintiffs Aimee Bogrow and Molly Ann Beckenhauer.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1970.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/06/062658P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Goss was the major manufacturer of large printing presses in the United States for more than a century and enjoyed dominance in the United States printing press market into the late 1990s. A clawback statute is a countermeasure that enables defendants who have paid a multiple damage judgment in a foreign country to recover the multiple portion of that judgment from the plaintiff. Canada that allows companies which have paid treble damages under United States antitrust law judgments to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1996/96a1354p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because retroactive application of the choice of law provision was a rational exercise of Congress' legislative power. They assert the statute of limitations should have been tolled under Pennsylvania law. Because plaintiffs have failed to raise a material issue of fact. We will affirm summary judgment. The Mississippi actions were filed within that state's six year statute of limitations for personal injury actions. The Mississippi federal actions were transferred to the Middle District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a). Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to the Mississippi state and federal court actions on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims were untimely under the Price Anderson Amendments Act of 1988. Their claims arising from </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1096.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Curtis W. With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were Karen P. With him on the brief were Matthew W. Of counsel was Angie M. Also of counsel were Will E. Ltd. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept2000/995184.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The individual defendants are: (1) John R. I. Because this is an appeal from the District Court's grant of a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Is engaged in the research. Pondimin was marketed together with another drug. Pondimin was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 1973. Redux was recommended for approval by an FDA Advisory Committee in November 1995 and approved by the FDA in 1996. AHP represented to the FDA that these symptoms were reactions to the drugs and were not caused by any underlying heart condition. AHP's announcement similarly stated that the company was investigating </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/01-2223.htm">01-2223 -- AN V. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA -- 02/02/2004<BR></A><BR> Because that job classification required current enrollment in a graduate program and An was not so enrolled. She was reclassified in May 1997 as an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/96-2255.htm">96-2255 -- BYERS V. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE -- 07/29/1998<BR></A><BR> Defendants moved for summary judgment on the claim that the Mock Assessment Center was conducted in violation of Plaintiffs' civil rights. Promotions to the position of Sergeant within the Albuquerque Police Department are made from the Sergeants' Promotional List. The list is created by a two stage competition among eligible officers. The first stage is a written examination and the second stage is an oral examination. Only those employees who achieve a certain score on the written examination are advanced to the Assessment Center portion of the process. <p> Before the written examination. Defendants further announced that the 25 officers with the highest combined scores from the written test and the Assessment Center would be placed on the Sergeants' Promotional List. <p> The written examination was administered in August 1993. The six officers who were allowed to proceed to the Assessment Center pursuant to the expansion of the promotional list consisted of one Hispanic male. Who was Chief of Police during the promotional process. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1639p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Robinson alleges that she was sexually <p>harassed by appellee James Dickerson (her supervisor) and <p>that appellees Craig Edwards (an assistant police chief) and <p>Earl Buford (the chief of police) knew of the harassment but <p>failed to take action to stop it. Robinson was <p>assigned to a drug suppression unit commanded by then <br wp= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2003/003720u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 action by defendants. Who were convicted of violating federal laws. We will affirm. Were convicted of violating environmental. Because these are new claims. We must determine whether they are procedurally barred. Is not procedurally barred because the government failed to raise procedural default as an affirmative defense to their § 2255 motion.1 Even if the government raised its affirmative defense of procedural default before the District Court. Defendants urge us to consider ineffective assistance of counsel as the cause for that default. 3 1 The Supreme Court has determined that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19968019.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge: We have reviewed plaintiffs/appellants' complaint filed in district court. ORDER This case is before the Court on the Defendant First National Bank of Gainesville's Motion to Dismiss for want of subject matter jurisdiction [3 1]. Frances Otwell Bagby ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200507/04-5352a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Richard B. With him on the brief were Michelle M. Fred Wertheimer. 2 Trevor Potter was on the brief for amici curiae John McCain. Federal campaign finance law is complex. BCRA is no exception. Though few of its details are important to this litigation (and those that are we describe later in our analysis). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1639p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Robinson alleges that she was sexually harassed by appellee James Dickerson (her supervisor) and that appellees Craig Edwards (an assistant police chief) and Earl Buford (the chief of police) knew of the harassment but failed to take action to stop it. Robinson was assigned to a drug suppression unit commanded by then 2 Lieutenant Dickerson. Describing the position in which he and Robinson would have sex if they were to do so. Robinson testified that she never acceded to any of Dickerson's sexual advances or reciprocated any of his sexual remarks and that she made it clear to him that his conduct was unwelcome. Robinson approached Assistant Chief Edwards to inquire about a transfer to the detective bureau (which would have been a promotion). Was one of two second in command officers who reported directly to Chief Buford. 585 86) Robinson testified that she told Edwards that she thought Dickerson </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/12/97-1328.htm">97-1328 -- U.S. V. STATE OF COLORADO -- 12/21/1999<BR></A><BR> 10<sup> 5</sup> cancer risk level was arbitrary and capricious. (2) the district court erred when it ruled that the EPA's failure to amend the Record of Decision for Operable Unit I when it encountered the unexpected rock content in the sludge was arbitrary and capricious. (3) even if the actions regarding the Record of Decision for Operable Unit I were arbitrary and capricious. The district court erred in not requiring BN to prove that the cost would not have been incurred in any event. <p> BN cross appeals. We conclude that the EPA's remediation decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record and. Is not arbitrary and capricious. Performance or cost of the remedial plan was involved. The EPA was not required to amend the remediation plan in order to use the settling tank or to amend the plan. We agree with the district court that the EPA actions were arbitrary and capricious for failing to amend the plan. <p> Third. We hold that the district court erred in refusing to require BN to demonstrate that the EPA's errors resulted in expenditures in excess of those that would have occurred in the absence of the errors. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6BD238AF5C92BA1688256E5A00707CF7/$file/0016895.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendants Appellees. Christie Todd Whitman is substituted for her predecessor. Circuit Judge: The question presented by this appeal is whether the actions of the Administrator of the EPA in failing or refusing to find a violation of the Clean Water Act. Are discretionary decisions of the Administrator that are not subject to judicial review under the Act. We conclude that both decisions are discretionary and therefore not subject to review. The Sierra Club sued the EPA defendants for their failure to take any action against the City of Nogales or the International Boundary and Water Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9C5F003A71835BD888256AD90005942E/$file/0016895.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendants Appellees. Christie Todd Whitman is substituted for her predecessor. Circuit Judge: The question presented by this appeal is whether the actions of the Administrator of the EPA in failing or refusing to find a violation of the Clean Water Act. Are discretionary decisions of the Administrator that are not subject to judicial review under the Act. We conclude that both decisions are discretionary and therefore not subject to review. The Sierra Club sued the EPA defendants for their failure to take any action against the City of Nogales or the International Boundary and Water Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/08/96-4155.htm">96-4155 -- GUNNELL V. UTAH VALLEY STATE COLLEGE -- 08/19/1998<BR></A><BR> Claiming that she was subjected to sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that she was denied a medical leave of absence in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972253.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which are located in high risk areas and have been partially vacant over the years. Portions of one property were vandalized in December 1994 and again in March 1995. Ruling that the properties were either vacant or lacked protective safeguards and that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1040.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C. were on brief for appellants. Desmery and Craig and Macauley were on brief for appellee. Jun iper's companion claim for cleanup related attorney fees was disallowed as well. The drums were still at the facility when DEQE conduct ed its last site inspection. Juniper contends that the area was sub merged at the time. The Hemingway Bristol chapter 11 reorganization proceeding was converted to a chapter 7 liquidation proceeding. A chapter 7 trustee was appointed. Were dis covered at the facility. 391 U.S. 471 (1968)).3 2Juniper alleges that an engineering firm was paid $30. An environmental consulting firm was paid $7. A law firm was paid $54. When the trustee's motion for summary judgment on count I was denied the bankruptcy court allowed Juniper to amend count I to assert a claim for contribu tion under 42 U.S.C. 9607(a). On the ground that Juniper was the holder of a contingent CERCLA contribution claim based on a debt owed EPA for which Juniper. Bristol were jointly and severally liable. The bankruptcy court ruled that Hemingway and Bristol were responsible parties </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/09/00-2337.htm">00-2337 -- U.S. V. RODRIGUEZ-AGUIRRE -- 09/05/2001<BR></A><BR> The property in question was allegedly seized in 1992 pursuant to several warrants executed on homes and business properties owned by Appellants. While many of the seized items were forfeited by the United States in valid civil forfeiture actions. Appellants allege that approximately 127 of the seized items were never properly forfeited and thus should be returned to Appellants. Appellants' objections to the magistrate's recommendations were rejected by the district court when dismissing Appellants' motion. <p> Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/06/00-4032.htm">00-4032 -- WHITNEY V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF GRAND COUNTY -- 06/18/2002<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/016703R1.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 9 the phrase </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct98/96-3790.man.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge.</P> <P> This appeal presents the following question: Do the limitations periods prescribed in 11 U.S.C. §§ 546(a) and 549(d) operate to divest a bankruptcy court of subject matter jurisdiction once they have elapsed. Which was filed on September 10. The bankruptcy court ruled that the debtors had a conclusive right to the Zephyr Egg settlement proceeds because no objection was interposed within 30 days after the debtors filed their amended Schedule C in April 1992.</P> <P> The trustee later discovered. In which they claimed that the full amount of the Zephyr Egg claim was exempt. That disallowed the exemption and declared that the proceeds of the Zephyr claim were the property of the bankruptcy estate.</P> <P> On July 21. They claimed that the bankruptcy court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider the trustee's adversary proceeding. Found that their contention was without merit. <EM>See Pugh v. The debtors claimed that the trustee was barred by 11 U.S.C. § 546 from commencing or maintaining the adversary proceeding. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/06/951355P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These claims are premised upon alleged misrepresentations made by defendant A.O. We affirm. the Klehrs' claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Marvin Klehr was an experienced dairy farmer and knew that mold and spoilage in livestock feed are caused due to the feed's exposure to oxygen. AOSHPI represented that because the Harvestore silos were sealed. Feed stored in the unit would have almost no exposure to oxygen. Although a Harvestore silo was All of these purported benefits would considerably more expensive than a ultimately increase the profitability of the Klehrs' dairy operation. conventional stave silo. It was explained to the Klehrs that Harvestore's unique </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1997/97a1521p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Their applications were ultimately denied on the basis of an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19978189.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1 The Plaintiffs are: Major A.M. Section 1981 provides in pertinent part: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/07F5FC12B8A98D6988256D35005181DB/$file/0135419.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Judge Berzon was drawn to replace Judge Henry A. Adopted for this litigation for reasons that will appear assert that they performed espionage activities on behalf of the United States against a former Eastern bloc country. The United States will neither confirm nor deny the Does' allegations. Their action is either appropriate only in the Court of Federal Claims or precluded by the venerable doctrine enunciated in Totten v. That the facts as alleged by the Does are true and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to their case. Are all. The Does allege that they were citizens of an Eastern bloc country formerly considered an adversary of the United States. Doe approached a person Part II of the opinion is authored by Judge Canby. The Does recount that after this request was made. The Does further allege that the agents assured them that this assistance was approved at the highest level of authority at the CIA and was mandated by U.S. law. The Does state that although they were initially reluctant to conduct espionage activities. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july97/96-8019.opa.html">BAGGETT V. FIRST NAT'L BANK<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Baggett v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> We have reviewed plaintiffs/appellants' complaint filed in district court. Defendant.<p> <p> CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:95 CV 684 FMH.<p> <p> <i>ORDER</i><p> <p> This case is before the Court on the Defendant First National Bank of Gainesville's Motion to Dismiss for want of subject matter jurisdiction [3 1]. Frances Otwell Bagby ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962560.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The City had taken prompt and adequate remedial measures to relieve it of liability under Title VII and that the City did not have a custom or policy which caused the conduct so as to make it liable for that conduct on the § 1983 claim. Are as follows. While both were on duty as members of Squad 2D. This unwelcome act was preceded by several seconds of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1994/94a0805p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The documents to be produced were created before the insureds purchased coverage. The insureds have appealed from that order. They have also filed a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to vacate and reverse the order. The six law firms and the accounting firm that have been subpoenaed to produce documents have moved to intervene and join in the insureds' requests for relief. We will grant the petitioners' request for relief and issue a writ of mandamus to the district court and direct it to vacate its order that these documents be produced. The Parties and the Nature of the Proceedings Rhône Poulenc Rorer Inc. is the successor to the Rorer Group Inc. One of Armour's products was Factorate. Armour was named in the first of a series of lawsuits filed by individuals who claimed Factorate had infected them with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). Which is thought to be the cause of Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS). They allege they are insureds under a primary comprehensive general liability insurance policy provided by The Home Indemnity Company. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1988.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Callahan</SPAN> were on brief. Greenspan</SPAN> were on brief. Apart from the four for which she was convicted.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992685.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Because Alex has not alleged sufficient facts to hold the school board or its officials liable for federal constitutional violations and because a private right of action is not available under the Safe Schools Act. Sherrod was subsequently suspended. At this meeting Stevenson told Respass that McEachern was threatening Alex. This was not done. McEachern was neither disciplined nor removed from Alex's classes. Alex and McEachern were in Swanola Chance's first period art class. Because he was receiving no help from Chance. Alex told her that he was going to the principal's office. McEachern and Jones were suspended. While the juvenile proceedings were pending. One of the lunchtime attackers was suspended from school. On September 25 McEachern and several of his friends harassed Alex and his father while they were at a music festival in Williamston. Alex would have to transfer to private school. Because this is a civil rights case. We are also guided by the following additional principles. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0062p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Deborah Kirk ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july97/96-8019.opa.html">BAGGETT V. FIRST NAT'L BANK<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Baggett v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> We have reviewed plaintiffs/appellants' complaint filed in district court. Defendant.<p> <p> CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:95 CV 684 FMH.<p> <p> <i>ORDER</i><p> <p> This case is before the Court on the Defendant First National Bank of Gainesville's Motion to Dismiss for want of subject matter jurisdiction [3 1]. Frances Otwell Bagby ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-3387.html">RAYBURN F. HESSE V. DEPT. OF STATE<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <u>David W. Of counsel was <u>Thomas H. Hesse from his position was not procedurally flawed. His position required him to have and maintain a Top Secret security clearance. Hesse was given an opportunity to respond to the agency </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1994/94a0793p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We reject the Summers rule in favor of one circumscribing the use of after acquired evidence to the remedies phase of an employment discrimination suit brought pursuant to Title VII or ADEA.[fn2] We will therefore reverse the district court's order granting summary judgment to Harleysville. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY[FN3] Harleysville hired Mardell as a Branch Life Manager in February 1988 to manage insurance agents.[fn4] Mardell appears from the record to have been an accomplished life insurance agent. Who was being promoted out of the position at Harleysville for which Mardell would be hired. Shelow was familiar with Mardell's work at Prudential and felt that she would excel as a Life Manager for Harleysville. Even though at the time he imposed the probation Mardell's work was improving and she had surpassed the yearly goal he had set for her (A 76 78. Who then was 52 years old. Contending instead that gender and/or age discrimation was the cause. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct98/96-3790.man.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge.</P> <P> This appeal presents the following question: Do the limitations periods prescribed in 11 U.S.C. §§ 546(a) and 549(d) operate to divest a bankruptcy court of subject matter jurisdiction once they have elapsed. Which was filed on September 10. The bankruptcy court ruled that the debtors had a conclusive right to the Zephyr Egg settlement proceeds because no objection was interposed within 30 days after the debtors filed their amended Schedule C in April 1992.</P> <P> The trustee later discovered. In which they claimed that the full amount of the Zephyr Egg claim was exempt. That disallowed the exemption and declared that the proceeds of the Zephyr claim were the property of the bankruptcy estate.</P> <P> On July 21. They claimed that the bankruptcy court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider the trustee's adversary proceeding. Found that their contention was without merit. <EM>See Pugh v. The debtors claimed that the trustee was barred by 11 U.S.C. § 546 from commencing or maintaining the adversary proceeding. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19978189.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Certified under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure the following class:5 1 The Plaintiffs are: Major A.M. Section 1981 provides in pertinent part: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/01/011323P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Defendants have argued that no clear The Honorable Andrew W. While they were children. The Plaintiffs allege they were improperly removed from their mother's care and placed in an abusive foster home. Their first claim is that their substantive due process rights were violated when they were placed into an abusive home without prior investigation of the guardians. No supervision was performed during the placement despite numerous specific complaints. They were not removed from the placement for months despite knowledge of Jim Huffman's violent criminal history. The second claim is that their procedural due process rights were violated when they were removed from their mother without a hearing. Were not allowed free contact with their natural parents. Were not provided a Guardian Ad Litem or appointed counsel to represent their interests. The Defendants have argued that qualified immunity bars the entirety of this lawsuit. The law was not clearly established that state caseworkers had a duty to protect these children. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1994/94a0825p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Glass claims that he was substantially prejudiced by the district court's rulings for two reasons. Glass was prohibited from telling his side of the story. Glass claims that the excluded Eddystone evidence is relevant to the issue of pretext. We find that the error was not harmless. We will reverse the district court's judgment and remand for a new trial.[fn1] I. Glass was an activist on behalf of PECO employees. In the early 1970's he was a chief organizer in a pattern and practice race discrimination action filed in federal court against PECO. He was also an organizer and primary contact with counsel in another federal pattern and practice race discrimination suit. Glass received only one performance evaluation which was less than fully satisfactory. This occurred while he was serving as a junior technical assistant ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1993.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: Page 5. Was on brief for petitioner. Were on brief for respondent. Was on brief for intervenor. Finding amendment to a timely charge improper since the charges were not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5188.html">CHRISTOPHER VILLAGE, L.P., ET AL. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>E. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel were <u>David M. </o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoBodyText2>This case presents the question whether a federal district court has jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment as to the government s liability for breach of contract solely in order to create a predicate for suit to recover damages in the Court of Federal Claims.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>We hold that district courts do not have such jurisdiction because the Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction under the Tucker Act. The predicate judgment was void.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>It follows that the Court of Federal Claims was not bound by this earlier judgment.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span></p> <p class=MsoBodyText2>On the merits. We affirm the Court of Federal Claims grant of summary judgment.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>We agree that the contract between the government and the appellants was unenforceable against the government because of a material breach by the appellants predating the government s alleged breach. </p> <h2 style='line height:200%'><span style='text decoration:none. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200214469.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Eight Florida citizens1 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9EA1A9E9FF00EE458825734700517E52/$file/0356712.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is withdrawn and replaced by the new opinion and dissent filed concurrently with this order. The petitions for panel rehearing and for rehearing en banc are DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing will be entertained. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200102/00-5081a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Lois J. With him on the brief were Dennis Gingold. Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment delineating appellants' trust obligations to IIM trust benefi ciaries and injunctive relief to ensure that such trust obli gations are carried out. The district court concluded that the federal government and its officers have been derelict in their duties. Notwithstanding the fact that appel lants have taken significant steps towards the discharge of the federal government's fiduciary obligations. Appellants clearly have yet to fulfill their trust duties. The relief ordered was well within the district court's equitable powers. This is undeniable. Such duties are grounded in the very nature of the government Indian relationship. It is equally clear that the federal government has failed time and again to discharge its fiduciary duties. There is no dispute that appellants. Have failed to discharge fully their fiduciary obligations. The issue we confront is whether the district court properly delineated the contours of the obligations owed by the Interior Secretary. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F2C17F67DE4A8E3888256C94005C4F75/$file/0056470.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the briefs. 2002 is hereby ordered amended as follows: Slip Op. at 13984: Add a footnote on line 3 of the first full paragraph after the word </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0151p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While he was a tenant at the Jeffries Homes public housing project in Detroit. Is based on federal rights under the same statutes and regulations as described in Count I. Was diagnosed with lead poisoning at the age of two. Plaintiff's brief on appeal is devoid of any argument pertaining to an appeal from the June 21. This portion of the appeal is therefore deemed abandoned. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0326p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We previously held that Officer Christine Keith was entitled to qualified immunity from Cheryl Lyons' false arrest claim. Officer Matthew Foubert was entitled to qualified immunity from Lyons' claim that he used excessive force in handcuffing her. Officer Foubert was not entitled to qualified immunity from Lyons' claim that he used excessive force in tackling her in response to a distressed call for backup support from Officer Keith. Aiesha was also present at the Dodd residence. That a police officer was with her. Aiesha would have to come </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct98/95-2898.man.html">WALKER V. MORTHAM (10/28/1998, NO. 95-2898)<BR></A><BR> The case was certified as a class action. Remanding the case to the district court with directions.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> This case was brought in 1979 as a class action in the District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Such tests are not an issue in this case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct98/95-2898.man.html">WALKER V. MORTHAM (10/28/1998, NO. 95-2898)<BR></A><BR> The case was certified as a class action. Remanding the case to the district court with directions.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> This case was brought in 1979 as a class action in the District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Such tests are not an issue in this case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/991530.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The sole issue presented in this appeal is the difficult question of who must bear the burden of persuasion when a criminal defendant raises a justification defense to the federal charge of being a felon in possession of afirearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. We will therefore affirm the District Court's order of conviction and sentence. I. Facts and Procedural History Reginald Dodd was convicted by a jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania of one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The only question at trial was whether Dodd was justified in possessing the gun for the purpose of preventing harm to others. The justification defense in our court has four elements: (1) that the defendant or someone else was under unlawful and present threat of death or serious bodily injury. (4) that there was a direct causal relationship between the criminal act and the avoidance of the threatened harm. That Dodd had picked it up in order to keep it out of the hands of a group of young children who were coming down the street. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/05/952672P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Thompson was not covered under an aviation insurance policy issued by it to Arkansas Aircraft Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/10/974245P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND The facts underlying this employment discrimination case are not in dispute. Appellant Rita Phillips was hired as a cashier by Appellee Taco Bell in March 1994. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0091n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Finding that the harassment was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment. Seven people were in attendance: Davidson. Davidson was already intoxicated and soon began to direct sexual comments at her and engage in unwelcome sexual behavior that humiliated her. Davidson is not involved in the appeal. (2) sang her a song entitled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0123p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Mistake or deception. 15 U.S.C. § 1127 (emphasis added).4 The federal cause of action for dilution is found in 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1). We hold that the district court's dismissal of Kellogg's dilution claims was improper. Because we hold that Kellogg's infringement claim is not in fact barred by acquiescence. We also hold that the district court's dismissal of Kellogg's bad faith infringement claim was improper. Opining that the cartoon tiger was too whimsical and. 000 of these gas stations were owned and operated by independent distributors ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5081a.html">ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, ET AL. V. GALE A. NORTON<BR></A><BR> With him on the briefs were </P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/98-3223.htm">98-3223 -- KOCH V. KOCH INDUSTRIES INC. -- 02/14/2000<BR></A><BR> Is the second largest privately held corporation in the United States. KII was founded by Fred C. Those members of the Simmons family involved in the instant suit are cousins to the four Koch brothers. <p> In 1966 and 1967. He was never a KII employee and did not place a representative on the board until March of 1981. <p> In 1980. Frederick and the Simmons Family either to buy back some or all of their stock or to take KII public and have the now dissident shareholders sell their stock on the public market. The SPA contained two relevant warranties by KII: The first provided that all KII financial statements disclosed to the selling shareholders had fairly presented KII's financial condition and were prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Would have increased the Plaintiffs' valuation of KII stock at the time of the SPA. The Defendants named in the action were KII. Which alleged the Defendants failed to disclose that certain expenses were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="483"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkyODRfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9284_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs tell a compelling story and are not the first to tell it. Similar allegations have appeared in a separate class action. In complaints filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="483"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2326B.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for the United States appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="483"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2004/001816p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The CWA and Bell are parties to a collective bargaining agreement (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="483"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1429.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee. This case is the sequel to United States v. Woodward claims that the evidence was insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on any of the four counts. Woodward was first elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives in 1977. He was assigned to the Joint Committee on Insurance ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="483"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/11/992894P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Judge Gibson was unable to review this opinion prior to its filing. The opinion is consistent with Judge Gibson's vote at conference. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Alleging that their properties have been contaminated by pollutants from the Asarco site. Were emitted into the air from stacks and other sources at the Omaha plant. Defendant avers that a substantial volume of these air emissions were captured by emission control devices 3 the air from the site did not have adverse public health effects. Plaintiffs were required to show that they each individually satisfied the $75. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="483"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19952799.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These consolidated appeals raise the following issues: (1) whether plaintiff's § 1983 claim was so </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="483"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19952799.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These consolidated appeals raise the following issues: (1) whether plaintiff's § 1983 claim was so </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="483"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2326.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for the United States appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="483"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2001/003410.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal from the dismissal under Fed. Who are cigarette wholesalers. The District Court held that plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the Sherman Act because the tobacco companies were immune from antitrust liability under both the Noerr Pennington and Parker immunity doctrines. We agree they are immune under the Noerr Pennington doctrine but not under the Parker doctrine. We will affirm. Are cigarette manufacturers who were original signatories to the Multistate Settlement Agreement. They are collectively known as the major tobacco companies or the Majors. The Majors are responsible for 98% of cigarette sales in the United States. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="483"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2000/991378.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="483"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0FE0B061919E56EE88257266007B14F9/$file/0535319.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We affirm the district court's decision to dismiss the § 1983 claim because we conclude that the Pioneer Square Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the Defendants violated their constitutional rights.1 In a concurrently filed memorandum disposition. The 2001 celebration was scheduled to run from Friday. Seattle's prior Mardi Gras celebrations have had a generally peaceful history. Police officers secured the area after the crowd was dispersed. Staffing for Saturday was expanded to 132 sworn officers. Officers apprehended an individual reported to have a handgun. A large number of participants attended the Mardi Gras celebration on Tuesday and a significant quantity of alcohol was consumed. All police personnel were instructed to conduct highly visible patrols throughout Pioneer Square and to focus on any behavior or criminal activity. Sunday and Monday evenings were relatively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="483"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2000/983543.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="483"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2211.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was hired and entered into an apprentice indenture agreement2 which required that she complete a total of 7. Hottenroth was compensated and her tuition expenses were paid by Slinger. Slinger also agreed to provide Hottenroth with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="483"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1994/94a0878p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal from the district court's dismissal of Oshiver's complaint. On the ground that Oshiver's claims were time barred. We will affirm the district court's dismissal of Oshiver's discriminatory failure to hire claim. Was instead hired as an hourly attorney. Having been informed that there were no salaried positions available at that time. When she was hired. She was also advised by the firm that she would be considered for an associate position if and when an opening occurred. Oshiver was dismissed with the explanation that the firm did not have sufficient work to sustain her position as an hourly employee at that time. Oshiver filed administrative complaints with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="483"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/06/96-3018.htm">96-3018 -- SMITH V. MIDLAND BRAKE INC. -- 06/14/1999<BR></A><BR> We are required to answer two questions concerning the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Whether an employee can be a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="483"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/06/96-3018a.htm">96-3018A -- SMITH V. MIDLAND BRAKE INC. -- 06/14/1999<BR></A><BR> The plaintiff appellant should have been listed as follows: <p> GENEVA M. Deceased. <p> <p> A copy of the corrected slip opinion cover page is attached. <p> Sincerely. We are required to answer two questions concerning the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Whether an employee can be a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="483"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkyODRfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9284_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs tell a compelling story and are not the first to tell it. Similar allegations have appeared in a separate class action. In complaints filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/29CF79BB69A569228825726C00839C81/$file/0670430.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Salmon and steelhead1 are two of the great natural A steelhead is a rainbow trout which has spent part of its life at sea. As these dams were constructed. Only about one million fish return for spawning that is essential to the species' survival in the Columbia River system. The Bonneville Power Administration ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D9DDFE4693D792A588256D81005BD0C9/$file/0016521.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs Appellants ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1996/96a1346p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Two significant constitutional questions are presented for our review. The first is whether the government's use of acquitted codefendant Mercedes Travis. Who Voigt alleges was counsel to the Trust and to him personally. The second is whether the district court violated Voigt's Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice when. We must decide whether those statutes require formal </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov96/94-3423.opa.html">VENN V. ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INS. CO.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Venn v. It is now before us for the second time. The issues presented on appeal are: (1) whether a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee can assert a bad faith claim against an insurer when the underlying cause of action accrued after the named insured was discharged in bankruptcy. (2) if such a claim is found to be cognizable. What is the measure of recovery. (3) whether the bankruptcy trustee is entitled to prejudgment interest. The measure of recovery is the amount of the judgment in excess of policy limits. The trustee is not entitled to prejudgment interest. BACKGROUND<p> <p> The general factual background for this case is described in detail in <i>Camp v. Is the insurer of Dr. On several occasions both before and after Kimbell's petition was filed. Was bankrupt and could not be held personally liable for the excess judgment. Such that the named insured was never personally liable for any amount of the judgment. The case was set for trial. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may98/97-6058.man.html">HERMAN V. S. CAROLINA NAT'L BANK (5/15/1998, NO. 97-6058)<BR></A><BR> South Carolina National Bank ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971808.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chief Judge: This case is a study in the tensions that can beset the franchisorfranchisee relationship. Defendants maintain that the suit was erroneously certified as a class action and challenge several other legal rulings by the district court. Deprived defendants of a fair trial on the precise issue of contractual breach that is properly the focus of this case. I. The plaintiff class consisted of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19944831.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ABC argues that due to the potential collateral estoppel effect that the jury verdict could have in a separate libel action between it and certain defendants in the class action. The actions were thereafter consolidated into one class action. Which involved exchange transactions proposed by Levan and BFC in which the plaintiffs' interests in the limited partnerships were exchanged for twenty year. Sought damages and rescission of the that Levan and BFC knew the transactions were unfair to the plaintiffs. A jury trial was held in the class action suit in December 1992. The jury was asked to answer the following special interrogatories: 1. Have the plaintiffs proved. That the exchange transaction proposed by BankAtlantic Financial Corporation was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0997n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We agree that Plautz's claims lack merit because none of the alleged discriminatory acts were adverse employment actions and the acts collectively The Honorable Nancy G. He is usually able to control his condition through medication and diet. On Murphy's first day as supervisor he told Plautz: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may98/97-6058.man.html">HERMAN V. S. CAROLINA NAT'L BANK (5/15/1998, NO. 97-6058)<BR></A><BR> South Carolina National Bank ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/94-3324.man.html">JOHNSON ENTERPRISES OF JACKSONVILLE, INC. V. FPL GROUP, INC. (12/18/1998, NO. 94-3324)<BR></A><BR> The structure of the opinion is as follows: Part I provides the factual background to the dispute. Part VII offers some concluding thoughts.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The legislative backdrop against which this controversy arose was the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov96/94-3423.opa.html">VENN V. ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INS. CO.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Venn v. It is now before us for the second time. The issues presented on appeal are: (1) whether a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee can assert a bad faith claim against an insurer when the underlying cause of action accrued after the named insured was discharged in bankruptcy. (2) if such a claim is found to be cognizable. What is the measure of recovery. (3) whether the bankruptcy trustee is entitled to prejudgment interest. The measure of recovery is the amount of the judgment in excess of policy limits. The trustee is not entitled to prejudgment interest. BACKGROUND<p> <p> The general factual background for this case is described in detail in <i>Camp v. Is the insurer of Dr. On several occasions both before and after Kimbell's petition was filed. Was bankrupt and could not be held personally liable for the excess judgment. Such that the named insured was never personally liable for any amount of the judgment. The case was set for trial. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/94-3324.man.html">JOHNSON ENTERPRISES OF JACKSONVILLE, INC. V. FPL GROUP, INC. (12/18/1998, NO. 94-3324)<BR></A><BR> The structure of the opinion is as follows: Part I provides the factual background to the dispute. Part VII offers some concluding thoughts.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The legislative backdrop against which this controversy arose was the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5108.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Kathy Bailey. With her on the brief were Thomas L. Of counsel was Susan V. With her on the brief was Roger J. Did not have a cognizable property interest </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062399p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which were rejected by the District Court. We will affirm. Roche is a prescription drug manufacturer. JCI is engaged in the business of integrated facility management. The Appellants are approximately ninety six former employees of Roche who were terminated on November 3. The Appellants were terminated after Roche decided to outsource some functions of its Technical Services Division to JCI. The majority of the Appellants were hired by JCI in the same position that they held at Roche. Inc. was a subsidiary of Johnson Controls. Inc. as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062542p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Finding that GSI had waived any right it may have had by actively litigating the plaintiff's claims. Have jurisdiction to review the Appellate Division's order affirming the Superior Court's ruling. We agree with both the Superior Court and the Appellate Division that a finding of waiver is compelled under the facts and circumstances of this case. We will affirm the judgment of the Appellate 3 Division. I. Appellant GSI is the owner of real property in the Virgin Islands which it leased to Treasure Bay VI Corp. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1581.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200411829.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (2) that the avoidance action was improperly brought because the Trustee did not first avoid the transfer to the initial transferees. Which were contained in IAS publications. Was that to be privy to this valuable information. Was the company's sole shareholder. A majority of the information was neither novel nor covert most of it was readily available and comprised common sense business practices. Eleven similar lawsuits were filed throughout the country. Another layer was added to IAS' troubles when the SEC targeted Givens and IAS as part of a securities fraud investigation in connection to a real estate venture. It 4 was clear that IAS' exposure to liability in these cases exceeded $10 million. Assets were transferred to various Tedder owned foreign and domestic entities. The Trustee's ability to investigate the transfers was hampered by Givens and his associates. The hearing in which the Special Master delivered his report was not concluded until September 3. The Special Master determined that the all important transfer documents did not appear to have been </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/95-4084.htm">95-4084 -- BAUCHMAN V. WEST HIGH SCHOOL (SALT LAKE CITY) -- 12/18/1997<BR></A><BR> The Religion and Speech clauses of the Utah Constitution. <p> The constitutional issues raised in this appeal are issues of acute public interest issues which evoke diverse opinions and strong emotions. Bauchman's claims focus on religious neutrality in public schools only intensifies that interest and emotion.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/630C41C84B670F308825729D007E5429/$file/0315481.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Beam Karen Tandy is substituted for her predecessor. Circuit Judge: Plaintiff Appellant Angel McClary Raich ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june96/94-4831.opa.html">PURCELL V. BANKATLANTIC FIN. CORP.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Purcell v. ABC argues that due to the potential collateral estoppel effect that the jury verdict could have in a separate libel action between it and certain defendants in the class action. The actions were thereafter consolidated into one class action. Which involved exchange transactions proposed by Levan and BFC in which the plaintiffs' interests in the limited partnerships were exchanged for twenty year. The program stated that Levan and BFC knew the transactions were unfair to the plaintiffs. Levan and BFC filed a libel action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against ABC.<p> A jury trial was held in the class action suit in December 1992. The jury was asked to answer the following special interrogatories:<p> 1. Have the plaintiffs proved. That the exchange transaction proposed by BankAtlantic Financial Corporation was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1931.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellee. Which is operated by the Massachusetts Department of Mental Health ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200613587.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that the district court should have remanded these cases to state court. The complaint in each case alleged that: (1) land owned by Crescent and Rinehart at the time the lawsuits were filed had been used by its previous owners as a manufacturing facility and waste water treatment plant. (2) each Plaintiff had sustained personal injury or death caused by exposure to hazardous substances that were stored on the land prior to Crescent's and Rinehart's ownership of it. (3) Crescent and Rinehart were liable pursuant to § 376.313 Florida Statutes. Crescent was diverse from each Plaintiff. There was a possibility that their complaints stated causes of action under Florida law. Remand was proper. While the motions to remand were pending. The district court said that there was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0334p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001021.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Young Sergio was thrown from a 1985 Dodge Caravan through the open liftgate and killed. Was driving the vehicle on an errand with her 8 year old daughter Maria riding in the front seat and young Sergio in the back seat. She drove through a red light and was struck in the left rear by an oncoming car traveling at 30 m.p.h. Who was not wearing a seatbelt. Was thrown through the rear liftgate that had opened during the accident. Both of whom were wearing seatbelts. Were not seriously injured. Negligent design under South Carolina law were allowed to go to the jury. The Estate asserted that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-3049.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Mickelson argues that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether she was paid less than male employees performing the same work because of her sex and whether the actions of her employer constitute an adverse employment action. Sales are made mainly through field directors marketing representatives who promote the sale of NYL products and services to the independent insurance brokers. Who are out in the field selling insurance. As a marketing service representative a position very similar to the one she was hired to perform at NYL. Mickelson was assigned to the MSC group responsible for high net worth clients and corporations. The group was considered relatively prestigious. Although a law degree was not required for her position. Although she did not have any insurance related professional licences when she was hired. When a new employee is hired. (1) A Series 6 license is required in order to sell mutual funds and variable annuities. <hr> each grade level carries a specific salary range. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-2734_027.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although almost anyone might feel harassed to some degree when a lawsuit is filed against her. Special problems arise when that individual is a victim or 2 Nos. 03 2734 & 03 3427 a witness of a crime. The plaintiff is associated with a suspect. Was such a defendant. The district court decided that Bolden was entitled to protection under the Victim Witness and Protection Act of 1982 (the Act). Of which she was a victim. Dewayne Lewis was not the primary suspect in the robbery. Circumstantial evidence indicated that he might have had some role in it. She was rewarded with this suit by Lewis. I The underlying facts are. The Credit Union was robbed by two masked gunmen. The district court found in its memorandum decision on the requested protective order Nos. 03 2734 & 03 3427 3 that Bolden was interviewed shortly after the robbery by Detective Vaughn of the Allen County Sheriff's Department. As Vaughn was conducting the interview. Both Vaughn and Bolden heard a radio transmission from the Fort Wayne police indicating that they may have located a witness. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0200p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Her underlying contention is that she is the owner of certain real property. That Defendants have acted illegally in interfering with her ownership. The agreement secured the indebtedness by promising to pay Plaintiff for all sums provided if and when the Henry Ruff Property was sold. Plaintiff was the sole title holder of the Huff Road Property. The circuit court found that the Henry Ruff Property was marital property to be divided2between Mary and Edward. The circuit court failed to even address whether the 1976 reconciliation agreement was valid. The court of appeals remanded the case to the circuit court to determine whether the 1976 reconciliation agreement and any of the subsequent transfers were valid. As there was a question of whether the transfers were part of a conspiracy to deprive Edward of his rightful marital property. Should have the opportunity to testify at trial. The circuit court later determined that the conveyances by Frances and Nancy were fraudulent. The circuit court found that the 1976 conveyance from Edward to Mary was void because it lacked consideration and because it was against public policy. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991893.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Detective Broderick was among those assigned to investigate the matter. Was able to obtain the tag number for the vehicle. The parking garage was also situated near the Fairfax Methadone Treatment Center ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/02/99-8089.htm">99-8089 -- STATE OF WYOMING V. U.S. -- 02/07/2002<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4D4011325651BEA8882572DC00520FBA/$file/0456973opn.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LOS ANGELES COUNTY of the LA County Seal that included the image of the cross was first adopted on January 2. A black and white image of the 1957 seal is attached as Appendix A to this opinion. A black and white image of the 2004 seal is attached as Appendix B to this opinion. Their decision to remove the cross from the seal was motivated by a desire to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></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-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1689.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: Page 35. Line 4 change </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002525.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Created a novation substituting a contract debt which was dischargeable for the tort claims which arguably were not. There was included in the transaction a $70. 000 cash payment which was paid. An addendum to the settlement agreement specified that the agreement would be declared null and void if the criminal charges pending against Leonard Warner were not dismissed by the State of North Carolina. Was secured by two deeds of trust one on the Warners' home and another on business property owned by Hosiery Industries. There was no mention of bankruptcy in the settlement package. 1995.2 The suit was for collection on the note. While this collection suit was still pending. The second payment was due on May 11. Being in bankruptcy. 3 2 which was converted to a case under Chapter 7 on October 29. Seeking a judgment for the amount due under the promissory note and a determination that such indebtedness was non dischargeable under Section 523(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Archers incorporated by reference in the bankruptcy adversary complaint the multiple allegations contained in their suit in the state court.3 These were the only grounds there stated for asserting non dischargeability.4 Defendant 3 In the Archers' adversary complaint to determine dischargeability of debt. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200312545.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Revives securities fraud actions that were time barred before the effective date of the SOA. Determining that the new limitations period revives actions that previously were time barred. A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2003/023448p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Edwards and Wyatt were introduced to one another by a Philadelphia attorney. Though there was a contract. Edwards complains that the district court failed to address or resolve Edwards' alternative claim that he was entitled to relief against Wyatt based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel. That claim was pleaded in Count Two of Edwards' Complaint. It is for these reasons that we will reverse the district court's judgment and remand for a new trial. I. These parties have had a long and convoluted relationship. Edwards and Wyatt were aligned with one another against Phillips. The efforts were designed to gain control of Pilot. We will first describe. We will then discuss in fuller detail the Handshake Agreement. There are several other meetings. Events that are described in the trial testimony. Activities Prior to the Handshake Agreement Edwards was the president of Pilot. The remaining shares were owned by Edwards' cousins. Who was counsel to both Edwards and Wyatt. Inasmuch as we are reversing the district court's judgment and remanding for a new trial. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200515619.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. * Employers generally are liable for a supervisor's sexual harassment if the harassment is severe and pervasive enough to result in a hostile work environment amounting to discrimination prohibited by Title VII. There is. Some of which we have not addressed before. I. The facts we consider are taken from our view of the evidence in the light most favorable to Susan Baldwin. The plaintiff who suffered summary judgment in the district court and is the appellant here. There is no evidence that either of them had been involved in any reported incidents of sexual harassment before the events at issue here. There are enough brush strokes that we can see that there were problems. That when Baldwin was first hired. The only reason you are here is because we needed a skirt in the office. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTAxNjgtcHJfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-0168-pr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (2) that plaintiff's suit is not barred by the rule of Preiser v. Which is incorrect in certain respects. The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the official caption accordingly. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 district court defines the contours of that right. That </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept95/94-2929.opa.html">AGUILAR V. FDIC<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Aguilar v. Southeast Bank was declared insolvent. The FDIC was appointed receiver. Which adds 3 days to the prescribed time to act or to respond after notice is served by mail. Was not applicable to Rule 59. <i>See Cavaliere v. Litigants filing Rule 59 motions had thirteen days from the date the FDIC served by mail notice that the action was removed. We note that the FDIC never argued in district court that Plaintiffs' motion to modify or to vacate was made too late.<p> <p> In the light of the above. Plaintiffs' motion to strike the post argument letter of supplemental authority and alternative motion for leave to submit additional briefing are moot. <p> The FDIC moved for summary judgment or alternatively for a stay on the grounds that Plaintiffs could not go forward with the suit until they had exhausted their administrative remedies before the FDIC. Within 60 days after their administrative claims were denied </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept95/94-2929.opa.html">AGUILAR V. FDIC<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Aguilar v. Southeast Bank was declared insolvent. The FDIC was appointed receiver. Which adds 3 days to the prescribed time to act or to respond after notice is served by mail. Was not applicable to Rule 59. <i>See Cavaliere v. Litigants filing Rule 59 motions had thirteen days from the date the FDIC served by mail notice that the action was removed. We note that the FDIC never argued in district court that Plaintiffs' motion to modify or to vacate was made too late.<p> <p> In the light of the above. Plaintiffs' motion to strike the post argument letter of supplemental authority and alternative motion for leave to submit additional briefing are moot. <p> The FDIC moved for summary judgment or alternatively for a stay on the grounds that Plaintiffs could not go forward with the suit until they had exhausted their administrative remedies before the FDIC. Within 60 days after their administrative claims were denied </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200214191.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1 are four white lieutenants in the fire department who were passed over for promotion as a result of Chief Alfred's decision not to create the new positions. Asserting that Chief Alfred is entitled to qualified immunity.2 As we find that Chief Alfred is entitled to qualified 1 Sauls died on August 7. His estate was substituted as a party in this action. Although this appeal was brought by the defendants as evinced by their Notice of Appeal. Was appointed by Mayor John Delaney to his current position as the director and chief of the fire department in Jacksonville. Chief Alfred was appointed because the fire department had a history of racism and nepotism and Mayor Delaney wanted to bring someone in from outside of the department to ensure that the department would be run in a race neutral manner. There was no affirmative action plan in place. Chief in the rescue division is limited to For purposes of this appeal of the district court's denial of qualified immunity to Chief Alfred on summary judgment. The facts are construed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/01/032721P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Okruhlik was offered a tenure track position in the political science department of the Fulbright College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Arkansas. She was hired to participate in the cross disciplinary Middle East Studies Program (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0170p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BACKGROUND The following facts are viewed. Advised earlier in the day by his supervisor that all patrol officers were to issue summonses due to overcrowding at the city jail. McKinley read and acknowledged the following statement in writing: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS INTERNAL AFFAIRS UNIT You are hereby advised that you are about to be questioned as part of an official administrative investigation of the Division of Police. You will be asked specific question (sic) which will relate directly and narrowly to the performance of your official duties or fitness as an employee or member of the Division of Police. The purpose of this interview is to assist in determining whether disciplinary action detective during the events of this case. Page 3 is warranted. Because this is an administrative and not a criminal investigation. The Division of Police will not use any of the answers or information gained from the interview in any criminal proceeding against you. The Division of Police will not release this information to any other agency without your approval and will ho[l]d it as confidential. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972337.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 97 2337 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The cases were referred to a magistrate judge to oversee the discovery process. The motion was filed outside the twenty day window afforded by the rule. Appellants were required to respond by September 9. Despite Appellee notifying Appellants on September 9 that the responses were due and then warning Appellants on September 10 2 Local Rule 104.8 provides. If a party who has propounded interrogatories or requests for production is dissatisfied with the response to them. As to each response to which the motion is directed. Counsel are encouraged to confer with one another before or immediately after a motion to compel is filed. If they are unable to resolve their disputes. Counsel must hold the conference required by LR 104.7 after serving upon one another all of the papers relating to the motion to compel. 3 that a motion to compel would be filed on September 12 if no responses were immediately forthcoming. The magistrate judge noted that this was the second time that Appellants' counsel had ignored the mandates of the local rules and warned Appellants and their counsel that the court would not tolerate further delays in the prosecution of the case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3817_024.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A third party computer </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A4FEC09E8DF1F1F48825701F00154E3F/$file/0256751.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. Claiming that the detention was in violation of the Fourth Amendment and seeking damages. Rocha's initial contention is that. The courts are closed to the Sissokos. 1 purThe INS was abolished on March 1. Its functions were transferred to the Department of Homeland Security. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june96/94-4831.opa.html">PURCELL V. BANKATLANTIC FIN. CORP.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Purcell v. ABC argues that due to the potential collateral estoppel effect that the jury verdict could have in a separate libel action between it and certain defendants in the class action. The actions were thereafter consolidated into one class action. Which involved exchange transactions proposed by Levan and BFC in which the plaintiffs' interests in the limited partnerships were exchanged for twenty year. The program stated that Levan and BFC knew the transactions were unfair to the plaintiffs. Levan and BFC filed a libel action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against ABC.<p> A jury trial was held in the class action suit in December 1992. The jury was asked to answer the following special interrogatories:<p> 1. Have the plaintiffs proved. That the exchange transaction proposed by BankAtlantic Financial Corporation was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2257.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> EBEL. The district court sua sponte ordered that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199710/96-5091a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on the brief. Although Har ris contended that the date on the mail receipt was in error. Have considered the defense of untimeliness. Because untimeliness is not a jurisdictional defense under Title VII. It was not until after discovery when the Department moved for dismissal of the case as untimely in a motion for summary judgment. She further stated that she was at work on May 1. She added that she could not have received the letter on May 1. Mail was not delivered before 10:00 a.m. and after 5:30 p.m. She further asserted that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1436.html">JAMES V. CALDERA<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></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-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July2000/995206.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleging that he was discharged because of his race in violation of 42 U.S.C. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court. It alleges that Zubi was discharged by AT&T because of his race on September 28. That </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="477"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/016703.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court found that Harvey had a due process right of access to the DNA evidence and a right to conduct testing upon the evidence using technology that was unavailable at the time of his trial and at the time his conviction became final. The district court also concluded that Harvey's claim was not in effect a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. James Harvey was convicted of rape and forcible sodomy by a jury in Fairfax County Circuit Court. He was sentenced to consecutive terms of twenty five years for the rape and fifteen years for the forcible sodomy. Harvey did not appeal his conviction but did file a state petition for a writ of habeas corpus which was rejected by the Virginia Supreme Court in 1993. Who was also convicted. There was other substantial evidence of Harvey's guilt. Code § 8.01 654(B)(2) and that Harvey's claim was procedurally defaulted. STR DNA testing was unavailable at Harvey's trial and at the time his conviction became final. HORAN even if Harvey was excluded as a contributor of the genetic material. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="477"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1040.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who are consumers of Tyson chicken. Plaintiffs' first claim was for consumer fraud under the Illinois statute. Plaintiffs' second claim was for unjust enrichment. Because the propriety of removing a state action to federal court is a question of federal jurisdiction. Removal of a state civil suit to federal court is proper where </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/09/99-6156.htm">99-6156 -- PLOTNER V. AT&T CORP. -- 09/01/2000<BR></A><BR> Concluding the appeal is timely. We further conclude that the necessary elements of res judicata are present. 158(d) and affirm. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/97-3086.htm">97-3086 -- SAPORITO V. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF LABETTE, KANSAS -- 07/28/1998<BR></A><BR> The trial court is affirmed. <p> <center>I. <u>Background</u></center> <p> This action was brought by Saporito. Saporito and Roberts were able to escape from the partially submerged and disabled vehicle. Were not discovered until the following morning. Roberts died sometime during the night and Saporito was initially believed to be dead when found. Saporito filed this action against County for negligently failing to erect traffic signs warning of periodic flooding and for negligently failing to perform its law enforcement duties in commencing and continuing a search for Saporito and Roberts after they were reported missing. <p> The sequence of events which led to the fatal accident began at approximately 5:30 p.m. on December 17. Saporito's home was located on Strauss Road. Which Saporito knew was impassible due to the flooding of the Neosho River based upon the level of water surrounding her home and from radio news reports. The alternate route was a gravel road two miles east of the Strauss Road intersection. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/08/001819P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Devils Lake is a large. A brief overview of the facts at this juncture will serve to frame our discussion. The proper interpretation is critical. If the boundary is the northern shore. The 1867 treaty is ambiguous. The government claims that Devils Lake was not included in the 1867 treaty that formed the reservation. The court held that the Tribe's suit against the federal government was time barred. 1814 (2001) (distinguishing claim preclusion and issue preclusion). 4 1 Devils Lake because the Tribe could have raised that issue (but did not) in a 1951 ICC suit. The court determined that the government was an indispensable party to the proceedings. That QTA relief is not available because the Tribe failed to comply with the pertinent statute of limitations. Which provides that an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTAzODktY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0389-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court concluded that plaintiffs were estopped from establishing priority over AmSouth's second intime assignment because it found that plaintiffs had </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200513401.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Other doctrines of issue preclusion presents two issues: (1) whether it was an abuse of discretion to find that GM disobeyed an order to produce documents relating to vehicle allocation and satellite dealerships. Because Serra could not effectively provide service in one location to the large geographic area Serra was assigned by GM. The 4 Supreme Court of Alabama reversed and held that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. Both the initial and a later amended complaint alleged that the termination was in response to the state court litigation and to demands by Serra's competitor. The complaint was originally assigned to Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn. The case was reassigned to Judge R. Serra responded that its allocation claim was limited to wrongful allocations made after the state court litigation. When the judgment was entered in state court. While this motion was pending. The case was reassigned to Judge Virginia E. Which are based on the preclusive effect of the earlier litigation in state court: FIRST DEFENSE[:] Plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrines of res judicata/claim preclusion and/or collateral estoppel/issue preclusion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTAzODktY3Ygd19FcnJhdGEucGRm/04-0389-cv%20w_Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court concluded that plaintiffs were estopped from establishing priority over AmSouth's second intime assignment because it found that plaintiffs had </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july97/95-3280.opa.html">HOLIFIELD V. RENO<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Holifield v. Defendant.<p> <p> No. 94 50357 RV.<p> <b><i>ORDER</i></b><p> <p> Pending is the defendant's motion for summary judgment. (doc. 8)<p> <b>I. <i>BACKGROUND</i></b><p> <p> This is a petition for review of a decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19952898.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case was certified as a class action. Finding that none of the plaintiffs had carried The plaintiffs' original complaint was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (1994). The district court's task was to examine the evidence the plaintiff adduced at trial and determine whether the plaintiff had presented credible evidence in support of the four elements of a prima facie case established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973): 1) she is a member of a protected class under Title VII. 2) she was qualified for the employment position in question. 3) she applied for the employment position in question and was rejected. 4) the employment position remained open or was filled by a person outside the protected class to which the plaintiff belongs. We are equally suited to undertake the same task on appeal. Can determine whether the evidence supporting the prima facie case is credible. 2 2 This case was brought in 1979 as a class action in the District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The plaintiffs filed an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200415585.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was filed in 2001. Was consolidated with another case against the Monsanto Company filed in April 2002. Blair and Trussell's current law firms are Blair & Parsons. We refer to these parties collectively as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/12/011926P.pdf">OPINION