OPINION/ORDER
Records that are discovered are assigned a score based on the official cause. Older records have less impact on the score and are omitted after ten years. Carriers are grouped into four classes of operation based on the number of aircraft they operate. The Silver rating is assigned to
OPINION/ORDER
Inc. to inspect a jet airplane that it was considering purchasing. The letter stated that the airplane's logbooks were not up to Federal Aviation Regulations
OPINION/ORDER
Six individuals who were members of the Town Board or Airport Commission at various times during the relationship with Barry Aviation. No. 03 2605 3 the airport was in excess of 10. The defendants provided Barry Aviation with records prepared by the FAA that purportedly were based on the Town's official certified records. The defendants responded to the concerns by asserting that Barry Aviation's meager business levels were a result of its own actions. The Commission and Town stated that their operations were 11. Because Barry Aviation's business levels were not consistent with the operations levels stated in these documents. It requested the underlying documents upon which the FAA and WDOT documents were based. They were not stored in any public office. The files revealed that the stated operations levels were
Mifsud for KLM Royal Dutch Airlines were on the joint brief for all the petitioners.
OPINION/ORDER
Mifsud for KLM Royal Dutch Airlines were on the joint brief for all the petitioners. United States Department of Justice was on brief. The Administrator (A) is authorized to recover in fiscal year 1997 $100. (B) shall ensure that each of the fees required by subsec tion (a) is directly related to the Administration's costs of providing the service rendered. Training and emergency services which are available to facilitate safe transportation over the United States. We were persuaded by the argument. Pursuant to which public comment will be sought and a final rule issued. 49 U.S.C.A. s 45301(a). (b) (footnote omitted). 2 The 2000 Rule defines
OPINION/ORDER
Mifsud for KLM Royal Dutch Airlines were on the joint brief for all the petitioners. United States Department of Justice was on brief. The Administrator (A) is authorized to recover in fiscal year 1997 $100. (B) shall ensure that each of the fees required by subsec tion (a) is directly related to the Administration's costs of providing the service rendered. Training and emergency services which are available to facilitate safe transportation over the United States. We were persuaded by the argument. Pursuant to which public comment will be sought and a final rule issued. 49 U.S.C.A. s 45301(a). (b) (footnote omitted). 2 The 2000 Rule defines
OPINION/ORDER
Filler were on brief. Were on brief. Klimaski were on brief for amicus curiae Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association in support of the respondent. They challenge the FAA's conclusion that it was not required to The petitioners are: Aeronautical Repair Station Association. Inc. and Minas Serop Jilizian intervened as petitioners. 1 3 conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) because the Rule does not have a significant adverse effect on small entities. 048. 3 2 The eight functions listed were: a. Which were substantially the same as those in the 1988 Rule. The FAA explained that it proposed including the italicized language
Mifsud for KLM Royal Dutch Airlines were on the joint brief for all the petitioners.
OPINION/ORDER
Who are persons who were involved in federally mandated drug testing of the plaintiff that resulted in the termination of his employment. The district court dismissed the plaintiff's 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 federal constitutional claims but concluded that his state law claims were not preempted by federal law and entered an order declining to dismiss them. Was terminated from his employment by Delta Air Lines in 1993 because airline officials thought he had failed a drug test required of him as an airline employee by federal law. That the defendants appellants conducted the tests in violation of federal regulations and industry standards and that they falsely represented to Delta that Drake's urine sample was adulterated.1 The district court (Frederic Block. Concluding that they were not preempted by federal law. The issues raised on appeal are whether and to what extent federal statutes and regulations concerning drug testing of persons employed in the aviation industry preempt the application of state tort law to events arising out of such drug tests.
OPINION/ORDER
Consolidated with their petition is the separate petition of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. I. The Richards Gebaur Airport was built in 1941 on land owned by the City of Kansas City. Losses exceeded $18 million and were subsidized by the city's two commercial airports. The airport's losses were projected to continue at more than $1.5 million annually. The FAA found that although the facility was maintaining operation as a general aviation airport. It was able to do so only at substantial losses which were heavily subsidized by Kansas City's other commercial airports. The FAA found that this financial burden was not necessary in a metropolitan area served by several other airports that remain available to general aviation. It would deposit all net
OPINION/ORDER
Who are persons who were involved in federally mandated drug testing of the plaintiff that resulted in the termination of his employment. The district court dismissed the plaintiff's federal constitutional claims but concluded that his state law civil claims were not preempted by federal law and entered an order declining to dismiss them. Was terminated from his employment by Delta Air Lines in 1993 because airline officials thought he had failed a drug test required of him as an airline employee by federal law. That the defendants appellants conducted the tests in violation of federal regulations and industry standards and that they falsely represented to Delta that Drake's urine sample was adulterated.1 The district court (Frederic Block. Concluding that they were not preempted by federal law. The issues raised on appeal are whether and to what extent federal statutes and regulations concerning drug testing of persons employed in the aviation industry preempt the application of state tort law to events arising out of such drug tests.
Not the least of which is the decision is incompatible with an earlier opinion issued by the Colorado Supreme Court. Which is located just south of Denver. Operations at the airport historically have consisted of
Is permitted to assess profit conscious fees on expressive activities for use of distribution facilities in a non public forum. The district court found that the assessment of any fee in excess of administrative costs was contrary to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and precedent in this circuit under
Is permitted to assess profit conscious fees on expressive activities for use of distribution facilities in a non public forum. The district court found that the assessment of any fee in excess of administrative costs was contrary to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and precedent in this circuit under
OPINION/ORDER
Substantial contributions were made to this opinion by the other members of the panel even though one was not in full agreement with the result reached. 4267 No. 00 35240 D.C. Circuit Judge: Robin Grant Kennedy was killed on November 5. When the helicopter he was piloting came apart in mid air and crashed. Kennedy was using the helicopter for aerial logging in Washington state. The structural failure in the helicopter was caused by a fatigue crack that developed in a component of the tail boom known as the left forward vertical fin spar. In which it granted Garlick's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims against Garlick based on a finding that Garlick was not the manufacturer of the helicopter and. Bell Helicopter argued that it was entitled to summary judgment because all of the claims against it were barred by the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (
OPINION/ORDER
The suit against Meggitt PLC was subsequently dismissed. Airplanes were required to fly with at least 2. The purpose of RVSM regulations is to allow a larger number of aircraft to fly at fuel efficient altitudes (approximately 29. Although newer aircraft are being built with RVSM compliant altimeters. Aircraft that are not properly equipped are not allowed to fly in RVSM airspace. It was Alternative's responsibility. An STC is required in order to flight certify an aircraft that is retrofitted with a new altimetry system. Two kinds of STCs from the FAA are required: a hardware STC. Which is the STC for the equipment itself. Which is based on the performance of the installed equipment in use. B. The Alternative Meggitt Contract Alternative began preparing to retrofit aircraft for RVSM compliance several years before the FAA's RVSM program was to take effect. Inquiring about Meggitt's
OPINION/ORDER
Deveraturda) were employed by Globe Airport Security Services. They and others were let go as a result of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) of 2001. Believing that Globe should have given 60 days' notice under the WARN Act. Holding that it was the federal government that took over control of airport security without any ability on Globe's part to dictate the nature. As it was the government that ordered the layoff and ousted Globe from providing security personnel at SJC. If the required notice is not provided. 2 Deveraturda was a full time employee of Globe at its headquarters facility located in San Jose. Airport security in the United States was federalized. Globe informed employees that if they were U.S. citizens. Globe issued a memorandum to Airport Terminal C employees announcing that the federal government will
OPINION/ORDER
Was on brief for appellee. The action was based on allegations that Emerson was responsible for more than thirty unlawful flights. The operation of charter flights after FAA authorization to conduct such flights had been revoked.2 The 1 The complaint in this case also was filed against Emerson d/b/a Emerson Aviation. Inc. was formed in 1994 after the violations at issue in this case. Appellant's wife is president of New Emerson. He testified at trial that he is an employee without any role as officer or shareholder. 2 In May 1992.
OPINION/ORDER
This is a products liability case arising out of a helicopter accident. Because we find that Greene failed to produce sufficient evidence to create an issue of fact for the jury that there was a manufacturing defect. Rule 50 was amended and the terminology changed to refer to these motions as a motion for judgment as a matter of law and a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. Because visibility was approximately one quarter to one eighth of a mile. Greene was forced to rely almost exclusively on the helicopter's navigational instruments. An exchange between Greene and Jones recorded on the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) indicated that Jones told Greene that the helicopter was in a right hand turn and descending.
OPINION/ORDER
District Judge.** * This decision was originally issued as an
Petitioners further claim implementation of the Initiative will violate their property rights under the Third and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
We exercise jurisdiction over the FAA's final order pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
OPINION/ORDER
Sitting by designation. * Memp his Aero C orpo ration is the predec essor to AM R Co mbs. This opinion will collectively refer to these corporations as
OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. §§ 1153. In 1988 he was employed full time as a civilian air traffic controller working for the Department of Defense at Hill. In 1993 his ATCS certificate was reissued. Apparently only because there was no room for additional certifications and ratings on his old one. Newton's ATCS certificate and restricted him from performing air traffic control duties because
OPINION/ORDER
Which is located approximately 5.25 miles from the DuboisJefferson County Airport. Was intended to accept municipal waste primarily from outof state producers. Eagle began to apply to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (hereinafter
OPINION/ORDER
Was faced with the task of interpreting the language of an all risk insurance policy that allegedly covered damage to an aircraft engine caused by an unusual occurrence during start up. The District Court found that the term
The aircraft Barrie piloted was authorized for single pilot operations. Barrie was notified of the FAA's decision to suspend his Airline Transport Pilot Certificate. Which was supported by affidavits of the two inspectors who had observed Barrie in Billings on the day of the flight. This court must determine whether they are
OPINION/ORDER
Therefore deny An ALP is a document which shows
OPINION/ORDER
This is a product liability suit brought by Beverly Anderson. The jet was on its descent into a Michigan airport when it underwent a series of pitch oscillations. The jet was manufactured in France by Dassault Aviation. Are sold under the trade name Falcon. Are exclusively sold and leased in the western hemisphere by Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation. Which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Dassault Aviation. Are known collectively as Dassault Aviation Group.). Anderson was injured from Dassault Aviation in France. A federal court may assume jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if the requirements of the forum state's long arm statute are satisfied and the exercise of jurisdiction comports with due process. The only 2 issue in this appeal is thus whether the due process clause permits an Arkansas court's assertion of personal jurisdiction over Dassault Aviation. Dassault Aviation must
OPINION/ORDER
With whom Kuchta & Brinker were on brief for petitioner. Were on brief for respondent. The complaint also claimed that Penobscot was entitled to an evidentiary hearing pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 46101. I BACKGROUND Penobscot is a tenant leasing space at Knox County Regional Airport. It is a fixed base operator (FBO) at the airport. The ROD also found that Penobscot was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing in this case. II Standard of Review The applicable standard of review for FAA action is provided by the Federal Aviation Act and. These statutes require us to apply different standards of review depending upon what type of determination we are reviewing. We review the FAA's findings of fact to determine whether they are
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Frank W. Assistant Attorney General at the time the briefs were filed. With him on the brief was James W. A The facts of the case are undisputed. Merrell was the pilot in command of a commercial passenger plane. Mistakenly thought that the instruction to American was intended for his aircraft. His transmission was blocked. ATC will receive a portion of the stepped on message. Two transmissions will overlap completely without creating an identifiable buzz. This ap pears to have happened in Merrell's case. As a result his transmission was entirely blocked. (1)
The judge dismissed six of the eight counts against Thunderbird but found Thunderbird had intentionally falsified records that Thunderbird was required to keep and maintain pursuant to Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) 43.12(a). I App. at 88 (Count III).
OPINION/ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the court on a petition for review of a Federal Aviation Administration (
Petitioner's motion for oral argument is denied. The case is ordered submitted without oral argument.
Douglas E. Haynes is the owner and operator of an entity known as Blue Ridge Airlines. Blue Ridge is not authorized to use Beech Bonanza aircraft for its operations because this aircraft is not listed in the airline's FAA approved operating specifications. This action was a result of the FAA's determination that in piloting the November 9. Haynes had violated certain Federal Aviation Regulations including: (1) acting as pilot in command on a Beech Bonanza aircraft which was not authorized to be used for a Federal Aviation Regulation Part 135 air carrier operation. His only argument is that the Board abused its discretion in not granting him a continuance of the January 13. 'interested persons' are entitled to a 'brief statement of the grounds for denial' when an agency denies 'a written application. We review the
OPINION/ORDER
INDUSTRIAL TRUCK DIVISION and/or CLARK EQUIPMENT COMPANY and/or any and all entities which were involved in the manufacture and/or design of the manufacture and/or design of the
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Petitioner Douglas E. (2) Haynes cannot represent Blue Ridge before this court because he is not an attorney.
As regards the second proposition. Respondent is correct. That it was appropriate for Haynes to substitute himself as petitioner in this appeal. We have no jurisdiction to review the rulings he references or provide the relief he seeks. Or this court is not the proper forum to provide the appellate review he seeks. Was wrongly decided. If it is Haynes' intention to seek appellate review of this court's prior ruling. His sole option was to file a timely petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.
Respondent's motion to dismiss is GRANTED and this appeal is DISMISSED.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Circuit Judge
FOOTNOTES Click footnote number to return to corresponding location in the text.
OPINION/ORDER
Was employed as a pilot by appellee Aviation Associates. Mercado contends that he was sacked in retaliation for his union organizing activities. Because he believed that his dismissal was caused by his support of ALPA.
John Richardson is the president of Southwest. Which is owned and operated by the City of Las Cruces (the City).
On June 1. Are prohibited from offering any commercial service to the public upon or within the boundaries of the Airport.
Id. at
OPINION/ORDER
Campbell were on the briefs. Were on the brief. The statute directs the FAA to
OPINION/ORDER
We dismiss the petitions for lack of jurisdiction because they were untimely filed without reasonable grounds for delay. BACKGROUND Jan's and Americopters are not related by common ownership. Their petitions and appeals have been consolidated before us. I. JAN'S AND THE ZEIGLER EMAIL Jan's owns a de Havilland Caribou DCH 4A (
After he was terminated. Slavens alleged that he should have been paid for approximately 600 hours of overtime that he worked while employed with Scenic. Slavens argues that failure to pay him for his overtime was a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (
Ronald M. Were on the brief. Anne S. Kidney and Robert Wi
ygul were on the brief for intervenors Grand Canyon Trust. Grinspoon were on the brief
for intervenor Hualapai Indian Tribe.
John E. Cutler and Stacie Brown were
on the brief for intervenors Clark County Department of
Aviation. We do so not because we
necessarily believe the rule is ". Because many of petitioners' attacks
are not yet ripe in light of the phased nature of the FAA's
proposed solution to the problem of aircraft noise.
I
The rule now before the court has a tortuous and complex
history. We recount only so much
of that history as is necessary to aid in our discussion.
A
In June 1987.
OPINION/ORDER
Kidney and Robert Wiygul were on the briefs. Cole were on the briefs. Grinspoon was on the briefs. Putnam and Stacie Brown were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Kidney and Robert Wi ygul were on the brief for intervenors Grand Canyon Trust. Grinspoon were on the brief for intervenor Hualapai Indian Tribe. Cutler and Stacie Brown were on the brief for intervenors Clark County Department of Aviation. We do so not because we necessarily believe the rule is
OPINION/ORDER
By denying access to its property to persons who were employed at another facility owned by Petitioner. By maintaining a policy of denying off duty employees access to the outside non working areas of the facilities where they were employed. Because there is substantial evidence to support the Board's findings of fact. Because there are no errors of law1 in the decision. The dissent's contention that we failed to apply a de novo standa rd to the Board 's legal co nclusions is simply wrong. 1 September 22. A trial was held before Administrative Law Judge (
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Johanna H. With her on the brief was Ronald Spritzer. Horn was on the brief for intervenor. Because we conclude that the issues presented in the petition are unripe for judicial review. Conducted for compensation or hire in a powered aircraft where a purpose of the flight is sight seeing over a national park. In determining whether a particular proposed flight is a commercial air tour operation. The FAA
OPINION/ORDER
Holding that it was so irrationally underinclusive as to violate equal pr otection. While this appeal was pending. The Happy Landing Landfill The pertinent facts of this case are not in dispute. Is the general partner of Eagle. Happy Landing was intended to accept municipal waste from primarily out of state producers. The Happy Landing site is located approximately 5.25 miles from the Dubois Jefferson County Airport. The PDEP determined that the landfill site contained wetlands of
OPINION/ORDER
Alleged in his complaint that he was terminated based on his political affiliation in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. While denying that he was terminated for his political affiliation. Defendants/appellees moved for summary judgment in the district court contending that even if he were. Such a termination was proper under Elrod v. These Commissioners testified that political affiliation was not an appropriate requirement for the position of Deputy Director of Marketing and Communications. Concluding that the deposition testimonies of the two Commissioners were not significantly probative on the question of whether political affiliation was 2 an appropriate requirement for the position held by Boyle under Supreme Court and Third Circuit case law. The three member Board was comprised of a Democratic majority. 1 were elected. Boyle was hired by Allegheny County as Deputy Director in its Department of Aviation on January 21. Boyle contends in his suit that he was terminated because he was a registered Democrat and he supported the election campaigns of Democratic candidates for county Commissioner.
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Zukas v. When the plane was searched by a Drug Enforcement Administration agent. Two bags of cocaine were found. Zukas was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/01/01-5186.htm">01-5186 -- MC CONAHA V. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION -- 01/07/2003<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff William R. We affirm. <p> The parties are familiar with the facts and we will not repeat them. Except as necessary for our discussion. <p> The district court granted defendant's motion to dismiss holding that the United States and its agencies are immune from suit under the FTCA and Mr. . He reasserts that his property was taken without due process and contends that the district court should have permitted him to amend his complaint to name the head of the FAA and its agent as party defendants. <p>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/10/03-2271.htm">03-2271 -- OSBORNE V. ENCHANTMENT AVIATION INC. -- 10/12/2004<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiffs Dennis Osborne and Karen Franco appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Enchantment Aviation. It is an air carrier certified by the Federal Aviation Commission. Each of Southwest's air ambulances are generally staffed with an emergency medical technician paramedic (EMTP) and a registered nurse (RN). <p> After Mr. Asserting that they were denied overtime compensation in violation of section 207(a)(1) of the FLSA. Was not applicable to them because the RLA. Plaintiffs were neither union members nor subject to a collective bargaining agreement. Concluding that Southwest was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Summary judgment is appropriate
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19955223.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is an insurance company based in the United States. Agro could collect for its losses any time one of its aircraft was out of service for virtually any reason. Agro learned Because we will also mention Barry Fine's father. We will refer to each using his full name and to both collectively as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct97/96-5137.opa.html">ZUKAS V. HINSON<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Zukas v. When the plane was searched by a Drug Enforcement Administration agent. Two bags of cocaine were found. Zukas was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/96-2468.opn.html">JEWS FOR JESUS, INC. V. HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AVIATION AUTH. (12/7/1998, NO. 96-2468)<BR></A><BR>
The challenged policies were revoked during the pendency of this lawsuit. Is a nonprofit Christian missionary organization.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//alpha-idx.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Eleventh Circuit
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Kenneth L. That the case is not ripe. We hold that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over Battle's complaint because the termination of the neutral arbitrator's services was not a final order of the FAA Administrator concerning
OPINION/ORDER
With them on the briefs was William Perry Pendley. With him on the briefs were Michael L. With him on the brief was Ellen J. Robert Wiygul were on the brief of intervenors Grand Canyon Trust. I The history of regulation of aircraft overflights at Grand Canyon National Park is set out in Grand Canyon Air Tour Coalition v. Section 3 of the Act declared that
OPINION/ORDER
Was randomly selected for a drug test and failed to provide a urine sample. Which was served on King and filed with For ease of reference we generally refer to the FAA even though the Administrator acts as its representative. 1 the National Transportation Safety Board to initiate proceedings for permanent revocation. The FAA is the primary administrative agency involved in aviation safety. The Board is an independent agency which also has responsibilities for aviation safety. It is the FAA which establishes and enforces certificate regulations. The Board is not a party in interest in federal court proceedings and does not typically participate in them. He was notified of his random selection for a drug test that day. There is no dispute that King arrived at the testing site on time at 4:45 p.m. He talked with a union representative who was already there and completed preliminary paperwork with the collector. Ortiz is a breath alcohol technician and drug screener for Consolidated Medical Services in Bloomington.
On the ground that the aircraft was already registered in Brazil. We were apprised by the FAA's motion to recall the mandate. IAL argues that recall of a mandate is an extraordinary remedy not warranted here. Because we are satisfied that this case became moot when the aircraft was sold on October 29. 2000.
On the ground that the aircraft was already registered in Brazil. We were apprised by the FAA's motion to recall the mandate. IAL argues that recall of a mandate is an extraordinary remedy not warranted here. Because we are satisfied that this case became moot when the aircraft was sold on October 29. 2000.
Defendants argue the district court erred in denying its post trial motions because (1) the jury verdicts were inconsistent. (2) the jury's damage award was unsupported by the evidence. PluServicios informed Plaintiff that the Air Military Transport of Ecuador (
OPINION/ORDER
At issue is whether the United States is immune from liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Arguing that the Forest Service's conduct is protected by the discretionary function exception to the FTCA.1 We agree with the government. The extent and type of the Forest Service's flight training is a matter left to the agency's discretion and is susceptible to policy analysis. BACKGROUND The plaintiffs/appellees are the families and estates of two pilots. Who died in 1994 when the airtanker they were using to drop flame retardant on a forest fire crashed in the Lolo National Forest. Kelly and Lynn were employed by Neptune. Because the district court was without jurisdiction. Who were both well qualified. All but the first mission were to fires in the Butler Creek area. Kelly and Lynn were asked to perform a retardant drop on a small fire adjacent to the main fire. Is charged with administering and protecting the nation's forests. Critical directives relating to aviation management are in section 5700 of that manual.
OPINION/ORDER
At issue is whether the United States is immune from liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Arguing that the Forest Service's conduct is protected by the discretionary function exception to the FTCA.1 We agree with the government. The extent and type of the Forest Service's flight training is a matter left to the agency's discretion and is susceptible to policy analysis. BACKGROUND The plaintiffs/appellees are the families and estates of two pilots. Who died in 1994 when the airtanker they were using to drop flame retardant on a forest fire crashed in the Lolo National Forest. Kelly and Lynn were employed by Neptune. Because the district court was without jurisdiction. Who were both well qualified. All but the first mission were to fires in the Butler Creek area. Kelly and Lynn were asked to perform a retardant drop on a small fire adjacent to the main fire. Is charged with administering and protecting the nation's forests. Critical directives relating to aviation management are in section 5700 of that manual.
On the ground that the aircraft was already registered in Brazil. We were apprised by the FAA's motion to recall the mandate. IAL argues that recall of a mandate is an extraordinary remedy not warranted here. Because we are satisfied that this case became moot when the aircraft was sold on October 29. 2000.
On the ground that the aircraft was already registered in Brazil. We were apprised by the FAA's motion to recall the mandate. IAL argues that recall of a mandate is an extraordinary remedy not warranted here. Because we are satisfied that this case became moot when the aircraft was sold on October 29. 2000.
On appeal to this court Zoltanski contends that the Administrator's findings of fact were not supported by substantial evidence and that the Administrator erroneously concluded that her conduct violated the regulation. The speaker at a legal education seminar she was hosting. At that time nonpassengers were permitted to meet passengers at a gate if they successfully passed through a security checkpoint. Rose was an employee of Argenbright Security. Avila told her that ETD screening was FAA policy. (The ALJ concluded that this was
OPINION/ORDER
The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock.
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 >Agro Air Assoc. v. Is an insurance company based in the United States. Agro could collect for its losses any time one of its aircraft was out of service for virtually any reason. Houston advised Agro that it was canceling the LOUI policy and informed Agro that it would not renew the HLI policy for the following year due to the lack of available reinsurance on
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct12/03-10506.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cunpub%5C03/03-10528.1.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cunpub%5C03/03-10528.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cunpub%5C03/03-10506.1.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-1428a.html">FAA V. NTSB<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cunpub%5C03/03-10506.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200211570.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
In th is appeal. I. BACKGROUND The relevant facts in this case are undisputed. That the phones were ready to be shipped. To transport the phones by grou nd from Motorola's facto ry in Illino is to Mia mi. The shipment was unloaded at the Cooper Miami terminal and. Where the shipment was unloaded from the truck and loaded into a stor age trailer f or the w eekend . The shipment was again loaded onto a local delivery truck. It was discovered that the Motorola shipment was not among the truck 's conten ts. The disap pearanc e of the sh ipment is unexplained. A district court's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. Its fin dings o f fact are re viewed for clear e rror. A prima facie case is established under the Carmack Amendment upon p roof by a prepo nderan ce of the e vidence that (1) th e good s were d elivered to the carrier in good condition. Once a prima fa cie case is es tablished . (2) that the damage to the cargo was caused b y one of the five ex cusable f actors:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cunpub%5C02/02-60288.1.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cunpub%5C02/02-60288.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct12/03-10528.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-1663a.html">HOWARD J. FRIED V. HINSON DAVID R.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct13/02-60288.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CDEB801BD8703462882569F30062F10B/$file/9970452.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The principal issue is whether we have jurisdiction to hear this case as a direct appeal of the agency's action or whether the case must first be instituted in the district court. Grant recipients were required to assure the Department of Transportation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct13/02-60288.1.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-1152a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Freeman was on brief. <span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2002/00-14209.opn.html">ARAWAK AVIATION, INC. V. INDEM. INS. CO. OF N. AM. (3/13/2002, NO. 00-14209)<BR></A><BR>
Arawak sued Indemnity for a declaration that recent damage to one of Arawak's airplanes was covered by its policy with Indemnity. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1888.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lockhart LLP</U> were on brief for petitioner.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct13/03-10506.1.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may95/94-5314.opa.html">FINE AIRLINES V. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMIN.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Fine Airlines v. Senior Circuit Judge.<p> <p> PER CURIAM:<p> <p> The issue on this appeal is whether the Federal Aviation Administration (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct13/03-10528.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BFFBEF5E3DC164D188256E5A00707A4F/$file/9970452.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The principal issue is whether we have jurisdiction to hear this case as a direct appeal of the agency's action or whether the case must first be instituted in the district court. Grant recipients were required to assure the Department of Transportation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct13/03-10528.1.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-1166a.html">PAUL LINDSAY V. NTSB<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-60288.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-60288.1.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2002/00-14209.opn.html">ARAWAK AVIATION, INC. V. INDEM. INS. CO. OF N. AM. (3/13/2002, NO. 00-14209)<BR></A><BR>
Arawak sued Indemnity for a declaration that recent damage to one of Arawak's airplanes was covered by its policy with Indemnity. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov97/95-5223.opa.html">AGRO AIR ASSOC. V. HOUSTON CAS. CO.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ><title>Agro Air Assoc. v. Is an insurance company based in the United States. Agro could collect for its losses any time one of its aircraft was out of service for virtually any reason. Houston advised Agro that it was canceling the LOUI policy and informed Agro that it would not renew the HLI policy for the following year due to the lack of available reinsurance on
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200205/01-1027a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
R. Bruce Keiner Jr. was on brief. Was on brief. Hall were on brief for intervenor. Katz were on brief for intervenors Air Line Pilots Associa tion. ATA contends the letter interpretation and Notice are inconsistent with the plain language of FAR 121.471. The rules issued by the FAA under section 44701(a)(4) of the Act are generally referred to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/03/99-9518.htm">99-9518 -- ENGLESTEAD V. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION -- 03/15/2000<BR></A><BR>
We deny review.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-10506.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-10506.1.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-10528.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may95/94-5314.opa.html">FINE AIRLINES V. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMIN.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Fine Airlines v. Senior Circuit Judge.<p> <p> PER CURIAM:<p> <p> The issue on this appeal is whether the Federal Aviation Administration (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-9544.htm">98-9544 -- HOLT V. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION -- 08/16/1999<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Petitioner Charles R. 46110 and affirm. <p> Petitioner was a DER under the FAA's authority to delegate to qualified private persons matters relating to examining. The authority to act as a DER is authorized yearly. Are conclusive.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct12/02-60288.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 * A list of acronyms used in this opinion is appended. A direct appeal from two orders of the FAA brought by Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association in which the Welch parties have intervened. 2 3 prepared by the Air Force and adopted by the FAA does not satisfy NEPA and therefore remand to the agencies to prepare a supplemental EIS in accordance with this opinion. I. Background The basis of petitioners' complaints is the RBTI. The MTR is a flight corridor where pilots can practice lowaltitude navigation and maneuvers. Petitioners are Davis Mountains Trans Pecos Heritage Association (DMTPHA). A nonprofit corporation whose members are farmers. We have jurisdiction to review the FAA's approvals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). We will not address intervenors' argument that the FAA failed to adequately consider the effects of the RBTI on Lubbock.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200007/99-1129a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the briefs was Craig M. With him on the brief were David W. An imagi nary surface is essentially an artificial engineering boundary
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200302/01-1427b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200206/01-1152a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Freeman was on brief. Was on brief. That the Affirmation and Determination are arbitrary. Capri cious and otherwise unlawful and that the substantive find ings underlying them are unsupported by substantial evi dence in the administrative record. I. The following factual recitation is divided into two sec tions the first explaining the regulatory regime of the FAA and the second detailing how BFI's landfill proposal was (or was not) processed within that regime. The FAA is authorized to determine whether a proposed construction or alteration project will present a hazard to air navigation. Of a structure or sanitary landfill when the notice will promote ... (1) safety in air commerce.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2156.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Norman Merkel was a pilot with Pierce Aviation. Alleging a violation of his First Amendment rights to freedom of (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. Abeita was the BIA Contracting Officer's Representative stationed in Albuquerque and Garcia was the BIA Contracting Officer's Technical Representative in Ruidoso. Merkel and Garcia had a conversation during which Merkel expressed his extreme dissatisfaction about the number of hours he was working. These defendants were dismissed with prejudice pursuant to stipulation. <hr> language. Merkel then said he was considering filing a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2000/99-13117.man.html">INT'L AIRCRAFT RECOVERY V. UNIDENTIFIED, WRECKED, AND ABANDONED AIRCRAFT (7/17/2000, NO. 99-13117)<BR></A><BR>
The plane flew
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></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="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/01/944104P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Idaho residents Novella and Frank Adams were killed in a single engine airplane crash near Naylor. Their five children seek damages for claims that the crash was caused by a defect in the airplane's autopilot.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200214828.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The tort claims were dismissed on the basis that Florida's economic loss rule bars the claims. A mechanic must graduate from a certified aviation maintenance technical school (or have equivalent practical experience) and must pass a written test on the construction and maintenance of aircraft. Practices prescribed in the aircraft's maintenance manual and perform the maintenance in such a manner that the condition of the aircraft will be at least equal to its original or properly altered condition. Etc. is returned to service. When the next maintenance is scheduled. Because these claims were dismissed for failure to state a claim. Pursuant to a contract to which appellants are not parties. American's mechanics certified in the Aircraft's logbook that the work was done in accordance with the Aircraft's maintenance manual and FAA regulations.3 Profile purchased the Aircraft subsequent to American's November 1996 maintenance and inspection. The Aircraft was severely damaged when the right main landing gear failed to extend during a landing.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/05-1222a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Steven S. With him on the briefs were James R. Berg were on the brief for amicus curiae Airports Council International North America in support of petitioner Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and in opposition to petitioners Brendan Airways. Frantz was on the brief for amicus curiae United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in support of petitioners Brendan Airways. With her on the brief were Thomas O. McIntyre were on the brief for intervenor Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in support of the respondents. Weiss and John Longstreth were on the brief for intervenors Brendan Airways. Claiming the rates were unreasonable and unjustly discriminatory. Disputing the DOT's evidentiary rulings and its finding that the proposed fees were nondiscriminatory. Contending its rate calculations were in fact reasonable. Carriers operating international flights out of ITB pay the Port Authority Federal Inspection Facility Space (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2000/99-13117.man.html">INT'L AIRCRAFT RECOVERY V. UNIDENTIFIED, WRECKED, AND ABANDONED AIRCRAFT (7/17/2000, NO. 99-13117)<BR></A><BR>
The plane flew
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-1351a.html">NEW YORK NEW YORK, LLC, V. NLRB<BR></A><BR>
Moss argued the cause for petitioner.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2001/00-14516.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. SABRETECH, INC. (10/31/2001, NO. 00-14516)<BR></A><BR>
It was a tragic accident that could have been avoided. As will be discussed </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2000/99-15301.man.html">PATTERSON & WILDER CONSTR. CO. V. UNITED STATES (9/15/2000, NO. 99-15301)<BR></A><BR>
W asserts that the Government is responsible for the alleged misconduct of two private pilots who were hired by the Government to obtain the aircraft and carry out the mission because during the mission those pilots were acting as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2000/99-15301.man.html">PATTERSON & WILDER CONSTR. CO. V. UNITED STATES (9/15/2000, NO. 99-15301)<BR></A><BR>
W asserts that the Government is responsible for the alleged misconduct of two private pilots who were hired by the Government to obtain the aircraft and carry out the mission because during the mission those pilots were acting as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2001/00-14516.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. SABRETECH, INC. (10/31/2001, NO. 00-14516)<BR></A><BR>
It was a tragic accident that could have been avoided. As will be discussed </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200705/05-1328a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Francis A. With him on the brief was Lisa E. They argue that the new 2 procedures will route more jet aircraft onto two previously restricted runways. The FAA argues that the letter is not reviewable because it merely explains the existing procedures and does not actually change the manner in which the runways will be used. We hold that the letter is a reviewable
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200416721.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Vacated that portion of the injunction that prevented the Department from charging the publishers a rental or use fee that was revenue raising. The en banc court also said that the district court should consider any claim the Department might have for fees that it had been enjoined from collecting. The 1996 plan would have governed the placement and allocation among publishers of newsracks in the airport. They were granted a preliminary injunction against its implementation. The preliminary injunction was subsequently clarified. The Department moved to dissolve the preliminary injunction and filed a new plan to be implemented once the injunction was dissolved. While the preliminary injunction was still in force. The district court denied the Department's motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction and declined to consider the 1997 plan because it found that the 1997 4 plan was not properly at issue in the litigation. (2) requiring publishers to pay a fee that was not tied to the Department's costs in administering the newsrack plan but was instead revenue raising.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-4418_039.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That person will immediately think of Chicago's O'Hare International Airport. It is one of the busiest airports in the world: in 2005. It is also of central importance to the economy of Chicago and Northern Illinois. Its claims against the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) were resolved in the FAA's favor by the court of appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Village of Bensenville v. By approving the City's plan and determining that the plan was eligible for federal funding. Which is owned by the City. Was prepared and will be implemented by the City. Which is prepared to proceed without federal funds if necessary.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200314122.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This case involves two airline pilots who have been charged with violating Florida criminal statutes prohibiting the operation of an aircraft while intoxicated. They assert that the Florida statutes at issue are preempted by federal law. Because we find the preemption claims in the instant case are not facially conclusive. We hold that the district court should have abstained. The pilots were instructed to taxi back to the gate. Whereupon they were interviewed by MiamiDade police officers. Approximately two hours later were taken to a MiamiDade police station where the officers administered breathalyser tests to both appellees. The breathalyser results were 0.084 and 0.081 breath alcohol level for Hughes and 0.091 and 0.090 breath alcohol level for Cloyd. Appellees were subsequently charged with operating an aircraft while intoxicated. Appellees claimed that federal law preempted the Florida state statutes under which appellees were being prosecuted and therefore the district court should.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200014516.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It was a tragic accident that could have been avoided. As will be discussed infra. These counts are a legal nullity. A SabreTech driver took the boxes to the ValuJet ramp area where Flight 592 was scheduled to depart for Atlanta. Whether the evidence was sufficient to convict SabreTech on the reckless counts and the failure to train count. 3. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-7141a.html">CROCKER HOBART V. PIEDMONT AVIATION<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200302/01-1427a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B100A61F8EA22967882572C6007C3359/$file/0417353.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. BACKGROUND JAL is a Japanese commercial air carrier based in Tokyo. Ventress and Crawford were employed by HACS to perform services for JAL flights. HACS informed Crawford that his assignment to JAL was cancelled because of unsatisfactory performance. All claims were brought under California law. Or is about to provide (with any knowledge of the employer) or cause to be provided to the employer or Federal Government information relating to any violation or alleged violation of any order. That Hawaii was the more convenient forum for potential witnesses and for accessing HACS's personnel records. The Hawaii district court granted judgment on the pleadings for JAL on the ground that all of plaintiffs' claims were preempted by the Friendship. Even if they were not preempted. Saying that the issue was mooted by its decision on treaty preemption. Although Ventress and Crawford were represented by the same lawyer when they filed the complaint. (3) whether the interlocutory order compelling arbitration is appealable.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200212/01-1351a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Celeste M. With him on the brief were Arthur F. McCracken were on the brief for intervenor. Circuit Judge: The issue in these consolidated petitions for review of orders of the National Labor Relations Board is whether employees of contractors working on a casino's property have labor organizing rights equivalent to those possessed by the casino's employees. New York New York Hotel and Casino is located on the Strip in Las Vegas. When they are off duty. The bars are off limits at all times. The following events were part of that campaign. Told the Ark employees that they were trespassing and that they were not allowed to distribute literature on NYNY's property. (All of the trespass citations issued to the Ark employees in 1998 were dropped.). Their s 7 rights are equivalent to those of the employer's own employees. Agreeing that the s 7 rights of the Ark employees were equivalent to those of NYNY's employees. That in both cases the Ark employees were engaging in organization activities in non work areas of NYNY's property.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-1295a.html">HUDSON, PAUL S. V. FAA<BR></A><BR>
With </P> <P ALIGN=
</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/lognameprint.php">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jerome Wayne Johnson</td> <td align=left valign=top>03 13595 / 03 00036 CR J 25 TEM</td> <td align=left valign=top><font color=red>07 12 2004</font></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align=left valign=top>In re: Will C. Bowman</td> <td align=left valign=top>02 13050 / 01 01345 CV BU E</td> <td align=left valign=top><font color=red>08 13 2003</font></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align=left valign=top>In re: Will C. Whose name in this complaint will be Dakota Allen v.
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0049p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chapter 21 of the Michigan Insurance Code would only create a private cause of action if the remedies that Chapter 21 provided were
</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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043379p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We consider primarily the following issue of law: whether we may exercise appellate jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to review the denial of a motion for summary judgment on the basis that a statute of repose was inapplicable. We conclude that the District Court's order does not fall under the collateral order doctrine and will accordingly dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. That aircraft was subsequently purchased by Wendy and Michael Robinson. That claim is not at issue in this appeal. In its capacity as a manufacturer if the accident occurred 4 are entitled to bring their suit under an exception to the GARA statute of repose because Hartzell made several material (1) after the applicable limitation period beginning on (A) the date of delivery of the aircraft to its first purchaser or lessee. Or which was added to. Which is alleged to have caused such death. The purpose of that process is to ensure that the propeller has been designed and The specific exception at issue in this case is contained within section 2(b)(1) of the Act: (b) EXCEPTIONS.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200301/01-1331a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
On the brief was R. Because the decision is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199910/98-1295a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Nicholas Gilman. With him on the brief were David W. With her on the brief was Kirstin S. Circuit Judge: Petitioners claim that respon dent Federal Aviation Administration violated the Adminis trative Procedure Act by issuing a purported policy statement without notice and comment rulemaking and that the FAA's issuance of a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200602/05-5076a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Debra L. With him on the brief was William R. With him on the brief were Peter D.
</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/03/08/021934P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
McKay was a commercial airline pilot for forty years. Training centers are private enterprises approved by the FAA to train commercial airline pilots and flight engineers. McKay's administrative remedies are deemed exhausted by the lengthy administrative process. Seppala averred that he chose Orr because
</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/lognameprint2.php">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Whose name in this complaint will be Dakota Allen v. Bowman</td> <td align=left valign=top>02 13050 / 01 01345 CV BU E</td> <td align=left valign=top><font color=red>08 13 2003</font></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align left valign=top>In re: Will C. Cohen</td> <td align=left valign=top>03 13162 / 02 23079 CV KMM</td> <td align=left valign=top><font color=red>07 08 2004</font></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align left valign=top>In re: Will C.
</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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-1331a.html">RANDY STEENHOLDT V. FAA<BR></A><BR>
Argued the cause for respondent.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200401/02-1267a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</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/98/07/973232P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The first FSSs were established in order to provide ground communication with mail airplanes flying between Washington. Additional FSSs were built across the country. Was not chosen as one of the 61 AFSS sites. The facility was scheduled for closure on August 16. Jurisdiction We first address the question of whether we have jurisdiction. The FAA argues that the final order to close the Pierre FSS was the 1980 decision to close all 290 FSSs and replace them with 61 AFSSs. The FAA argues that because roughly 17 years have elapsed since this plan was published in 1980. An FAA decision constitutes a reviewable order only if it (1) is final. (3) is public. (4) is based on an administrative record that permits meaningful appellate 3 review. It explicitly stated that
</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//july96/95-6369.op.html">MCMILLIAN V. JOHNSON<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>McMillian v. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND</b><a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6309.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Delgado is a citizen of Panama. Who was later indicted on several charges of conspiracy related to the September 11. Delgado was denied (1) On February 4. Gonzales is substituted for John Ashcroft as a Defendant Appellee in this action. (3) After examining the briefs and appellate record. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> permission to receive flight training in July 2003.(1) A second request. Was also denied. The requests were denied pursuant to section 113 of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001 (the Act).(2) The Act regulated flight training on certain aircraft. Delgado filed suit challenging the Attorney General's determination that he was not authorized to receive flight training.
</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/july96/95-6369.op.html">MCMILLIAN V. JOHNSON<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>McMillian v. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND</b><a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/05/032771P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge We are called upon to answer the novel question whether. A licensed heliport is an airport. Although the western skies are usually friendly. Edwards believed the flights were unsafe and damaged his enterprise. Edwards believed the new Rapid helicopter operation was sited in violation of federal law and was operating without city approval. Where they advised Edwards he was violating FAA regulations. Advising Edwards his balloons were illegal. Believed he was justified in flying his balloons because (1) Edwards and his balloons were there first. (3) Rapid was not a safe operator and Edwards family. Vendors were in danger. Because the FAA received a complaint that strong winds were causing Edwards's balloons to drift across the street. The heliport was lawfully and officially approved. The ALJ further found the heliport was an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200706/06-5190a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Larry I. With him on the brief were Peter D. The FAA's preemption of OSHA's regulatory authority extends
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/04/011420P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Arguing that the state whistleblower provisions were both expressly and impliedly pre empted by the Airline Deregulation Act of 19782 (ADA) and the Whistleblower Protection Program (the Program or WPP) of the Wendell H. The District Court agreed that Botz's claims were pre empted and granted Omni's motion to dismiss. Is codified as amended in scattered sections of 49 U.S.C. Botz was again assigned the Alaska to Japan round trip. She was unable to reach him. Botz met with Omni representatives who informed her that her refusal was grounds for termination. Refusing the flight assignment and for reporting to Omni what she suspected3 was a violation of the FAR. Our task is to determine whether the ADA. The key feature of the ADA is its pre emption provision. Or service of an air carrier . . . . 49 U.S.C. § 41713(b)(1) (1994).4 The ADA also includes a savings clause:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/519F5C2303F28ED188256BA000501F7D/$file/9936024.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is hereby WITHDRAWN and replaced with the attached opinion. The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. 5913 OPINION McKEOWN. Circuit Judge: Aircraft safety is a matter of significant public importance. At issue in this case is whether the United States is immune from liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act. 1 the FAA is charged with promoting flight safety by establishing minimum standards for. A detailed description of this certification process is set out in the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Empresa de Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense 1 The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 was amended and recodified by the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994. The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 was previously codified at 49 U.S.C. app. § 1301 et seq. (1988). 5914 (Varig Airlines). Three aspects of the design certification process are relevant here: the type certificate. The first stage of this process is type certification. STCs are obtained through the same process as type certificates: the applicant must provide the FAA with sufficient engineering and test data to demonstrate compliance with federal regulations.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/07/962438P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Special issue medical certificates are issued
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200304/01-1446a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-1202a.html">ANDREW W. VAN DYKE V. NTSB<BR></A><BR>
McDermott argued the cause for petitioner.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/02/013931P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an action by Southern Pine Helicopters. I. One of Southern Pine's helicopters was damaged by a fire that broke out in its engine compartment. Phoenix asserts that the loss was not covered because two exclusions in the relevant policy applied. Those exclusions (the applicability of which it was Phoenix's burden to prove) operate if the helicopter was being
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-1308a.html">CRONIN MICHAEL P. V. FAA<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0173p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The pilot's employment was terminated after NetJets learned that he had made a video depicting a pilot shooting a rifle at a DVD produced by NetJets that promoted a tentative agreement between NetJets and its pilots' union. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters Page 2 court held that public policy review is not permitted under the Railway Labor Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-3404.html">MARY ROSE DIEFENDERFER V. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD<BR></A><BR>
With her on the brief were <u>Mary L. Because the Board does not have jurisdiction to hear Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) whistleblower claims. Diefenderfer was employed as an Aviation Safety Inspector with the FAA in the Seattle Flight Standards District Office in Renton. She was reassigned to the position of Aviation Safety Inspector with the Technical Standards Branch in Renton without a reduction in grade or pay.</p> <p ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021062.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Which is operated by the Piedmont Triad Airport Authority (the Airport Authority). Although the EIS was not perfect. We hold that it was sufficient. 500 multi family homes are within a five mile radius of the Airport. Various expansion plans have been considered over the years. Solicited expansion proposals from airports in the Carolinas that were interested in accommodating a new FedEx mid Atlantic cargo hub. After PTIA was selected. FAA approval is necessary to expand the Airport and to make the project eligible for federal funding. One of the primary purposes of an EIS is to consider alternatives to the proposed project. The agency eliminated most of the alternative sites and configurations because they did not meet the requirements that the hub be located at PTIA and that the airport have two parallel. The five off site alternatives were eliminated at this first stage mainly because they were not at the PTIA location. Five of the ten on site alternative configurations were also eliminated.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200111026.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from a judgment entered in favor of the Plaintiff after a four day bench trial. The Museum transferred the aircraft to the Naval Aviation Museum Foundation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1066.html">UNION OIL CO OF CALIFORNIA V. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO.<BR></A><BR>
393 ( 393 patent) is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 112 (1994). As is often the case during the course of prosecution. An olefin content less than 4 volume percent] wherein the maximum 10% distillation point is 158º F (70º C.).</P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/03/001646P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The defendant/appellant is the personal representative of the estate of the deceased pilot and the intervenors are the personal representatives of the estates of the three passengers killed in the accident (collectively appellants). I. BACKGROUND The relevant facts of this case are as straightforward as they are tragic. The money was collected at a table near the runway. The parties have stipulated that the money collected by Farington was not sufficient to cover the operating expenses of the flights. Farington was president of AFS. Was covered by name under the policy when piloting the plane. Or loss . . . [w]hen your insured aircraft is . . . used for a commercial purpose.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2001/99-12939.op2.html">INT'L SALES & SERV. V. AUSTRAL INSULATED PRODUCTS (7/30/2001, NO. 99-12939)<BR></A><BR>
We affirm.</SPAN></P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept96/94-8485.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. PARADIES<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. <a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/july96/95-9503.wpd.html">AIRPORT NEIGHBORS ALLIANCE, INC. V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR>
Argues that the agency should have prepared an EIS. Background The Airport is located four miles south of Albuquerque's central business district and is surrounded by residential neighborhoods to the north. The Airport is served by four runways. At the time the Runway 3 21 upgrade was proposed. Runway 8 26 was the primary runway. The other two runways Runway 3 21 and Runway 12 30 were of insufficient width. Which is the proposed action being challenged here. Is closed for reconstruction. 1995 and that remaining aspects of the project were substantially completed on December 17. EA was inadequate because it failed to address the cumulative impacts of the proposed action. We must consider whether Airport Neighbors' appeal is now moot. We are under an independent obligation to examine our own jurisdiction. A NEPA claim no longer presents a live controversy when the proposed action has been completed and when no effective relief is available. 1524 n.3 (10th Cir. 1993) (finding case challenging airport construction not moot after construction was completed when re strictions could be placed on the use of an airport).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3150F2CB96356DB088256E5A00707CEF/$file/9935913.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1291. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY DPA is a Washington based general partnership. SIADS is a subsidiary of Smiths Industries. SP&A was compensated with a $50. The 1974 Agreement was modified by another agreement that provided for a similar representation arrangement. The 1980 Agreement was negotiated by Michael Pietromonaco (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0170p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will deny enforcement of the Board's bargaining order and remand the case to the Board to conduct an evidentiary hearing on St. Francis's objection to the second election. possible that the Board's determination that the Biddle letter does not constitute a violation of the Act is correct. Francis is favored on the question of timing. The timing of the letter and some of the other circumstances of this case are not unlike those in Dayton Hudson Department Store Co. v. A letter with substantial misrepresentations was mailed to employees three days before the election. The writers of the letter were known to be allied with the union. It may have had a sufficient opportunity to do so. Was able to effectively respond). The extent of the misrepresentation in this case is disputed. Francis alleges it was significant. Whether employees were affected by the alleged misrepresentation is unclear. Francis has provided scant evidence that employees were affected by the letter. Mindful that no set of factors governs whether or not an evidentiary hearing is necessary.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19954519.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That is the issue we must decide in this case. We have jurisdiction over interlocutory orders denying claims of immunity under the FSIA. It is appropriate that we construe the complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiffs. We will accept as true the complaint's well pleaded facts. Is a Honduran corporation. Fifty one percent of which is owned by Hondurans. The parent company was incorporated in Honduras in May 1992. Plaintiff companies' contract proposal was to upgrade and establish a modern civil aeronautics program for Honduras. This contract was modified and reaffirmed by the parties in a separate agreement on December 16. Development of necessary Omega Air S de RL is an air carrier intervenor. Omega Air generally supports the position of plaintiffs and claims to be a third party beneficiary of the contract in question. 2 1 programs for the establishment of the data base with the information related with the aircraft to be inspected and that will be under Honduran registry. The equipment will be that which is necessary to manage the data of 100 aircraft and must provide additional equipment each time that the necessities of expansion require it.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19954519.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That is the issue we must decide in this case. We have jurisdiction over interlocutory orders denying claims of immunity under the FSIA. It is appropriate that we construe the complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiffs. We will accept as true the complaint's well pleaded facts. Is a Honduran subsidiary corporation. Fifty one percent of which is owned by Hondurans. The subsidiary company was incorporated in Honduras in May 1992. Plaintiff companies' contract proposal was to upgrade and establish a modern civil aeronautics program for Honduras. This contract was modified and reaffirmed by the parties in a separate agreement on December 16. Development of necessary programs for the establishment of the data base with the information related with the aircraft to be inspected and that will be under Honduran registry. The equipment will be that which is necessary to manage the data of 100 aircraft and must provide additional equipment each time that the necessities of expansion require it. It is understood that this equipment will be permanently in communication with the principal data base managed in the Offices of the Inspector located in Miami.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/03/051963P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line pilots fly a published monthly schedule and are paid by the hour. Who are salaried. Or when not enough line pilots are available. The inspector determined that the records were inaccurate because they did not reflect the August duty time of seven management pilots. The decision was upheld by the FAA decisionmaker. The FAA's decision is upheld unless
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/28F76EA805A8CD9588256A63007B06A1/$file/9955986.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Steven Pollack and Roy Belzer were killed in the crash of an airplane. The Agusta entities are owners of Marchetti. Those entities and Marchetti are instrumentalities of the Republic of Italy. 1 Marchetti moved to dismiss the action on the basis that under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (the FSIA). The district court did not have jurisdiction over it. It also moved to dismiss on the basis that the action was barred by the provisions of the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (GARA). David Lyon and Steven Pollack were aboard. Both were killed in the accident. We will refer to all the entities collectively as Marchetti. 7163 ing transfers. The effective date of GARA was August 17.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19948485.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2 were convicted pursuant to a 133 count indictment charging them with various offenses arising out of the operation of the concessions at the Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport. Ira Jackson was the first black person elected to the Atlanta City Council and served from 1970 to 1990. Will be referred to herein as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/03/02-4188.htm">02-4188 -- BOSWELL V. SKYWEST AIRLINES INC. -- 03/15/2004<BR></A><BR>
She was able to breath for an hour or two at a time without supplemental oxygen. Boswell was required to fly the Skywest route between St. The court acknowledged that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-3174.html">JULIE L. BREHMER V. FAA<BR></A><BR>
Argued for petitioner.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5458a.html">MARIE V. STELLA V.NORMAN Y. MINETA<BR></A><BR>
Brown argued the cause for appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/124A983057F5039288256E5A00707BD8/$file/9955986.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At slip op. 7157 is hereby amended as follows: at slip op. 7177. The word
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992349.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
000 was entered against only one of the defendants Jill Mullineaux. Mullineaux contends that she was entitled to qualified immunity. We conclude that Mullineaux was not entitled to qualified immunity. We find that the award of damages was excessive. Knussman learned that his wife Kimberly was pregnant. Kim's pregnancy was difficult and ultimately resulted in her confinement to bed rest in the latter stages prior to delivery. Knussman was informed by the MSP Director of Flight Operations. That there was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8AE44B09BA463E8888256E5A00707B81/$file/9955986.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Steven Pollack and Roy Belzer were killed in the crash of an airplane. The Agusta entities are owners of Marchetti. Those entities and Marchetti are instrumentalities of the Republic of Italy. 1 Marchetti moved to dismiss the action on the basis that under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (the FSIA). The district court did not have jurisdiction over it. It also moved to dismiss on the basis that the action was barred by the provisions of the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (GARA). David Lyon and Steven Pollack were aboard. Both were killed in the accident. We will refer to all the entities collectively as Marchetti. 7163 ing transfers. The effective date of GARA was August 17.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1865.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellee. Claiming that it was unlawfully deprived of the right to use seaplane ramps in the Virgin Islands and that the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) failure to enforce the law makes it responsible for the company's resulting economic hardship. I. Background The original protagonist in this case was Hurricane Hugo. One of the eight companies that responded was 1 Congress in 1994 recodified the Federal Aviation Act. Will use the code numbers in effect at the time of the events that gave rise to this action. 2 Caribbean Air Services. It is undisputed that VIPA's staff considered the CAS proposal to be the most viable of the three bids recommended for further consideration by VIPA's Governing Board. Are fully detailed in the district court's thorough opinion in a related case. It is unnecessary to repeat them here. It suffices to say that appellant Sea Air was displeased with the outcome of the bid process. With the court ruling in March 1992 that VIPA was entitled to enter into an exclusive leasing arrangement with CAI.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8F30FD36BCF9048688256A820063001F/$file/9955986.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At slip op. 7157 is hereby amended as follows: at slip op. 7177. The word
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F0D119938C92DFC988256D17008231ED/$file/0010599.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is WITHDRAWN. The FAA form is fundamentally ambiguous and therefore the district court should have dismissed the Government's false statement indictment. BACKGROUND James Culliton is an aviation lawyer. The Government maintains that this prosecution was not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3486_026.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Conditions were near the federal minimum for safe landings on Midway's Runway 31C. 522 feet is among the shortest main runways at a commercial airport. When the plane was only 1. Twelve other people on the ground were injured. Though the plane's 98 passengers and five crewmembers were safe. No. 06 3486 3 Tort suits filed in state court have been removed by the defendants (Southwest. For decades aviation suits have been litigated in state court when the parties were not of diverse citizenship. Most plaintiffs in this suit are citizens of Illinois. As are both Boeing and the City of Chicago. That this standard is satisfied for aviation accidents because of the dominant role that federal law plays in air transport. Everything will depend on a factbound question such as whether the pilots should have 4 No. 06 3486 executed a missed approach or. Whether Boeing should have told air carriers not to count on thrust reversers when calculating how much runway they need. Or whether Chicago should have closed the airport because of bad weather.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AABDA49E38EFC9E288256B3B00828173/$file/9915974.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was a provider of aerial advertising on the island of Oahu. The FAA issued Skysign a certificate of waiver good for 1 This group includes aircraft that have been modified for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200303/01-1393a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2003/013148p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. He was suspended from selling mutual funds when his improper activities were brought to the attention of the Securities and Exchange Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1627.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Kandutsch was on brief for petitioner. Yodice was on brief for respondent. Facts Echo is a Maine corporation established in 1985 by John G. Rafter is Echo's president. Which was devoted exclusively to emergency medical services.1 Airmed owned its own helicopter for air ambulance flights and employed flight nurses and paramedics. Flying under Echo's certificate to 1 Rafter was also Airmed's president and majority shareholder. 2 operate as an air carrier. The weather conditions at the time of takeoff were. The trip to Ellsworth was successful. Rafter was no longer able to navigate visually. It is clear that. Neither Rafter nor the helicopter was authorized to operate under IFR. Rafter did not have the recent operational experience necessary for IFR operation. Operation under IFR was justified pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 91.3(b) 3 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199810/97-1360a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It appearing to the court for the reasons set forth more fully in the opinion filed contemporaneously herewith that the motion is well taken. It is hereby ORDERED. Concluded that the substantive objections were meritorious. Was straightforward. Congress had expressly directed the Administration to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200506/04-1172a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Mark L. With her on the brief were Arthur F. With him on the brief were Lynn K. Inc. is the parent company of ITT Automotive. Three of which are located in East Tawas. These are known collectively as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/honduras.amn.html">HONDURAS AIRCRAFT REGISTRY V. HONDURAS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Honduras Aircraft Registry v. That is the issue we must decide in this case. Honduras appeals. <p> We have jurisdiction over interlocutory orders denying claims of immunity under the FSIA. It is appropriate that we construe the complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiffs. We will accept as true the complaint
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1558.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is corrected as follows: On page 5. Were on brief for appellee. Was named in a thirty four count superseding indictment charging various drug related offenses. The focus of this case was a large drug trafficking conspiracy. Worked with members of the Medell n and Cali drug cartels to import cocaine from Colombia into Puerto Rico and New York. 2 The linchpin witness for the government's case against Flores Rivera was William Cedr s (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1001.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was inconsistent with Federal Aviation Regulations. Was operating the controls of a DC 9 on September 29. The plane's captain was operating the radios at the time. Although the aircraft was cleared by Air Traffic Control (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2226A.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lynch was on brief for respondents. Our jurisdiction is premised on 49 U.S.C. app. 1429(a). Hite was the pilot of a Spectrum Airlines charter flight from Hyannis to Nantucket. Aboard the charter were Hyannis High School basketball players and their coach. Hite's appellate arguments are essentially legal in nature. It is not our function. See also 49 U.S.C. app. 1486(e) (court bound by factual findings if there is substantial evidentiary support in the record). The FAA Administrator (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2226.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Petitioner's certificate was initially revoked by the Federal Aviation Administration [
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A49420EE0F8959C588256FC500824CBC/$file/0316671o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The question of law will be determinative of the matter pending before this court. There is no clearly controlling precedent in the decisions of the Nevada Supreme Court. All further proceedings in this case are stayed pending receipt of the answer to the certified question. This appeal is withdrawn from submission and will be submitted after receipt of the Nevada Supreme Court's opinion on the question certified. The parties will notify the Clerk of this court within one week after the Nevada Supreme Court 3307 3308 OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE v. Kevin Jensen was piloting a plane and approaching the runway of the Carson City Airport when his plane crashed in the backyard of appellant Robert Griffin. Old Republic filed an action for a declaratory judgment that it had no obligation to pay any damages to Griffin or Jensen because the accident was excluded from coverage. The company alleged that because Jensen failed to have an annual inspection performed on the aircraft as required by the airworthiness provisions of the policy.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTE2MDRfc28ucGRm/05-1604_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200608/05-1383a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
O:\Slip\WP\2005\05 1383 Village of BENSENVILLE 9 7 06.odl.wpd
OPINION/ORDER
The question for review is whether Volodymyr Fisher and his wife. Have established that they qualify as refugees from religious or ethnic persecution. Hansen. 1 account of Fisher's German ethnicity and Lutheran religion if they were repatriated to the Ukraine. Because that finding is supported by substantial evidence. Fisher was born in Uzbekistan in 1937. His father was an ethnic German and his mother was Russian. Fisher is the principal asylum applicant. Fisher's claims of ethnic persecution are predicated both on his identity as a German. On the perception by other Ukrainians that anyone with a German name is Jewish. Fisher contends that he was denied various educational and career opportunities as a result of his German ethnicity. Fisher testified that he was educated after high school. He was employed as an engineer in Kiev until he left for the United States. Fisher also testified that he was frequently insulted with anti Jewish slurs by neighbors and co workers. Fisher explained to people that he was not Jewish.
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Michael Deuel Sullivan. With her on the brief was Daniel M. With him on the brief were Michele C. They contend that the waiver was arbitrary and capricious insofar as it eviscerates the rule. They contend that the Commission failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its conclusion that harmful interference was not likely to result from the AirCell system. Balloons or any other type of aircraft must not be operated while such aircraft are airborne (not touching the ground). The Commission has authority to waive its rules
OPINION/ORDER
Judicial review is authorized by the FAA Authorization Act of 1994. We conclude the FAA's decision was not
OPINION/ORDER
Excalibur urges us to reverse the FAA's initial declaration of an emergency. specific challenge to the Emergency Order is now moot. 1450 (11th Cir. 1984). revocation order is effective immediately and remains in effect during the Board's administrative review proceeding. 622 F.2d These are important consequences to the review of the FAA's declaration of an 1017. We agree with the other circuits that have But the consequences are short term. That is ample time for the aggrieved certificate holder to In this urge a reviewing court to grant a stay of the emergency order because the FAA has been arbitrary and capricious in declaring an emergency. declaration and then was denied a stay by this court. The Petition for Review is dismissed as moot.
OPINION/ORDER
Holding that Gary's state law whistleblower claim was preempted by the federal Airline Deregulation Act. We will reverse. I. The facts of this case are largely undisputed. Ray Gary was employed by The Air Group as a co pilot for the
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was Peter J. With him on the brief was Peter J. Circuit Judge: This is a petition for judicial review of an order of the National Transportation Safety Board affirming the decision of an administrative law judge to suspend Andrew W. The question is whether there is
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > United States v. <a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1304a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Andrew Tollin argued the cause for appellants.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-5141r.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
On the brief were Eric J. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel were Rafael A. On the brief was Joseph S. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were Rafael A. Provides benefits to the relatives of public safety officers who are killed as the result of injuries sustained in the line of duty. The statute also provides benefits to public safety officers who are permanently disabled. Educational benefits to dependents of federal law enforcement officers who are killed or disabled in the line of duty. Whether the decedent was a public safety officer who died under circumstances that entitle the beneficiaries to an award under the statute. 42 U.S.C. § 3796(a). Judicial review of the BJA's decisions is available in the Court of Federal Claims. This is a consolidated appeal from two decisions of the Court of Federal Claims. The two cases both involve challenges to BJA determinations denying death benefits to the relatives of pilots who were employed by private contractors and who died while rendering fire suppression assistance to public agencies.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-3163.html">ALLEN V. MSPB<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-1507a.html">TOWN OF STRATFORD, CONNECTICUT V. FAA<BR></A><BR>
Argued the cause for respondents.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041015np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2002 for further proceedings as follows: The District Court should address on remand whether economic loss alone is ever recoverable under the strict liability of New Jersey and. Whether the causal nexus between the defect and the alleged losses here is too attenuated to permit recovery in strict liability here. Where the 2 U.C.C. does not apply and the damage is not to the defective product itself but rather a breach of the duty not to put the defective product into the stream of commerce. The District Court concluded
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/60F75E598B71606D88256AD40078B022/$file/9935913.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1291. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY DPA is a Washington based general partnership. SIADS is a subsidiary of Smiths Industries. SP&A was compensated with a $50. The 1974 Agreement was modified by another agreement that provided for a similar representation arrangement. The 1980 Agreement was negotiated by Michael Pietromonaco (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011126.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The district court held that Walsh was a trespasser. 1 Walsh argues that the landowners' trees are like trees encroaching on public highways on land. 328 U.S. at 264 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/f0d119938c92dfc988256d17008231ed/$FILE/0010599.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is WITHDRAWN. The FAA form is fundamentally ambiguous and therefore the district court should have dismissed the Government's false statement indictment. BACKGROUND James Culliton is an aviation lawyer. The Government maintains that this prosecution was not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0649n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Shane's remaining claims were submitted to a jury. We conclude that the district court's summary denial of Shane's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint was an abuse of discretion. I. BACKGROUND Joe Shane is a citizen of Kentucky. Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in St. Though it stated that Bunzl believed
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/45814D6321BF8DA888256B5D005D4500/$file/0056559.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002134.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We have reviewed Ashton's arguments. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2001/99-12939.op2.html">INT'L SALES & SERV. V. AUSTRAL INSULATED PRODUCTS (7/30/2001, NO. 99-12939)<BR></A><BR>
We affirm.</SPAN></P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0120p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The petition for review is denied. These regulations provided that the use of written notes in the testing area was prohibited and that personal items such as notebooks were to remain stored out of reach of the examinee during testing. Singer was then ushered into the testing area. He was monitored by Davio 10 Singer v. Singer contends that the notes were not unauthorized materials. Singer maintains that the only portion of the notes that related to questions on the examination were weight and balance formulae. Because FAA Order 8080.6A allows examinees to use weight and balance formulae that are permanently inscribed on aids otherwise permitted during examinations. The information on the notes was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199912939.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. ISS was a distributor of. ISS was the sole distributor of aviation wire to Shannon from 1990 through 1995. ISS did not have a written distributorship agreement with Austral. Austral agreed to end its relationships with other independent distributors in the United States and to instruct its direct customers that orders within the continental United States would have to be placed with EIS. The elements of tortious interference with a business relationship are: (1) the existence of a business relationship that affords the plaintiff existing or prospective legal rights. It generally requires
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199912939.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. ISS was a distributor of. ISS was the sole distributor of aviation wire to Shannon from 1990 through 1995. ISS did not have a written distributorship agreement with Austral. Austral agreed to end its relationships with other independent distributors in the United States and to instruct its direct customers that orders within the continental United States would have to be placed with EIS. The elements of tortious interference with a business relationship are: (1) the existence of a business relationship that affords the plaintiff existing or prospective legal rights. It generally requires
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200506/04-1239a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Peter J. With him on the brief was Peter J. Wells were on the brief of amicus curiae Air Line Pilots Association. An action that is a violation of United States law. For which he was convicted in a Japanese criminal proceeding. Petitioner Donnelly claims that the FAA and NTSB's determination was not supported by substantial evidence because of its reliance on findings in a foreign criminal proceeding and also that it was arbitrary and capricious or contrary to law to conclude that Donnelly
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DA5F6F0EE937975F88256E4A008172CB/$file/0255788.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which ultimately determined that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction and remanded. The district court decided that there was no personal jurisdiction over Twin Commander and dismissed Twin Commander from the case. Special Investments entered into an agreement to have a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/04/051901P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Concluding that Hitchcock's conduct was not protected under the statute. Hitchcock complained to her superiors that the FedEx facility was unsafe and that FedEx was engaging in illegal activities. Including classifying drivers as independent contractors instead of employees and terminating drivers who were pro union. Hitchcock received a negative performance review and was placed on a ninety day improvement plan. Hitchcock refused to terminate drivers simply because they were pro union. Hitchcock was later demoted. Summary judgment is proper if there are no disputed issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that her purpose in reporting was to expose an illegality.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/11/981535P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Allen and Excaliber were represented by the same counsel. We will affirm an agency decision if it
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/08/063225U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Administrator held that petitioners' first three complaints were outside the FAA's jurisdiction under Part 16 because the complaints were not filed against a sponsor. Because Part 16 is not an appropriate basis for suing individuals in their individual capacities or for asserting criminal violations. She held that the claims in petitioners' fourth complaint alleging misconduct by the operator of MSP in connection with 1987 and 1992 noise exposure maps were moot in light of the FAA's acceptance of more recent noise exposure maps. We hold that the Administrator's relevant factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. See 49 U.S.C. § 46110 (factual findings are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence). We further conclude that the Administrator's interpretations of the pertinent regulations are reasonable. 842 44 (1984) (court should defer to agency administrator's reasonable interpretation of regulations where regulations were promulgated by agency pursuant to authority delegated by Congress).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1296a.html">ITT INDUST INC V. NLRB<BR></A><BR>
Hankins argued the cause for petitioner.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972519.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
EOC is frequently required to hire large numbers of employees for short term projects and then to reduce its work force by way of a reduction in force (RIF). Our clients will come in one day and come up with a project and we have to . . . hire sometimes 50 to 100 people for a short term project and then lay off and get back down to a level. Among those hired were Wacon Cottingham. Each employee hired in December 1995 was informed of the short term nature of the work. The electrical superintendent testified: It was basically the same with everyone I talked to. I wanted to point out to everyone the length of the job because I didn't want anyone giving up a job that they were holding for a short term job. Mitch Williams knew his promotion was temporary and would end once the projects with the February 1. 1996 deadline were completed. Which is contained in its employee handbook. Working time is defined in the employee handbook
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/06/061892U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He was the sole occupant of the Parascender II. 14 C.F.R. § 103.1 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200706/05-5279a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the brief was Brian Wolfman. Korfhage were on the brief for amicus curiae Experimental Aircraft Association. On the brief were Jeffrey A. With him on the brief was Emily M. The FAA determined the requested material was a trade secret and withheld the information pursuant to Exemption 4 of the FOIA. The Tenth Circuit assumed without deciding that revocation would have such an effect. Preferring to wait until the Government moved for summary judgment before determining whether discovery was appropriate in this case. That Taylor was precluded by the doctrine of res judicata from bringing this claim because he had been
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1621.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.S.C.</SPAN> were on brief. Were on brief. The parties have filed cross appeals which raise difficult questions about the lawfulness and proper scope of the injunction in light of arguably conflicting federal statutes that. That Puerto Rico's restrictions on delivery were preempted by federal law. That an administrative fine imposed by the Secretary was invalid and unenforceable. The Secretary also makes an alternative argument that the injunction is overbroad. Factual and Procedural Background</STRONG></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/3422efc89dbc107988256c380004c2ee/$FILE/0015223.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs contend it was error for the district court to entertain United's motions for forum non conveniens because the Warsaw Convention. The judgments of the district court dismissing these actions on the ground of forum non conveniens are reversed. PROCEDURAL HISTORY These related cases were brought by passengers on United Air Lines Flight 826. Which was scheduled to fly from Tokyo. We have no occasion to decide whether state courts may apply their own doctrines of forum non conveniens to actions arising under the Warsaw Convention. 1 HOSAKA v. In some cases family members who were not passengers on the flight. We have jurisdiction over these appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we reverse. If the plain text is ambiguous. All 18 cases are consolidated for the purposes of this appeal. 2 14282 HOSAKA v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199906/98-1051a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Douglas S. With him on the brief were Frank W. Is whether s 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act required the FAA to proceed by way of notice and comment rule making rather than by announcement in the Federal Register. Fishing and hunting are big business in the State of Alaska. It is common for a fishing or hunting guide to serve as the pilot of the light aircraft typically used in these operations. Consistently advised guide pilots that they were not governed by regulations dealing with commercial pilots. Regulations then in effect said that a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0461p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because the FAA reasonably interpreted the waiver provision and because the Air Show's other challenges to the waiver decision are unconvincing. The Administrator also may enact regulations and orders without notice or formal rulemaking when
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199903/98-1109a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Robert E. With him on the brief were Frank W. With him on the brief was Carlene V. Hahn were on the brief for amicus curiae Airports Council International North America. Each eligible airport related project must serve one of three purposes: the one relevant here is to preserve or enhance capacity. That the amount and duration of the proposed fee will not result in revenue that is more than the amount necessary to finance the specific project. This additional information was not disclosed to the petitioner or to any other interested party. The FAA was persuaded by the supplemental information provided to it ex parte by the Port Authority after the close of the comment period. The FAA also explained that it was approving the project only in part because it had identified certain costs such as maintenance and storage facilities and any equipment needed for fare collection that would be ineligible for PFC revenue. The FAA approved the total cost of the project under condition that the Port Authority submit adequate detailed design and cost information to the FAA after design is complete and before construction is begun to enable a determination of ineligible costs.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/06/043065P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Brought this action alleging he was not rehired because of age and sex discrimination. We conclude that the dismissal was premature and remand for further proceedings. I. Coons worked as an air traffic controller at the Minneapolis Air Route Traffic Control Center from 1970 to 1981 and was a member of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO). He was dismissed. Coons applied for rehire in 1993 and indicated that he was interested in employment at the Minneapolis center. Coons was one of the candidates on the list. Although the Minneapolis center did not notify anyone on the list that it was hiring. Who was 55 years old at the time. He alleges that no one over the age of 55 was offered a position and that the only 2 women on the 98 person candidate list were hired. In this action Coons has not alleged discrimination on the basis of race. 2 1 Coons alleges that he never received notification that air traffic controllers from the PATCO register were being rehired by the Minneapolis center in 1998 and that he first learned on December 19.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-5070.html">CURT READ V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200404/03-1185a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2271.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. It is an air carrier certified by the Federal Aviation Commission. Each of Southwest's air ambulances are generally staffed with an emergency medical technician paramedic (EMTP) and a registered nurse (RN). Asserting that they were denied overtime compensation in violation of section 207(a)(1) of the FLSA. Was not applicable to them because the RLA. Plaintiffs were neither union members nor subject (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Concluding that Southwest was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Summary judgment is appropriate
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199810/97-1274b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nagin were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Jr. were on the brief for intervenor American Airlines. Were on the brief for intervenor Dade County Flori da. Salinger were on the brief for amicus curiae Airports Council International North America. 1997) [hereinafter
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199807/97-1274a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nagin were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Jr. were on the brief for intervenor American Airlines. Were on the brief for intervenor Dade County Flori da. Salinger were on the brief for amicus curiae Airports Council International North America. 1997) [hereinafter
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200401/02-5304a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2002/013135.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At issue in this proposed class action is the extraterritorial scope of the Sherman Antitrust Act and its application in this case. We will affirm. I. The major United States air carriers have delegated the licensing of travel agents to their trade association. IATA was founded in 1945 by the then major global airlines. With the goals of promoting international air transportation and providing a 3 agents must have an IATA license to access reservation systems of United States based airlines. The travel agent's commission is automatically computed from a database in the airline's electronic system. The Passenger Tariff Coordinating Conference is an IATA committee of airline company representatives who determine and fix the commission rates for travel agents. Provided such immunity was found to be required in the public interest. Agreements affecting foreign air transportation were approved and immunized by the CAB under broad public interest standards. United Airlines are members of the Passenger Tariff Coordinating Conference.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022130.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Our discussion of the facts giving rise to the underlying lawsuit will be abridged. Because his wife was suffering through a difficult pregnancy and was due to deliver in December 1994. Starting when the baby was born.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/02/051063P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Fox stated that Johnson was unable to work any type of schedule and recommended long term disability benefits. Khan stated that Johnson's points of tenderness were also consistent with fibromyalgia. He further observed that there was no synovitis in Johnson's wrist joints and that she had good grip in her hands. Khan noted that he was concerned that Johnson might be complaining of pain because she wanted disability benefits. Were inconsistent with a diagnosis of fibromyalgia. Fox on the question of whether Johnson was actually disabled. When her short term disability benefits were terminated. Are insufficient to provide proof of disability.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2002/003635.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
IIC argued to the New Jersey District Court that the New Jersey action should have been barred as a compulsory counterclaim that Transamerica should have raised in the Texas action. Transamerica claimed that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(a) is inapplicable because IIC was not a named
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/993AA98F3941918588256E710064A350/$file/0135784.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: We must decide whether the federal courts have jurisdiction to hear this wrongful death claim arising out of a plane crash in Indonesia that resulted in the deaths of plaintiff's parents. The tickets were clearly labeled
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/024730.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 3 the space between the words
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-1220a.html">COM EFFECTIVE CELL V. FCC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/11/983444P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was eligible for coverage under the terms of MedLife's group policy. I. BACKGROUND MedLife is a subsidiary of Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Ohio. Was added to the policy group as a policyholder employer. Decedent was the chief executive officer of CEC Designs and several other unrelated business enterprises. Decedent was eligible for basic life insurance coverage in the amount of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200011/99-1515a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the briefs was Timothy Sullivan. With him on the brief were David W. Wittie was on the brief for intervenor Informa tica of America. That its key findings of fact are unsupported by substantial evidence. That its disregard of evidence was arbitrary and capricious. Testing of aviation programs.1 The solicitation informed pro * Senior Judge Silberman was in regular active service at the time of oral argument. 1 The FAA's Acquisition Management System was developed in response to Congress' directive
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200005/99-1314a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was L. With her on the brief were David W. The bidding was reopened. Fel low teammates were Innovative Solutions International (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1551.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Facts Petitioner is a certified flight instructor employed by a fixed base operator at the Beverly. Petitioner did not hesitate because she was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-1344a.html">CITY OF LOS ANGELES V. DOT<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/oct96/95-5184.wpd.html">SCHMELING V. NORDAM<BR></A><BR>
NORDAM is an air repair station. Because we conclude that federal courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction over Schmeling's suit. Which was approved by the FAA. Schmeling alleges that he was terminated in part. NORDAM counters that its reason for letting Schmeling go was his abusive treatment of one of NORDAM's secretaries. His first claim is that NORDAM intentionally violated Oklahoma's Standards for Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1227.html">BURNSIDE-OTT AVIATION V. DALTON<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1335.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Meyer & Soloman were on brief for Conservation Law Foundation. P.A. were on brief for Town of Newington. Were on brief for the federal parties. Were on brief for State of New Hampshire and Pease Development Authority. Senior District Judge. whether defendants have complied with various federal environmental laws that apply to the conversion of land on Pease Air Force Base (Pease) in New Hampshire to civilian use incident to the base's closure. Several other interested parties have intervened and. Plaintiffs have appealed from the dismissal of their CAA claims and the denial of injunctive relief. The federal defendants have cross appealed from the finding that they violated CERCLA. Have not appealed the district court's order directing them to prepare a Supplemental FEIS. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. Also before us are petitions filed by CLF and Newington to review an order of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approving PDA's airport development plan. We have jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. app. 1486(a) and deny the petitions with respect to the CAA claim and retain jurisdiction of the NEPA claim pending completion of the Supplemental FEIS.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982521.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The question before this Court is which of two competing security interests should be granted priority. Maryland National Bank (later NationsBank) was the first creditor to receive a security interest in the aircraft in exchange for a loan to the Debtors.1 Crestar became the second creditor to receive an interest in the aircraft on February 2. Crestar had forfeited its priority and Blair's interest was now superior to Crestar's. Crestar was not required to refile with the FAA. The sole issue before this Court is a question of law. Was Crestar required under federal and Virginia law to refile with the FAA five years after the day it filed its initial security interest to maintain the priority of its security interest? We conclude that Crestar was not required to refile and affirm the judgment of the district court. Blair argued on appeal that while the perfection of a security interest in an aircraft is governed solely by federal law. The priority of a perfected security interest is governed by state law.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200106/00-1296a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Curtis L. With her on the brief were John H. With her on the brief were James B. The Oscoda plant is the largest. Was seeking to organize the employees at the Northern Plants. It is not clear that the Supreme Court's access cases foreclose the Board's interpretation that s 7 confers upon off site employees some measure of free standing. The Board's decision on this point is supported by substantial evidence. Supervisors from the East Tawas plant request ed them to leave the premises because they were trespassing on private property. Petitioner presented evidence that its no access policy was both neutral and justified. There was one excep tion: relatives or friends of employees could enter the park ing lot to pick up/drop off East Tawas employees as long as they did not exit their vehicles. The ALJ was unpersuaded by ITT's evidence. Other outside nonworking areas will be found invalid.'
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-5117.html">INTERNATIONAL AIR RESPONSE V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/04/962761P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Astraea made numerous phone calls to Northwest's offices in Minnesota during this refurbishment contract was executed by the parties in Minnesota. contract was amended by a letter agreement in March 1994. Under which Astraea was to provide routine maintenance for some Northwest aircraft. United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 2 2 After the contracts were executed. There were delays in completing the aircraft. Including defective parts and a leaky fuel line and undetected tail crack on one of the aircraft. statements were included in an article in the Minneapolis newspaper. Copies of the article were faxed to Northwest employees in Texas. A suit is commenced when it is filed. The counterclaims filed in this action are basically identical to the claims asserted by Astraea in its Texas complaint. 3 3 breached the contracts by delivering the planes late and not performing to specifications. The parties Astraea to the breach of contract claims and moved for summary judgment on the counterclaims. settled the remaining claims which were dismissed with prejudice. counterclaims.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1995/94a0946p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Their appeals were first heard by a panel of this court. Which was granted as to both issues. We will overrule our ruling in DiLoreto. [fn1] and we will affirm the convictions. That was in the process of a Chapter 7 liquidation proceeding.[fn2] Zehrbach retained the Pittsburgh investment banking firm. He was assigned to Zehrbach's project. Was brought in to help with financing. Who agreed to become a limited partner in an association in which Zehrbach was to be the general partner. The bankruptcy trustee for Taylorcraft was Charles Szybist. Because the names of the bidders were released. The Zehrbach group was in a position to contact the other bidders. He did not hesitate to follow Zehrbach's instructions because Zehrbach was a bankruptcy expert who
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19964430.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was a passenger on Lufthansa Flight 463. Samuel Fischmann was best suited to handle the situation. Precisely what symptoms either were evident to Dr. Fischmann or were conveyed to Dr. Fischmann by Krys is a matter of some dispute. We resolve appellant's challenge to these fact findings in our discussion below. 1 * concluded after his initial examination of the patient that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1998/98a1893p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That the First Amendment was not violated because the advertising space at issue did not constitute a public forum and because SEPTA acted reasonably in removing the posters. We have determined that SEPTA intended to create a designated public forum. I. Background SEPTA is an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-5048.html">NATC V. US<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3422EFC89DBC107988256C380004C2EE/$file/0015223.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs contend it was error for the district court to entertain United's motions for forum non conveniens because the Warsaw Convention. The judgments of the district court dismissing these actions on the ground of forum non conveniens are reversed. PROCEDURAL HISTORY These related cases were brought by passengers on United Air Lines Flight 826. Which was scheduled to fly from Tokyo. We have no occasion to decide whether state courts may apply their own doctrines of forum non conveniens to actions arising under the Warsaw Convention. 1 HOSAKA v. In some cases family members who were not passengers on the flight. We have jurisdiction over these appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we reverse. If the plain text is ambiguous. All 18 cases are consolidated for the purposes of this appeal. 2 14282 HOSAKA v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2000/97-8838.ma3.html">CHAPMAN V. AI TRANSP. (10/2/2000, NO. 97-8838)<BR></A><BR>
Chapman's ADA claims were tried before a jury. Those issues have to do with an employer's ability to select its own criteria for making employment decisions and with the permissibility of using subjective criteria. As we will explain in due course. It turns out that general corporate credibility issue is not presented by the record. While we have the case. We will also use it to decide whether a district court may consider a losing party's financial status in awarding costs to the prevailing party.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2000/97-8838.ma3.html">CHAPMAN V. AI TRANSP. (10/2/2000, NO. 97-8838)<BR></A><BR>
Chapman's ADA claims were tried before a jury. Those issues have to do with an employer's ability to select its own criteria for making employment decisions and with the permissibility of using subjective criteria. As we will explain in due course. It turns out that general corporate credibility issue is not presented by the record. While we have the case. We will also use it to decide whether a district court may consider a losing party's financial status in awarding costs to the prevailing party.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2616.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Georges</SPAN> was on the brief. Was on the brief for appellee United States. Were on the brief for appellee Commonwealth of Massachusetts. LLC</SPAN> was on the brief. Concluding that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by principles of res judicata and sovereign immunity. Other obstacles that were on the Brenemans' side of the property line. While their superior court case was pending. Complaining that they learned during discovery that the Airport's runway was longer than the length listed in the New York Section Chart for Pilots. While their permit application with MAC was still pending. Concluding that the FAA's fence study was purely advisory in nature and that the plaintiffs had not suffered any actual harm from its publication. Observing that MAC's denial of the Brenemans' hill permit was based in part on the FAA study. The court concluded that the study was committed to agency discretion and thus was unreviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/07/953851U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Morrow claims he was terminated by the defendant. Was returning to the landing site and asked Morrow to meet him to initiate a training flight. He claims he asked for a shut down in order When Morrow was to perform a preflight inspection required by federal regulations. Morrow was not in uniform. disciplined. Allegedly because he was two hours and ten minutes short of the Federal Aviation Administration's ten hour rest requirement provided in 14 C.F.R. § 135.271(b). Morrow did not tell Craig he was two hours short of the tenhour requirement. Morrow was terminated in May 1992. Craig's evaluation in December [H]is 1991 stated that Morrow's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1608.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellee. The disposition of which was deferred pending the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. The lights were powered by a car battery. Both agents were seriously wounded. Escobar's fingerprints were on one of the lamps. More than sixty gallons of the aviation fuel which had been brought to the farm by Flores were gone. Was introduced to Escobar. The suitcases were seized upon arrival in New York by federal authorities. Who was the third ranking member of Escobar's organization and had fallen out of favor with Escobar. Escobar was in repeated telephone contact with several individuals. The flight was intercepted by Coast Guard and Customs Service aircraft. Mesa informed Escobar by telephone that a shipment of cocaine was ready for delivery and that he should arrange to receive it. Escobar was arrested. The statute provides: [A] person is engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise if (1) he violates any provision of [the federal drug laws. ] this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter the punishment for which is a felony.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199912939.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. ISS was a distributor of. ISS was the sole distributor of aviation wire to Shannon from 1990 through 1995. ISS did not have a written distributorship agreement with Austral. Austral agreed to end its relationships with other independent distributors in the United States and to instruct its direct customers that orders within the continental United States would have to be placed with EIS. The elements of tortious interference with a business relationship are: (1) the existence of a business relationship that affords the plaintiff existing or prospective legal rights. It generally requires
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200203/00-5458a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Camilla C. With him on the brief were Roscoe C. Stella is an employee of the Federal Aviation Administration (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="365"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200204/99-1507a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Lois J. We conclude that Stratford lacks prudential standing to pursue its claims that the FAA's Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was inadequate under the National Environ mental Policy Act1 and that its remaining claims are without merit. Stratford's petition is therefore denied. The airport is bounded by wetlands and the Stewart B. Across Main Street from the airport is the Stratford Army Engine Plant (SAEP). Stratford and Bridgeport have had a number of disputes over the airport. Which is the primary one. Re placing the concrete is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0309p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Contending that the order was based on insufficient evidence to revoke his license and that he was denied due process of law. Kratt was unaware that he could lose his pilot's license by pleading guilty and feared that if he did not plead guilty. The government would show that the defendant's aircraft was being surveilled from south Texas to the Holly Springs Airport by a chase plane operated by the U.S. Were unsuccessful. The defendant's plane took off headed for the Holly Springs Airport where the plane [was] abandoned after landing. Although his primary job is selling cars. Only later did Kratt learn that Andre Johnson was transporting marijuana from Texas to Memphis. Kratt first landed his plane at an airport in Mississippi where customs officials were waiting for him. Garvey No. 02 3324 The government would show through testimony and documentary evidence that approximately 200 pounds of marijuana was seized from the area immediately surrounding the airplane along with the flight log and flight bag and other documentation linking the defendant to the abandoned airplane.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0147p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
File Name: 00a0147p.06 Michigan courts have held that to maintain a cause of action for tortious interference. A plaintiff must establish that defendant was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec99/97-5208.man.html">UNITED STATES V. CHASTAIN (12/30/1999, NO. 97-5208)<BR></A><BR>
The counts were as follows: Count I charged all four Appellants and co defendant Beatty with conspiracy to import marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a)<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/064981np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The order was subsequently upheld by Chief Administrative Law Judge William E. Furline's appeal to the full National Transportation Safety Board (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug97/96-4430.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C72B8570A5CAE2CA88256BE6004EB1F1/$file/0055027.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is withdrawn and replaced by the attached opinion. The Oil Companies' petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Is also DENIED. Circuit Judge: We are asked to decide who must pay for cleaning up the McColl Superfund Site in Fullerton. The site was contaminated with hazardous waste associated with the production of aviation fuel during World War II. Contending that the United States was liable for cleanup costs. The district court held that the Oil Companies were liable as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A6AE4C85241C517C88257101007B72EB/$file/0415736.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
GONZALES 1141 ment of the Government's civilian airline passenger identification policy is unconstitutional. The identification policy requires airline passengers to present identification to airline personnel before boarding or be subjected to a search that is more exacting than the routine search that passengers who present identification encounter. He was not allowed to board his flights to Washington. It is vague and uncertain and therefore violated his right to due process. He also alleges that when he was not allowed to board the airplanes. The current federal defendants have been substituted for the originally named defendants pursuant to Fed. Are collectively referred to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A5D1F88B10778A5C882573210056CD54/$file/0516173.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that our review of Ordinance 1221 is limited by the Nevada Supreme Court's decision in McCarran Int'l Airport v. A portion of the property was zoned as Rural Estates Residential (R E). The County partially conditioned approval of the Landowners' rezoning request on the Landowners' granting of the following avigation easement: [The County] is to have a perpetual right of flight. It is further understood and agreed that the grantor himself. The parties did not complete the rezoning and the First Easement was not recorded. The Landowners filed another rezoning request with the County to have the R E property reclassified as H 1. The County conditioned its approval of the Landowners' rezoning request on the Landowners' granting the following avigation easement: It is understood and agreed that [the County is] to have perpetual right of flight. It is further understood the GRANTOR does hereby agree for himself to release Clark County. 47 foot casino and three 76 foot hotel buildings would penetrate the approach slope for proposed Runway 1R and thus
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-5115.html">COMTROL, INC V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9FBE24680B0E858C88256E390060D51D/$file/0155676.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is a CERCLA contribution case.1 The appellants were found to have arranged. Was once a ranch owned by the Wardlows. Had been going farther and farther afield from their Long Beach locations for disposal sites because the stink of acid tar was notoriously offensive to The Comprehensive Environmental Response.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTAxODItY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-0182-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Some were passengers on the hijacked airplanes. Others were present at the World Trade Center (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200416729.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The Plaintiffs are thirteen aircraft mechanics who were issued airmen certificates pursuant to powers granted by Congress to the FAA. 49 U.S.C. §§ 44702. The FAA was unable to determine which of the mechanics who received their certificates from the implicated school had been fraudulently certified. 000 other mechanics who had been certified at the school during the relevant time period) stating that reexamination of their airmen competency was necessary under 49 U.S.C. § 44709. Requires the FAA to provide each mechanic with an opportunity to be heard as to why he should not have to submit to reexamination. The Plaintiff mechanics maintain that the 3 statutory scheme the FAA relies upon is inapplicable in a case like this. The district court's decision to grant a preliminary injunction is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Its application of law is reviewed de novo. DISCUSSION The outcome of this case is dictated by Supreme Court precedent that the parties never cited to the district court that issued the injunction.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/74F5B8153F466FCC88256C5400515D76/$file/0017374.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That prejudgment interest is not allowable under the Warsaw Convention. We hold that prejudgment interest is available under the Warsaw Convention and that the district court properly awarded such interest to make full restitution to the injured party. K&N issued a single air waybill covering the entire shipment and stating that there was no apparent damage to the cargo prior to transport. K&N noted that a portion of the cargo was damaged. Motorola was forced to replace the equipment at a cost of $459. The total weight of the shipment was 12. The weight of the damaged crate was approximately 680 kilograms. The liability limitation would be calculated according to the weight of the entire shipment and not just that of the damaged portion if Motorola proved at trial that the damaged portion of the cargo affected the value of the entire shipment.3 The court left for trial the questions of whether the overall shipment was affected and the extent of damage done to the property. The judge and counsel for all parties signed the order and agreed that certain legal issues were resolved by the summary adjudication order and on both the factual and legal issues to be resolved at trial.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr96/95-4160.wpd.html">ANDERSON V. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVS.<BR></A><BR>
I This litigation is before this court for the third time. Argued that the information was confidential and should not be released. Shortly before the district court was to conduct an in camera inspection of the remaining disputed documents. Was no longer asserting a claim of confidentiality. Plaintiff was concerned. The district court assured plaintiff that she could still pursue her fee application even if the merits of the case were dismissed as moot and specifically reserved the fee issue in its final order on the merits. We stated that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/10/03-4115.htm">03-4115 -- BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON INC. V. HELIQWEST INTERNATIONAL -- 10/07/2004<BR></A><BR>
Which was conducting heli logging operations near Mt. Plummeted immediately to the ground and was completely destroyed. Canada where some of the relevant parties are citizens. Given the large number of actors with ties to the helicopter it is unsurprising that there are questions about whether the Utah long arm statute permits personal jurisdiction over Copter Lease. Whether there is personal jurisdiction over Copter Lease in Utah determines. Because we find that Copter Lease is not subject to personal jurisdiction in Utah we also find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment action. The helicopter was destroyed in service in 1976. Which was not an original part. Was manufactured by Textool. It was installed on the helicopter in 1993. The United States Forest Service requires its contractors to have a U.S. registration number. While the exact nature of the relationship between Copter Lease and Eagle Copters is unclear. The
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199912844.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which were intended for export to Brazilian companies. The cargo was in the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199912844.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which were intended for export to Brazilian companies. The cargo was in the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19982651.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
They contended that they were immune from suit under the doctrines of absolute and qualified immunity. I. Joseph Macuba was. Part of his job was to investigate complaints against builders and the failure of his co workers to enforce county building codes. This was not the first time that an investigation conducted by Macuba resulted in inquiries from the media. He was elected in November. Matthew sent an anonymous letter criticizing Macuba to the Board of Commissioners.1 Appellant Michael Youseff was elected to the Board of County Commissioners in November 1992. 2 Youseff asked Spatz where he was obtaining the information for his stories. Spatz revealed that Macuba was one of his principle sources. Youseff wrote the county attorney that Macuba was responsible for some of Spatz's criticism of the county government. All four were administered separately. This would save resources and provide owners and contractors with
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19982651.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
They contended that they were immune from suit under the doctrines of absolute and qualified immunity. I. Joseph Macuba was. Part of his job was to investigate complaints against builders and the failure of his co workers * Honorable Myron H. This was not the first time that an investigation conducted by Macuba resulted in inquiries from the media. He was elected in November. Matthew sent an anonymous letter criticizing Macuba to the Board of Commissioners.1 Appellant Michael Youseff was elected to the Board of County Commissioners in November 1992. 2 Youseff asked Spatz where he was obtaining the information The letter is apparently not in the record. Neither the record nor the parties' briefs indicate the nature of the criticisms. 2 1 The record is unclear with respect to the date. 2 for his stories. Spatz revealed that Macuba was one of his principle sources. Youseff wrote the county attorney that Macuba was responsible for some of Spatz's criticism of the county government. All four were administered separately.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19975208.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The counts were as follows: Count I charged all four Appellants and co defendant Beatty with conspiracy to import marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a)2 and 9633. The commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy. 4 Section 841(a)(1) states: Except as authorized by this subchapter. The commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy. 6 Section 2 states: (a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids. Is punishable as a principal. Is punishable as a principal. 7 Section 46306(c)(2) and (c)(3) states: (c) Controlled substance criminal penalty. (2) A person violating subsection (b) of this section shall be fined under title 18. If the violation is related to transporting a controlled substance by aircraft or aiding or facilitating a controlled (continued...) 3 On March 26. All of the Appellants were sentenced by the district court and are presently incarcerated.8 Each Appellant appeals several aspects of his trial. Or facilitating (A) is punishable by death or imprisonment of more than one year under a law of the United States or a State.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19975208.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The counts were as follows: Count I charged all four Appellants and co defendant Beatty with conspiracy to import marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a)2 and 9633. The commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy. conspiracy to possess intent to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)4 and 8465. The commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy. 6 Section 2 states: (a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids. Is punishable as a principal. Is punishable as a principal. 7 Section 46306(c)(2) and (c)(3) states: (c) Controlled substance criminal penalty. (2) A person violating subsection (b) of this section shall be fined under title 18. If the violation is related to transporting a controlled substance by aircraft or aiding or facilitating a controlled substance violation and the transporting. Or facilitating (A) is punishable by death or imprisonment of more than one year under a law of the United States or a State. Or (B) that is provided is related to an act punishable by death or imprisonment for more than one year under a law of the United States or a State related to a controlled substance (except a law related to simple possession of a controlled substance).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/30F3350F9CB7940B8825724300810230/$file/0476454.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because Jones was decided after this case was briefed. We have jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. § 1153(a). The FAA sent two letters of investigation by certified mail addressed to Tu's address of record.1 Each letter stated the FAA was investigating whether Tu had flown below the minimum proscribed safe altitudes over Mount Rushmore National Memorial and Crazy Horse Mountain on September 23. Electronic verification that an article was delivered or that a delivery attempt was made. . . . Certified Mail is dispatched and handled in transit as ordinary mail.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/05/03-3183a.htm">03-3183A -- ESPOSITO V. U.S. -- 05/26/2004<BR></A><BR>
Esposito alleges that his death was the result of negligence by United States government employees. Esposito is deceased and therefore lacks capacity to pursue an action for wrongful death. The mistake was not an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/05/03-3183.htm">03-3183 -- ESPOSITO V. U.S. -- 05/26/2004<BR></A><BR>
Esposito alleges that his death was the result of negligence by United States government employees. Esposito is deceased and therefore lacks capacity to pursue an action for wrongful death. The mistake was not an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2241.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
III were on brief. With whom Paven & Norton were on brief. I. BACKGROUND The facts are essentially undisputed. The second section also stipulates that any employee who believes his suspension or discharge is without
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec99/97-5208.man.html">UNITED STATES V. CHASTAIN (12/30/1999, NO. 97-5208)<BR></A><BR>
The counts were as follows: Count I charged all four Appellants and co defendant Beatty with conspiracy to import marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a)<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/08/983472P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Shortly after this action was filed. Louis airport tower was classified as a level IV facility and the full employment level (maximum pay grade) for a controller there was GS 13. Was classified as a GS 13. Hastings should then have appealed to the Office of Special Counsel. The FAA then amended its motion for summary judgment to include the argument that the case was moot because Hastings had already received the relief he was seeking from the court. Now acknowledges that Hastings is foreclosed from appealing to the Office of Special Counsel to do so. The government will not be heard to argue that the district court lacked jurisdiction due to Hastings's failure to exhaust remedies. We need not examine the administrative appeal process because the case is moot. Which is the only relief Hastings sought from the district court. Hastings argues that the case is not moot because the district court could still award back pay. The Supreme Court held that an award of back pay is not an available remedy for a violation of the Classification Act.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1548a.html">CITY OF OLMSTED FALLS, V. FAA<BR></A><BR>
Lichman argued the cause for petitioner.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1644.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Clower were on brief for appellant Crocker. Dunnigan were on brief for appellee U.S. The plane was owned by the Club and was being operated by her then husband. Since the victim was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/03/982326U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which is completely within the FAA's discretion. Although we question whether the petition was untimely because it was filed one week rather than immediately after Reder's attorney received the ALJ's order denying the hearing. The FAA's 1995 denial and the medical records on which the denial is based are nearly four years old. The FAA comments that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2227.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1994 is corrected as follows: On page 16. That
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/08/952292P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were the project not implemented. If MAC were to do so. If Richfield is correct that the project in fact will shift very few flights to the southwest. Where most of the noise never will be. Where most of the noise will remain. Richfield contends that the EIS failed to examine the possibility that full implementation of the project will prove infeasible and that the project thus will have no significant impact at all but rather will leave the status quo essentially unchanged. It is axiomatic that. If a project will not significantly affect the environment. Thus if Richfield is correct that this project will not shift a significant number of flights to the southwest. Then the FAA need not have prepared any EIS. Much less one that exhaustively examines all the reasons why the project will leave the environment unaltered. We conclude that the EIS did not need to examine the factors that Richfield believes will prevent the project from shifting a substantial number of flights to the airport's southwest.2 In a related argument.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/96-4430.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1653.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Duffy were on brief for Aviation Associates. Ginoris Vizcarra de Lopez Lay and Lopez Lay & Vizcarra were on brief for Air Line Pilots Association International. *Of the District of Massaachusetts. This appeal is from a summary judgment of the district court enforcing an arbitrator's award. Is the collective bargaining unit for the airline pilots employed by Aviation Associates. Labor relations between the parties are governed by the Railway Labor Act. Wages and other conditions of employment of the AAI pilots were to be negotiated separately. They were to be submitted to binding interest arbitration. There was a further delay. Apparently due to the 1 The parties have ignored the provisions of 157 and 159. Compliance with the statute is not a prerequisite to the exercise of jurisdiction by the district court. ALPA consented to these delays but advised counsel that it was its position
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-3003.html">MICHAEL J. BROWN V. DEPT. OF THE NAVY<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were <u>Mark D. With her on the brief were <u>David W. Of counsel was <u>Maj. Brown was removed from his civilian position with the Marine Corps. That the penalty of removal was unjustified. Brown was removed from his position based on the charge that he had engaged in ". Brown while the major was deployed overseas.</p> <p ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/02/99-3192.htm">99-3192 -- MARTIN V. STITES -- 02/13/2001<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judges. <p> We must decide on appeal whether county established towing policies are preempted by federal law. Holding the sheriff's policies are not preempted by
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/11/061435P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Freeman was fired from his position as co CEO of Ace. The company was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/10/052184U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude that the FAA Administrator's decision is not final and thus is not a reviewable order within the meaning of section 46110.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/08/052008P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Dominic was taken into the custody of the Department of Family Services (DFS) on June 18. When that was unsuccessful Dominic was placed with John and Jennifer Dilley. The appellees were DFS employees: Alysha Friend was Dominic's case worker. Kristy Hardy was Friend's immediate supervisor. Charlene Valade was an out of home supervisor. Melissa Ridenhour was a hotline operator. Friend and Hardy asked the Dilleys about injuries they had noticed on Dominic's face and body and were told that Dominic had tripped while running outside the house with the Dilleys' son and that he had run into the corner of a dresser. Concerns were expressed regarding Dominic's injuries and his affect during visits. John Dilley called 911 to report that Dominic was having seizures. Dominic was found to be unresponsive and was airlifted to a hospital. Where he was treated for four and a half days. Valade was assigned by DFS to investigate possible abuse to Dominic by the Dilleys. Jennifer told Valade that the mark on Dominic's eye was the result of his running into the edge of a dresser several weeks earlier.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/051453P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Johnson is an inmate in the Missouri Department of Corrections. He was involved in a physical confrontation with David Webster and Stanley Swicord. United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 21 were employed by the Missouri Department of Corrections as. Which was prohibited in that institution. The individual accounts of the events which followed are inconsistent. Webster struck him with
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1023a.html">J.A. JONES MANAGEMENT SERVICES V. FAA<BR></A><BR>
</p> <p>were David W. </p> <p>Plan was responsible for determining whether offers met the </p> <p>technical requirements. All </p> <p>agree that if the Board was not unanimous. I think this was addressed adequately.". The chair called the contract specialist to </p> <p>inform her that the Board was still discussing Wackenhut's </p> <p> . The Board decided it was </p> <p>pointless to meet further. The contracting officer later deter </p> <p>mined that Wackenhut was the responsible. Low priced offeror </p> <p>deemed acceptable in all of the solicitation's technical areas. </p> <p>Wackenhut was awarded the contract.</p> <p>After hearing testimony about these events. Evaluator F's continued refusal to agree that Wackenhut </p> <p>was unacceptable. [i]t is undisputed that. The contracting officer was bound by the July </p> <p>26 unanimous disqualification of Wackenhut. Jones also </p> <p>challenges the contracting officer's determination that Wack </p> <p>enhut was qualified. May reverse only if </p> <p>the agency's decision is not supported by substantial evi </p> <p>dence.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/04/051464P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Case was the jail administrator and the other individual defendants were jailers employed by the county. It was discovered that Cotton had stabbed himself in the wrist approximately twelve times with a pencil and had written
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/03/051464P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Case was the jail administrator and the other individual defendants were jailers employed by the county. It was discovered that Cotton had stabbed himself in the wrist approximately twelve times with a pencil and had written
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/02/052337P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He was employed at the time by Global Material Services. The complaint asserts that Terex or its predecessor was responsible for the manufacture. Sale of the crane and was thus liable under strict liability. Robinson did not request a stay or assert that more discovery was necessary. We review for abuse of discretion a trial court's determination that a claim is ripe for summary judgment. Summary judgment is proper if there are no disputed issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A. Although discovery need not be complete before a case is dismissed. Summary judgment is proper only if the nonmovant has had adequate time for discovery. Nor any showing that a delay was justified. There exist three separate business entities that are relevant to an understanding of the potential theories for holding Terex responsible. (American Hoist) was the actual manufacturer of the crane. Which Terex says was manufactured in 1968. (American Crane) was incorporated in 1987.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2002/012897.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are not subject to federal certification and registration requirements. We will. An
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/08/033603U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because Petitioners have not shown reasonable grounds for failing to file a timely petition for review of the 1990 order and do not have standing to seek review of the 2003 order. A petition for review filed under § 46110 generally is not timely unless it is filed within sixty days of the issuance of the order. A court may allow a petition to be filed after the sixty day period only when
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1235.html">GARDINER, KAMYA & ASSOCIATES V. JACKSON<BR></A><BR>
Argued for appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>Peter D. Assistant Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Kenneth M. Associates P.C. ( GKA ) appeals the decision of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Board of Contract Appeals holding that a contract modification was not enforceable to retroactively reprice past performance of certain task orders.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>Gardiner. Indefinite quantity ( IDIQ ) agreement.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The contract was awarded pursuant to the Small </p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text align:justify. Including review and analysis of mortgage insurance claims to ensure the integrity of HUD s Single Family Mortgage Insurance Program.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Contract serv
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1998/98a2034p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We determine that the defendant airline's form letter advising a number of passengers that their tickets are considered to be stolen may be defamatory to the plaintiff travel agency that sold the tickets. We will reverse the District Court's dismissal of the plaintiff's defamation claims. Inc. was a travel agency in Princeton. Some of these tickets were purchased from an authorized agent for Delta Airlines by Taj Mahal which. On a number of occasions in 1996 when these tickets were presented at the airport in India for the return flight to the United States. The travelers were required to purchase new tickets and were given the following explanatory form letter:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/02/021425P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Alleging that she was unlawfully discriminated against in her employment on account of her gender and in retaliation for filing a sexual harassment complaint. The claims were tried before a magistrate judge and a jury. I. Sellers was employed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as an Air Traffic Control Specialist at Lambert Airport in St. Sellers alleged that she was subjected to a hostile work environment beginning in 1996 and lasting through the time of her termination in 1997. Who was also employed at Lambert. The workplace atmosphere at Lambert deteriorated as Sellers was subjected to on the job harassment. Sellers' case was tried during March 2000. When she was still employed by the bank. Would have a direct impact on the plaintiff's motion [for equitable relief]. The district court concluded that reinstatement was impractical because of the level of acrimony still present between Sellers and her coworkers. The Secretary argues that the district court abused its discretion in awarding Sellers front pay because her post termination conductthat is.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200707/06-5142b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. HABDI) contracted with Miami Dade County (Miami Dade or County) to construct and operate a commercial airport on surplus land forming part of what was then Homestead Air Force Base (Homestead). Even were we to direct the Air Force to convey the total surplus acreage. I. The Homestead property is located in southern Miami Dade County. The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission prepared a report recommending realignment rather than closure and the recommendation was approved by the 3 President and not disapproved by the Congress pursuant to DBCRA. The fourth was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct99/98-2651.man.html">MACUBA V. DEBOER (10/29/1999, NO. 98-2651)<BR></A><BR>
They contended that they were immune from suit under the doctrines of absolute and qualified immunity. We reverse.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> Joseph Macuba was. Part of his job was to investigate complaints against builders and the failure of his co workers to enforce county building codes. Questioned DeBoer about the situation.</P> <P> This was not the first time that an investigation conducted by Macuba resulted in inquiries from the media. He was elected in November. Matthew sent an anonymous letter criticizing Macuba to the Board of Commissioners.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/07/022912P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Cornish learned that the adulteration finding was based upon Department of Transportation (DOT) and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) memoranda issued to drug testing laboratories and medical review officers (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200606/05-1266b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Adkins were on brief. Was on brief. Were on 2 brief. Before October 2001 Customs was bound under the terms of its 1995 National Inspectional Assignment Policy (NIAP) and a National Labor Agreement (NLA) to bargain with NTEU Chapter 143 (Chapter 143) over changes in rotation and regular days off (RDOs) for its El Paso. Because the FLRA's decision is not arbitrary. The United States Customs Service was a part of the United States Department of the Treasury until the Homeland Security Act of 2002 transferred it to the United States Department of Homeland Security where it was renamed the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. The agency is permitted but not required to negotiate with the labor organization.'
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200602/04-1381a.pdf">O:\2005-2006 TERM\10-24-05 SITTING\CASINO AIRLINES V. FAA, 04-1381\OPINION\CASINO -- OPINION (FEB 1, 2006).WPD<BR></A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Steven L. With her on the brief was Peter J. We deny Casino's petition for review because we find that at least one of the grounds for the Board's decision was permissible. Who is authorized to issue an initial decision. 49 C.F.R. § 821.35(a).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200601/04-1436a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
O:\Slip\WP\2005\04 1436 FedEx16.omj.wpd
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Perry M. Hahn were on the brief for amicus curiae Airports Council International North America in support of petitioner. Richard Baron was on the brief for amicus curiae Quiet Technologies. Weigel were on the brief for amici curiae City of Naples and Collier County in support of petitioner. 2 John A. With him on the brief was Ellen J. Zimmerman were on the brief of amici curiae Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. Circuit Judge: This is a petition for judicial review of an order of the Associate Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration the FAA disqualifying the City of Naples Airport Authority from receiving grants under the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982. The City of Naples is a southern Florida community. The Naples airport is located within the city's boundaries. No tax or other fiscal revenues are earmarked for the airport. The city is responsible for zoning in the areas surrounding the airport within its municipal boundary. The county is responsible for zoning all other property immediately adjacent to the airport.
OPINION/ORDER
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 >
OPINION/ORDER
With her on the briefs was Barbara J. With him on the brief were David M. Finding that the agreement was only tentative and therefore not binding on the FAA. The Union argues that the Authority's decision (1) is unsupported by substantial evidence and (2) represents an unexplained departure from Authority precedent. We find that the decision is supported by substantial evidence and is not inconsistent with the Authority case law to which the Union directs us. At which point they appeared to have settled on the terms of an agreement. The heart of this dispute is whether the agreement was final. The Union argues that it was and the FAA was therefore legally bound to execute it. Asserting that the agreement was only tentative pending approval by the Office of Management and Budget. It is an unfair labor practice for an agency to refuse to negotiate with the representative of its employees in good faith. 5 U.S.C. § 7116(a)(5).
They contended that they were immune from suit under the doctrines of absolute and qualified immunity. We reverse.
I.
Joseph Macuba was. Part of his job was to investigate complaints against builders and the failure of his co workers to enforce county building codes. Questioned DeBoer about the situation.
This was not the first time that an investigation conducted by Macuba resulted in inquiries from the media. He was elected in November. Matthew sent an anonymous letter criticizing Macuba to the Board of Commissioners.
OPINION/ORDER
With her on the briefs was Berne C. Was on the brief for amicus curiae U.S. With her on the brief were John C. With him on the brief was Michael Schneiderman. Mattox were on the brief for amicus curiae Continental Airlines Corporation. Olmsted Falls contends that the FAA's approval was arbi trary and capricious. Olmsted Falls also argues that a supplemental environmental impact statement is required under NEPA. Because the FAA's approval of the Record of Decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Because no further documentation is required under NEPA. I. Background Cleveland Hopkins International Airport (
OPINION/ORDER
With her on the brief was Alice B. A growing retirement community and projected air traffic demand was outstripping the capacity of the existing airport. Three sites in addition to a no action alternative were examined. The Park is located approximately 25 miles northeast of St. George and is the preferred replacement airport alternative. Concluding that an environmental impact statement was unnecessary. Approvals that will allow St. It is the determination underlying this record of deci sion. That the proposed action will not significantly affect the environment of the Park. The essential disagreement between the parties is whether the FAA was required in its environmental assessment to address more than the incremental impact of the replacement airport as compared to the existing airport. An environmental assessment (
OPINION/ORDER
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 >
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were James P. With him on the brief were Wilma A. I Sloan and Furby were partners in a contracting business. After another contractor alleged that J&L was not complying with lead based paint abatement requirements. OIG auditor Mark Chandler was assigned to conduct a performance audit of the project. Chandler and HUD attorney Dane Narode visited Burns Heights and observed demolition techniques that would have been unacceptable in a project involving lead based paint including the failure to contain dirt. The landfill was not approved for the dumping of plaster. Its dumping would have created a health hazard. Who told Chandler that Burns Heights was a lead based paint abatement project. Indicate that McLean was mistak en. ACHA agreed that there was no need for its contractors and subcontractors to follow hazardous lead based paint protocols at Burns Heights or to dispose of demolition debris as contaminated waste. Chandler was not qualified to interpret the results. Which was issued by the OIG in October 1995.
OPINION/ORDER
With her on the brief were David W. An eight member Technical Evaluation Board following a Technical Evaluation Plan was responsible for determining whether offers met the technical requirements. All agree that if the Board was not unanimous. Evaluator F wrote on his scoring sheet:
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Frank W. Although Kropat was afforded substantial rights to pre hearing discovery (e.g. He claims that he was denied procedural due process because the FAA's Personnel Management System (
OPINION/ORDER
If not other subjects the contention is weaker than the one our opinion addressed. For it has long been understood that preemption is an affirmative defense. An argument that one or another state law is preempted does not permit removal. The petition for rehearing is denied.
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel was Wayne A. The removal action was taken after Mr. Baker was discharged from a substance abuse treatment facility. The decision of the Board is reversed. The case is remanded to the Board for further proceedings on that issue. Baker was formerly employed as an Air Traffic Control Specialist. He was arrested for possession of a controlled substance. The arrest came after authorities searched the vehicle he was driving and discovered a pipe and a container with a substance later confirmed to be methamphetamine. Baker was in custody tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine. possession of a controlled substance. Popper also stated: Consideration will participate in and Substance Abuse your agreement to . . . be given to your willingness to successfully complete a FAA approved Rehabilitation/Treatment Program and abide by the conditions of that program In the Mr. Baker was willing to participate in and successfully complete the rehabilitation/treatment program.
OPINION/ORDER
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Hatton is a veteran with a service connected disability that makes him eligible for civil service veterans' preferences. The FAA distributed an announcement stating that it had positions open for the job of Air Traffic Control Specialist and that interested applicants were required to take an entry level employment examination. Hatton would have been entitled to have ten extra points added to his examination score because of the veterans' preferences for which he was eligible. The administrative judge to whom the case was assigned dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction based on 49 U.S.C. § 40122(g). Hatton failed to satisfy the requirements of section 40122(g)(3) because he was an applicant. The petition was denied. Hatton argues that the Board has jurisdiction over his appeal because he has satisfied the requirements of 5 U.S.C. § 3330a and because that section is one of the exceptions to the FAA's general exemption from title 5. He is entitled to appeal to the Board under 49 U.S.C. § 40122(g)(3).
OPINION/ORDER
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Inc. (
OPINION/ORDER
All Level I ATC towers are. The order expressly states that it is
OPINION/ORDER
Appellees were indicted separately for making materially false statements on their applications for Secure Identification Display Area (SIDA) badges. After Appellees' motions to dismiss were considered separately by different judges. The district court dismissed both indictments on the basis that the allegedly false statements were not material as a matter of law. Slightly different versions of § 44936 were in effect when Baer and Chan signed their SIDA badge applications. The differences are not 1 UNITED STATES v. The following portion of § 44936 is relevant to this litigation: (b) Prohibited Employment. (1) . . . The individual was convicted (or found not guilty by reason of insanity) of (i) a crime referred to in section 46306. The statute and implementing regulations were administered by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). We will refer to the FAA as administrator of the statute and regulations. 4 UNITED STATES v. Subsection (b)(2) authorizes the administering agency to
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Peter D. Contends that he was twice
OPINION/ORDER
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. This action was filed after Gary Poulin (
OPINION/ORDER
Inc. have not appreciated this key point. That petitioner Brian Turgeau was not entitled to equitable tolling of his untimely filed federal administrative claim because his timelyÄand completely preemptedÄstate complaint asserted a different claim. Because the agency's stated reason for denying equitable tolling is invalid. The case is reversed. Because the agency does not argue that there is any (1) After examining the briefs and appellate record. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. further analysis of petitioner's claim for equitable tolling to be done. Petitioner Filed Suit Against His Former Employer in State Court Intervenor NORDAM is certified by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as an air repair station and manufacturer of aircraft partsÄin other words. NORDAM is a contractor for air carriers. NORDAM fired him because he complained to NORDAM that some of its manufacturing practices were outside the original manufacturer's specifications and violated FAA regulations.
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: We are asked to decide who must pay for cleaning up the McColl Superfund Site in Fullerton. The site was contaminated with hazardous wastes associated with the production of aviation fuel during World War II. Contending that the United States was liable for cleanup costs. The district court held that the Oil Companies were liable as
OPINION/ORDER
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. This matter is now before this court on Braden's timely petition for review. Braden's is requesting that this court either reverse the decisions of the ALJ and the Administrator or remand this matter for a new hearing. We conclude that Braden's is not entitled to the requested relief. We affirm. The Administrator accurately summarized the background facts pertaining to this appeal as follows: David Hankins is the owner of a Cameron sports model V 90 hot air balloon . . . . [Braden's] affirmative defense is that the portion of the balloon that it repaired is above and to the right of the area where the discrepancies were found. Braden's denies that it performed the maintenance and repairs on which the complaint was based. The Administrator's findings are conclusive if they are supported by substantial evidence.
OPINION/ORDER
The issue presented by this appeal is whether Stone was required to assert his ADA claim as a compulsory counterclaim in the already pending state court action such that his failure to do so now precludes him from raising that ADA claim in this later federal action. His ADA claim was not a compulsory counterclaim under Colorado law. This position required Stone to have a valid commercial driver's license (
OPINION/ORDER
Which was conducting heli logging operations near Mt. Plummeted immediately to the ground and was completely destroyed. Canada where some of the relevant parties are citizens. Given the large number of actors with ties to the helicopter it is unsurprising that there are questions about whether the Utah long arm statute permits personal jurisdiction over Copter Lease. Whether there is personal jurisdiction over Copter Lease in Utah determines. Because we find that Copter Lease is not subject to personal jurisdiction in Utah we also find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment action. The helicopter was destroyed in service in 1976. Which was not an original part. Was manufactured by Textool. It was installed on the helicopter in 1993. The United States Forest Service requires its contractors to have a U.S. registration number. While the exact nature of the relationship between Copter Lease and Eagle Copters is unclear. The
OPINION/ORDER
2007 at slip op. 8849 is hereby AMENDED as follows: Delete the paragraph at slip op. 8861 beginning
OPINION/ORDER
Is a pilot challenging the suspension of his pilot's certificate for operating a surplus military jet in violation of Federal Aviation Regulation. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Because NTSB's decision is not arbitrary or capricious and is supported by substantial evidence. The plane was in the
OPINION/ORDER
This dispute arises out of an incident in which the Bordelons' son was injured while attending a day care center located in Strassel's home. A district court's decision not to exercise its jurisdiction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. While its underlying legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. The district court must consider the following factors: (1) whether there is a pending state action in which all of the matters in controversy may be fully litigated. Abstention is permitted only when the factors set forth in Colorado River Water Conservation District v. Indicate that exceptional circumstances are present. (5) whether the federal court is a convenient forum for the parties and witnesses. (7) whether the federal court is being called on to construe a state judicial decree involving the same parties and entered by the court before whom the parallel state suit between the same parties is pending.
OPINION/ORDER
The aim of the project was to modify and upgrade a satellite based navigational system currently used by the military so that it could serve as the nation's primary flightcontrol system for civil aircraft. They agree that Wilcox encountered numerous and significant difficulties in performing the WAAS contract almost immediately after it was agreed to. One of the FAA's main concerns was with software development. The FAA did not investigate them further at that time because review of an important contract milestone was scheduled for the next month. It was unable to pass the review when it occurred. Wilcox's score was so low. This contract was awarded on a single source basis. That is. Was not in the best interests of the FAA. Was not supported by a rational basis. Is a new regulatory procurement system for the FAA. Was not arbitrary. It is important to note that Wilcox did not protest. In order to have standing to pursue a lawsuit in federal court. Demonstrate three things: That he or she has suffered an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized.
Argued for defendant appellee.With him on the brief were Peter D. Keisler. Assistant Director.Of counsel on the brief was Peter J. Hannums. Font family:Arial'>Appellants are supervisors and managers at the The jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act is limited to actual. Line height:200%'>.Appellants are not. Appellants do not have a contract with the on a contract to which they are not a party.See
OPINION/ORDER
When it denied petitioner's representatives access to its property to distribute
OPINION/ORDER
Cornish commenced an action challenging the validity of policy memoranda the Department of Transportation has issued to advise drug testing laboratories how to determine whether a urine sample is adulterated. Of all appeals in which . . . timely appeal briefs . . . have not been filed.
OPINION/ORDER
Bloom was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome. Her physician said the symptoms were work related. Bloom reported to Metro that she was experiencing pain. The doctor then reported to Metro that
OPINION/ORDER
Which is located southeast of Pittsburgh. The District Court held that the case was mooted by an amendment of the original zoning ordinance and therefore granted the Township's motion for summary judgement on all claims. Because we hold that this case is not moot. An antenna is located in the approximate center of a cell and the antenna transmits wireless signals to and from cell phone users in that cell. It is typically mounted on a tower or other tall structure. The perimeter of each cell is shaped by the topography surrounding the antenna. Where the terrain is flat. A cell is circular and several miles in diameter. Because each wireless company is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (
OPINION/ORDER
The NTSB found him in violation of 14 C.F.R. §§ 61.15 (d)(2) (motor vehicle action occurring within 3 years of previous motor vehicle action is grounds for suspension or revocation of any certificate) and 61.15(e) (requirement to provide written report of motor vehicle action to FAA within 60 days of action). The facts pertinent to our analysis are not in dispute. The NTSB's factual findings are adequately supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. We accord substantial deference to agency determinations and will affirm the decision unless it is arbitrary. That revocation was warranted. 61.15(f) (1999) (failure to comply with § 61.15(e) is grounds for revocation or suspension). 122 23 (8th Cir. 1991) (NTSB is given wide range of discretion in imposing sanctions). 1997) (administrative suspension of driver's license for refusal to take breath test is motor vehicle action. 120 day suspension was at low end of appropriate sanction range). 1031 (8th Cir. 1978) (per curiam) (holding revocation was not excessive: penalty was imposed for violation committed while petitioner's certificate was already suspended.
OPINION/ORDER
2007 NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Ellyn M. Appealed from: United States Merit Systems Protection Board NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. Plasai acknowledged in the agreement that she was represented by counsel during the settlement. That the agreement was made freely and fairly without any duress or bad faith negotiations. On the grounds that there was
Most of the American maintenance mechanics in Tulsa are subject to a Collective Bargaining Agreement (
OPINION/ORDER
AS HE IS A MEMBER OF AND CONSTITUTE THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF LEICESTER. AS HE IS A MEMBER OF AND CONSTITUTE THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF LEICESTER. AS HE IS A MEMBER OF AND CONSTITUTE THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF LEICESTER. AS SHE IS A MEMBER OF AND CONSTITUTE THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF LEICESTER. AS HE IS A MEMBER OF AND CONSTITUTE THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF LEICESTER. P.C. were on brief. That the Board's decision was not supported by
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: This case is a study in the politics and law of public art. Janette Hopper and Sharon Rupp are artists whose works were excluded from public display at the Pasco City Hall Gallery in Pasco. As the district court put it:
The Millses were officers and majority shareholders of a Medicare services provider. A reasonable jury could have found the following facts true based on the evidence. Some detail is necessary because of the harmless error and sufficiency of the evidence issues that are presented.
A. Background
The Medicare home health care system has three players. Are entitled only to return of their costs in exchange for their services. Aetna Life Insurance Company was First American's intermediary during most of the time period relevant here.
Providers generally receive biweekly payments in an amount based on quarterly figures of how many patients the provider has visited and how much each visit cost. This true up for years as far back as 1990 was incomplete at the time of trial.
Jack brought a businessman's outlook to this cost based system. Believing that Aetna was
OPINION/ORDER
761.48 made by Debtor to David Huddle and the Bank was an avoidable preferential transfer. The Trustee argues that the bankruptcy court erred in holding that the money paid by Debtor to Huddle and the Bank was held by the Debtor as an agent for its principal. It was therefore not property of the estate which the Trustee could recover under § 547. Background The underlying facts are summarized as follows. Debtor was a corporation in the business of auctioning personal property for its customers. Huddle's business assets were the security for a loan which had been made by the Bank to Huddle. Which was deposited in Debtor's general bank account. Seeking to set aside the payment made by Debtor to the Bank and Huddle on grounds that the payment was an avoidable preferential transfer under 11 U.S.C. § 547(b).2 The Trustee maintained that Huddle was a creditor and the money in dispute was property of the bankruptcy estate which should be distributed in the normal course of the bankruptcy proceedings. Debtor and Huddle were in an agent principal relationship.
OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The three 2350 men who died in the crash were subsequently identified as Brad Keilen. Because there were no eyewitnesses to the crash. The wreckage and bodies were discovered after five hours had elapsed. The appellants claimed that the crash was caused by a defect or defects in the Cessna airplane. Whereas Cessna claimed the accident was solely due to pilot error and negligence. Is defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous. This evidence included expert testimony that the T 303's fuel tank is constructed in a manner that permits air to enter the fuel lines in some circumstances. When the airplane's rate of turn and angle of bank are not balanced (a condition called
OPINION/ORDER
Both Thomas and Guin were in the cockpit piloting the plane. Guin was the flying pilot. Thomas was the nonflying pilot. Guin stated he was lowering the gear and moved the gear handle. Thomas saw the handle was in the down position. When the plane was near landing. Thomas noticed the gear down indicator light was not illuminated. A gear up landing was avoided. Thomas contends 14 C.F.R. § 91.13(a) is unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous as applied to him. Thomas argues there are no duties or responsibilities for acts or omissions of a second pilot on a single pilot aircraft. A regulation is unconstitutionally vague if it fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited. The regulation was clear enough to give Thomas notice that any careless conduct on his part was prohibited. Thomas does not challenge the ALJ's finding that he was actively involved in the aircraft's operation. Thomas also argues that even if this was a two pilot operation. He was entitled to rely on Guin's statement that he had lowered the landing gear.
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Steven H. Was on the briefs for appellant. With her on the brief were Roscoe C. Drake be lieves that Delta Airlines infringed his legal rights when it processed a random drug test that Drake was required to take by virtue of his flight attendant position. Concluding that they were barred by res judicata. This was error. The efforts of amicus curiae to convince us otherwise were ultimately unper suasive.* Drake's requests for information are moot. Because he has received all the documents to which he is entitled under the Freedom of Information Act (
OPINION/ORDER
An involuntary Chapter 11 petition for BEX's bankruptcy was filed with the New Hampshire bankruptcy court. Assuming that both of plaintiff's statutory claims were based on his anonymous complaint to the FAA. Plaintiff's supervisors had established that plaintiff's tardiness was a legitimate. Non retaliatory reason for his discharge and that plaintiff had failed to prove that this reason was a pretext.
OPINION/ORDER
S were on brief. Were on brief. Montijo Law Offices was on brief. East Caribbean was to furnish these services at divers times between September 22. Including Banco Popular de Puerto Rico and Citibank (alleged to have been depositories for certain funds that East Caribbean had agreed to escrow). Royal and Sun Alliance (the latter two defendants are allegedly East Caribbean's insurers). The court nonetheless found that the claims were barred by the applicable rule of timeliness.
OPINION/ORDER
The Trustee argues that the bankruptcy court erred in holding that the auction proceeds were held by Debtor as an agent for its principal. Therefore the funds were not property of Debtor's estate. We have simultaneously filed an opinion in an appeal from another adversary proceeding arising out of Debtor's bankruptcy filing. Background The underlying facts are summarized as follows. Debtor was a corporation in the business of auctioning personal property for its customers. Debtor deposited the proceeds from the sale in an account at the First National Bank of Omaha (hereinafter the First National account) which Debtor had specifically created for the purpose of holding auction proceeds. 2 The net proceeds from the Natkin auction sale were not remitted to Natkin within ten days after the sale. Since the date on which the proceeds from the Natkin sale were deposited in the First National account. Was $32. The balance in the First National account on the date of Debtor's bankruptcy filing was $45. The bankruptcy court stated that the relationship between an auctioneer and its customer is that of an agent and principal.
OPINION/ORDER
With her on the brief were Peter D. This is a pay conversion case. The appellants are ten current or former Federal Aviation Administration air traffic controllers who are seeking to recover pay lost due to the government's failure to provide them with a two step pay increase when they transferred to higher level airport facilities. The present dispute stems from the fact that the new compensation scheme was implemented before the privatization plan had been completed. The appellants were employed by the FAA as air traffic controllers at facilities designated as
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Pyles v. The district court dismissed the case on the grounds that appellant's claims are preempted by both the Railway Labor Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200201/00-1334c.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It is ORDERED that the petition for rehearing be granted and the interim final rule reviewed by the court be remanded without vacatur. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the opinion in Air Transport Association of Canada v. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk be directed to vacate the judgment filed July 13. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk be directed to issue the mandate herein seven days after issuance of this order.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1334c.html">AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF CANADA V. FAA<BR></A><BR>
It is <span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/10/953964P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appellants Dennis Loehrer and Stephen Brandt are former employees of appellee McDonnell Douglas Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july99/97-8838.man.html">CHAPMAN V. AI TRANSP. (7/13/1999, NO. 97-8838)<BR></A><BR>
Was promoted to claims supervisor shortly thereafter. Chapman was responsible. It is undisputed that the nature of claims operations changed under the leadership of Bill O'Brien. That he was experiencing stress related to business travel. Was advised that he needed to complete as many of these audits as possible by the end of the calendar year. His request for transfer to AIGCS was not limited to a particular job. Interviewed Chapman for the position of claims manager but offered the position to an AI Transport employee who was younger than Chapman. Wogsland and Turnquist believed that Chapman had not interviewed well and were concerned about his alleged
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1801.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will frequently refer to the Secretary and OSHA\ as the DOL.</p>\ </span>' var WPFootnote2 = '<span class=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/02/99-1460.htm">99-1460 -- U.S. V. MEDINA -- 02/05/2001<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Gilbert Medina pleaded guilty to an information charging him with theft of government property and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/03/953409P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. judgment of the district court. Paragraph 3 of the Agreement also specifically provided: That the Concession granted by this Agreement is not exclusive and Lessor shall have the right to deal with and perfect arrangements with any other individual company or corporation for engaging in like activity at the Airport. The larger companies paid a much smaller We AFFIRM the 2 percentage of sales in concession fees than the smaller companies because the concession fee was based on the number of deplaning passengers without regard to the sales or other indicia of market strength of each rental car company. companies. Changes were never made and the dispute continued. The state court action was removed to federal court at Dollar's request. The two actions were consolidated. The district court found Dollar failed to Dollar asserted this discrepancy was unfair. Is unfair. COMMERCE CLAUSE Dollar contends the rental fees for the counter space and parking spaces should be considered separately from the concession fees that are based on the number of deplaning passengers. as counter space and parking Although Dollar concedes the Commission is a market participant when it provides concession areas such 2 The Dollar In addition.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200107/99-1252a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Kenneth L. (Cerand) appeals from a judgment of the tax court predicated upon that court's conclusion that payments Cerand made to three of its sister corporations were intended to be capital contribu tions rather than loans. Background Gerard Cerand is the president and sole shareholder of Cerand. Many of the airports at which Cerand provides services are small and are not served by regularly scheduled flights. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued a notice of deficiency based upon his conclusion that the initial transfers from Cerand to its sister corporations were capital contributions rather than loans. In determining whether the transfers were loans or capital contributions.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2002/00-13811.opn.html">NAT'L R.R. PASSENGER CORP. V. ROUNTREE TRANSP. AND RIGGING, INC.(3/26/2002, NO. 00-13811)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1625.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Southwest Airlines remain as defendants. \ Two other domestic carriers (Northwest and Delta) have been\ dismissed due to ongoing bankruptcy proceedings. The international\ airlines named in the suit are Aer Lingus. Six remain (Olympic\ Airways appears to have been dropped as a party). The Federal\ Aviation Administration (FAA) also was named. Have their genesis in state law. </p>\ </span>' var WPFootnote5 = '<span class=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200106/00-5175a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Wilma A. United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed. The Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector General (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1156.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Healey and Healey & Stewart were on brief for appellants Dale Christman and Dorothy Christman. Keefe were on brief for Hughes Helicopters. P.C. were on brief for E.W. This is a diversity suit in which the plaintiff seeks damages for personal injuries sustained as a result of alleged negligence on the part of defendant E. Plaintiff contended that the helicopter he was piloting lost power and crashed as a result of defective repairs performed by the defendant Wiggins.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/May2004/May17/03-30892.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
PER CURIAM:* We affirm the judgment of the district court because Rule 60(b)(4) F.R.C.P. is not an appropriate vehicle for Eurocopter and AEC to challenge the sanctions order for the following reasons: 1. Appellants have not demonstrated why the proper vehicle for challenging the sanctions order was not a direct appeal from the final judgment. 622 challenge the district court's sanctions order does not comport with the purpose of the rule. a balance between preserving Rule 60(b)(4) is intended to strike the finality of a judgment and insuring that justice was done. The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/96opinions/96-1253a.html">AIR TRANS ASSN AMER V. DOT<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041816p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because we believe the District Court should have determined whether it had personal jurisdiction before ruling on Sinochem's forum non conveniens motion. An American company that is not a party to this action. The coils were required to be loaded for shipment to China by April 30. Triorient was required to submit a valid bill of lading stating that the coils had been loaded on or before April 30. To transport the steel coils to China.1 1 The Vessel was chartered from MISC to Progress Bulk Carriers. Was issued. On the back of the bill of lading were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug96/95-6384.opa.html">MAGNIN V. TELEDYNE CONTINENTAL MOTORS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Magnin v. Died in the crash of a private plane he was piloting in France. This appeal is an outgrowth of a products liability and wrongful death action brought by Oliver Dominique Gerard Marin Anthille Magnin. The complaint was filed in Alabama state court against two defendants: Teledyne Industries. A Teledyne employee and Alabama citizen.<p> The complaint alleged that Lachiver's fatal crash was proximately caused by Teledyne's and Smith's negligent inspection and wrongful certification of the aircraft's engine as airworthy. As the DMIR (Designated Manufacturing Inspection Representative) signed the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2000/99-10565.man.html">LAMB V. TURBINE DESIGNS (3/28/2000, NO. 99-10565)<BR></A><BR>
Plaintiffs brought this appeal.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/95-6766.opa.html">ERICSSON GE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. V. MOTOROLA COMMUNICATIONS & ELEC., INC.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Ericsson GE Communications. Is too speculative to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement of the diversity statute. Negotiated a new contract with Motorola.<p> Alleging among other things that the consultant hired by the City was biased in favor of Motorola and that he skewed the decision making process in that company's favor. EGE brought this action to enjoin the enforcement of the contract between Motorola and the City and to have itself declared the lowest responsible bidder. The district court concluded that the City's decision to purchase the APCO 25 technology was the result of improper influence exerted by Motorola on the City's decision makers and. We must determine whether this action properly was brought in federal court. At the time this action was filed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5024.html">ROBERT O. MUDGE V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were <u>Gregory O Duden</u>. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/11/976043P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Alleging that her pre petition transfer to him of a condominium unit was fraudulent in fact under 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1). Was for less than reasonably equivalent value under § 548(a)(2). The debtor withdrew the allegation that the transfer was fraudulent in fact and pursued only her claim that the transfer was for less than reasonably equivalent value. The bankruptcy court found that the transfer was for reasonably equivalent value and entered judgment for the defendant. trustee has not. In pertinent part: (a) The trustee may avoid any transfer of an interest of the debtor in property . . . that was made . . . on or within one year before the date of the filing of the petition. If the debtor voluntarily or involuntarily (2)(A) received less than a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for such transfer . . . and (B)(I) was insolvent on the date that such transfer was made . . . or became insolvent as a result of such transfer. . . . 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(2)(A) & (B)(I). 2 determine whether a debtor enjoys standing to bring an avoidance action under § 548.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041979p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1750.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: Page 22. Harder and Sherin and Lodgen were on brief for appellee. were on brief for appellee. Circuit Judge. whether either the chapter 7 debtor or an unsecured creditor possesses standing to appeal a bankruptcy court order authorizing the chapter 7 trustee to settle an adversary proceeding to which the appellants were neither original nor intervening parties. The proceedings were converted to chapter 7. Was sold by the chapter 7 trustee for approximately $1 million. Whereby *The judgments Malkemus obtained in the probate court following relief *The judgments Malkemus obtained in the probate court following relief from the automatic stay were captioned judgments of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1809.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Cranwell with whom Cranwell & O'Connell was on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellees. The independent contractor is required to pay its employees certain minimum wages and fringe benefits and to meet certain minimum standards of safety in working conditions.2 The failure of a contractor to comply with the SCA and the regulations promulgated thereunder3 may result in liability and debarment from contracting with the government for three years.4 Pursuant to the set aside program for minority contractors of Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act. 5 Vigilantes was awarded ten contracts to provide security 1. 41 U.S.C. 351 et seq. 2. 41 U.S.C. 351(a)(1). The complaint was amended in 1984 to include an allegation that Vigilantes failed to pay certain service employees overtime pay as required under the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act.7 Based on these violations. The DOL claimed that appellants were not only liable for the amounts owed. These tripartite agreements were between the government agencies as the contracting agencies.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/03/971659P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The FAA later admitted the employees'
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/96-4430.opa.html">KRYS V. LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Krys v. Was a passenger on Lufthansa Flight 463. Samuel Fischmann was best suited to handle the situation. Precisely what symptoms either were evident to Dr. Fischmann or were conveyed to Dr. Fischmann by Krys is a matter of some dispute. Fischmann concluded after his initial examination of the patient that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199912/98-5530a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Paul G. With him on the brief were Howard T. This is the second time that this court has had occasion to hear an appeal in this case. The District Court held that its judgment in the initial proceeding established the law of the case regarding the existence of clearly established law and that this was dispositive of the qualified immunity issue. The issue was settled as to these parties in this case. There was no good reason for the District Court to reexamine its judgment when the case was remanded for further proceedings. Is not fully dispositive of the issues raised by appellants' re newed motion for summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity. The District Court must now determine whether there are disputed issues of fact as to whether appellants violated the clearly established law either by intentionally segregating Mr. The judgment of the District Court on the law of the case issue is affirmed. The case is remanded for further proceedings to address the remaining issues on the qualified immunity claim and.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199912/98-1558a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Richard S. With him on the brief were David W. Chief Judge: The National Transportation Safety Board (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2274.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lawrence Inlow was struck in the head by a helicopter rotor blade as he disembarked from the aircraft owned by his employer. Claimed that the helicopter was a defective product under Indiana law because its manufacturer. The corporation is based in Carmel. Inlow was killed by the rotor blade as he made his way from the helicopter toward the private jet. A. The Dauphin Helicopter The helicopter involved in this case was a Dauphin AS365 N2. It was manufactured by Eurocopter. It is necessary to know a few basic facts about helicopters and. We will quote the helpful discussion: The lift that allows a helicopter to stay in the air is generated by the high speed flow of air over the main rotor blades. Which have a cross section of an airfoil. The four main rotor blades have an overall diameter of 38 feet. The rotor blades are made of a strong. The blades are subject to centrifugal and lifting forces that raise the plane of the disk in which the blades rotate. When the Dauphin helicopter involved in this accident is parked and its blades are not moving.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1646.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee. When confronted with the difficult task of determining how much in damages is too much. Was awarded $571. Anthony was struck from behind by a pallet on a loaded forklift driven by an employee of the defendant appellant. Anthony then went to a hospital where doctors took X rays of Anthony's leg and determined that it was not fractured. Anthony was 56 years old and had worked as a pilot for thirty years. His counsel stated at trial that he was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/09/974022P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jurisdiction This case was originally filed in South Dakota state court. Warwick removed the case to the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 where jurisdiction was proper based upon diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.2 Jurisdiction on appeal is proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed under Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. South Dakota law is the law of the forum and controls the issues on appeal. 304 U.S. 64 (1938). \ Marshall is a citizen and resident of South Dakota. Warwick is a citizen and resident of Minnesota. Was not in effect at the time this suit was filed. 2 2 Background The relevant facts are not disputed. Marshall and Warwick were involved in a car accident in Gregory. Warwick was not at home. Nor was he at his place of employment. He contended that he was never
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-1123a.html">UNITED FOOD CMERCL V. NLRB<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-5103.html">E.W.BLISS V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/03/973427P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs are Airfield Operation Specialists (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july99/97-8838.man.html">CHAPMAN V. AI TRANSP. (7/13/1999, NO. 97-8838)<BR></A><BR>
Was promoted to claims supervisor shortly thereafter. Chapman was responsible. It is undisputed that the nature of claims operations changed under the leadership of Bill O'Brien. That he was experiencing stress related to business travel. Was advised that he needed to complete as many of these audits as possible by the end of the calendar year. His request for transfer to AIGCS was not limited to a particular job. Interviewed Chapman for the position of claims manager but offered the position to an AI Transport employee who was younger than Chapman. Wogsland and Turnquist believed that Chapman had not interviewed well and were concerned about his alleged
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/03/982652P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That motion was ultimately granted. Central Airlines alleged in its complaint that its negligence claim was based on the FAA's failure
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199902/97-7190a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the briefs was Arthur L. With him on the brief was Earl V. With him on the brief was John J. James and Marta Wagner were on the brief for appellee Teamsters Local 2000. Circuit Judge: The plaintiffs in this case are individual members of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. I The employment relationship between Northwest and its flight attendants is governed by a collective bargaining agree ment entered into on August 1. S 5.A.3.b prescribes what is known as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-60943.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. The district court dismissed this suit essentially on grounds that it was an anticipatory declaratory judgment action whose merits were better left to the state courts. The court believed that the standard for determining whether to abstain and dismiss the action was the broad discretionary standard generally applicable to declaratory judgment actions. Was inapplicable. We have held that where. The applicable abstention standard is the Colorado River/Moses Cone standard.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3533.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appellant Gary Dyrek was employed by the Federal Aviation Administration (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-7117a.html">A I TRD FIN INC V. PETRA INTL BNKG CORP<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/05/01-6125.htm">01-6125 -- ZINKE V. SLATER -- 05/03/2002<BR></A><BR>
Pyron told her
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1633.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. This is a personal injury action arising out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred in Puerto Rico. Plaintiffs appellants are a married couple. Lil Izquierdo and the three children were travelling together in an automobile when it collided with a motor vehicle driven by Rosario Rosa Acevedo. Lil Izquierdo was rendered unconscious by the accident and remained in a coma until January 6. Alleges that all plaintiffs are citizens of New York and all defendants are citizens of Puerto Rico. Claiming that diversity jurisdiction is lacking because Lil Izquierdo and the children were domiciled in Puerto Rico at the time of the accident. Robert Campbell moved back to New York because he was able to find a better job there. Appellants pointed out that the relevant date for determining whether diversity jurisdiction exists is the time of filing the complaint. That the entire family was domiciled there at the time the complaint was filed. Appellants alleged that the return was solely for the purposes of furthering Lil Izquierdo's rehabilitation and attending to the lawsuit.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/06/982824P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Board's order was based on events that occurred on February 14. When Watkins was the pilot during a commercial cargo flight between Wichita and Great Bend. The briefer told Watkins that there was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></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-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-3034.html">BRUCE A. BRACEY V. OPM<BR></A><BR>
With her on the brief was <u>David W. Of counsel on the brief was <u>Paul St. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Merit Systems Protection Board ruled that an employee is ineligible for disability retirement as long as the employee is retained at the same grade and pay. Even if the employee is unable to perform the duties of his official position. Even if he is not transferred to a vacant position within the agency. Because that ruling is contrary to the language of the governing statute and regulations. Bracey was a civilian employee of the Navy at the Naval Aviation Depot in Norfolk. While he was assigned to the light duty shop. The tasks he performed were not those of an Electronics Worker.</p> <p ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199806/97-1522a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Was on brief.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/01-4082.htm">01-4082 -- CITIZENS' COMMITTEE TO SAVE OUR CANYONS V. U.S. FOREST SERVICE -- 07/23/2002<BR></A><BR>
At issue is whether the Forest Service complied with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Both of these transactions occurred while Snowbird was undertaking operations to improve its resort capacity. <p> SOC alleges that the Forest Service's handling of these transactions was arbitrary and capricious in several respects. All parties agree that Snowbird is a ski resort of some significance. The resort itself is comprised of 881 acres of private land (called the Mineral Basin) and 1. Snowbird is required to submit periodically a master development plan outlining its long range plans for the resort and the public lands it utilizes. <p align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-3075.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Peter D. 2004 an administrative judge (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1112.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Christopher Landau. Of counsel on the brief was Sarah Sklover. Of counsel was John C. With him on the brief was William G.Todd. With him on the brief were Frank E. (Sandel) cross appeal the district court's final decision that other remaining claims were not barred by public uses or premature sales activity. This type of accident is called a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/01-8011.htm">01-8011 -- HERRICK V. GAVERY -- 07/24/2002<BR></A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B4ED0FDFD1B8862E88256C1C0080DABD/$file/0010599.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He argues the form is fundamentally ambiguous and therefore the district court should have dismissed the indictment. 1 we conclude that the challenged questions on the FAA form are sufficiently confusing. We reverse Culliton's conviction.2 BACKGROUND James Culliton is an aviation lawyer and pilot. Culliton was treated for vision problems. Have you ever had or have you now. Answer
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/01-8037.htm">01-8037 -- ROBBINS V. WILKIE -- 08/21/2002<BR></A><BR>
The BLM failed to properly record the easement and Appellant was unaware of its existence at the time of purchase. The BLM's easement was extinguished. <p> Appellant alleges that BLM employees indulged in various forms of extortion in an attempt to force Appellant to re grant the easement BLM had lost. He also alleges that Defendants conspired to bring criminal charges they knew were without merit against him. Appellant was acquitted of the criminal charges after a jury trial. Because the court held that Appellant was without standing to bring a RICO claim and had not made a cognizable <em>Bivens</em> claim. It opined that it was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july98/97-5304.man.html">ISKCON MIAMI, INC. V. METRO. DADE COUNTY (7/27/1998, NO. 97-5304)<BR></A><BR>
In addition to arguing that the bans on solicitation and sale of literature are unconstitutional restrictions on speech. ISKCON argues that the areas within MIA where ISKCON may distribute free literature are inadequate and that County regulations impermissibly grant the Director of MIA unfettered discretion to select the areas for such First Amendment activity.</P> <P><CENTER>BACKGROUND</CENTER> </P> <P> In June 1995. Made only after a finding by the Director that the restrictions are necessary to avoid injury. Krishna adherents are required to venture into public places to distribute religious literature and solicit support for the religion. Shortly after the new regulations were passed. Waiting areas are located. We are guided by the Supreme Court's decisions in <EM>International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Regulations on speech in traditionally public fora such as municipal sidewalks and parks are subject to strict scrutiny. As are regulations in fora designated by the government to be used for expressive activities. <EM>Id.</EM> at 678.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2001/99-10565.ma2.html">LAMB V. TURBINE DESIGNS (2/5/2001, NO. 99-10565)<BR></A><BR>
Is a nonresident subject to personal jurisdiction under the Georgia long arm statute when he improperly discloses another nonresident's trade secret to a federal agency at its Georgia office? As there was no controlling Georgia authority. The court adopted the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-7080a.html">ORANGE VINCENT B. V. DC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1399.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellant. Lesser were on brief for appellee. I. Background Lotus 1 2 3 is a spreadsheet computer program that enables users to perform various functions and calculations. The substance of which is set forth in our prior opinion. Holding as a matter of first impression that the 1 2 3 menu command hierarchy was an uncopyrightable
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5175a.html">TRKR UNITED SFTY V. MEAD, KENNETH M<BR></A><BR>
Argued the cause for appellee.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar96/93-4920.man.html">PYLES V. UNITED AIR LINES<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Pyles v. The district court dismissed the case on the grounds that appellant's claims are preempted by both the Railway Labor Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5329a.html">RICHARD DRAKE V. FAA<BR></A><BR>
Argued the cause as amicus curiae in support of appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug96/95-6384.opa.html">MAGNIN V. TELEDYNE CONTINENTAL MOTORS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Magnin v. Died in the crash of a private plane he was piloting in France. This appeal is an outgrowth of a products liability and wrongful death action brought by Oliver Dominique Gerard Marin Anthille Magnin. The complaint was filed in Alabama state court against two defendants: Teledyne Industries. A Teledyne employee and Alabama citizen.<p> The complaint alleged that Lachiver's fatal crash was proximately caused by Teledyne's and Smith's negligent inspection and wrongful certification of the aircraft's engine as airworthy. As the DMIR (Designated Manufacturing Inspection Representative) signed the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B8CF7820EA6CA04988256B790082FD5A/$file/0035449.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Claiming that local trash hauling regulations were preempted by a provision in the Federal Aviation Administration Authorizing Act of 1994 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2975_020.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Mills were discharged. Alleging that they were harassed and terminated in retaliation for exercising their First Amendment rights. The defendants moved for and were awarded summary judgment. The defendants in this action were. She was in charge of the ATC faculty and operations staff. Are administrators at the Vincennes University main campus. Summitt is the Human Relations Director of Vincennes University. Messmer is the University's Vice President of Statewide Services. No. 05 2975 3 Until he was terminated. The plaintiff Michael Massey was employed by the ATC as a janitor. He was hired in 2000 by the custodian supervisor Mike Hare. Massey was a dependable janitor. Among the letter's allegations were charges that Dean Johnson had hired her boyfriend and her daughter for positions within the ATC. Massey's complaints and concluded that they were unfounded. He was fired. LaRoche was unable to locate him. Massey was avoiding him. Her last letter was sent on September 22. Mills allegedly was ostracized by her fellow employees and began to receive an unprecedented stream of reprimands.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-5039.html">CITY OF CINCINNATI V. US<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-3242.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. The condition of the appointment was that Mr. From which he was terminated on May 6. Goss alleged that the Board had jurisdiction because his claim was based on discrimination with respect to his marital status. Goss failed to identify the names of any married or divorced employees that were treated differently than him. Even if the clerk typist position was substantially similar to the electronics worker position. Goss (who is single) did not meet this standard. We have Our scope of review of an appeal from a decision of the Board is limited to whether the Board's decision is arbitrary. Whether the Board has jurisdiction over an appeal is a question of law. The Board's jurisdiction to review adverse personnel actions taken against probationary government employees is extremely narrow. There is no statutory basis for jurisdiction. Provided limited appeal rights for probationary employees who allege they were terminated based on (1) partisan political considerations or marital status discrimination.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-50948.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Who is not an attorney. Was the only plaintiff to have signed the pleadings and motions. Arzipe claimed that the FAA's selection processes were used during the realignment to discriminate on the basis of race. They were barred under the doctrine of res judicata. An action is barred under res judicata if the parties are identical in both actions. The prior judgment was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction. The prior judgment was final on the merits. The court determines whether the claims in this case are based on the same nucleus of operative facts as the claims brought in the prior case. Since these claims arise out of the same nucleus of operative facts as the prior case and the claims could have been brought as part of the prior case. Their relitigation is barred by the transactional test. This argument is frivolous. 3 1 Arizpe also challenges the district court's denial of his motion to order the FAA to reprioritize his job duties so that he could more ably prosecute this case.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981891.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The Estates argued that Doering had in fact complied with the policy and that their claims were covered by the policy. The policy was effective from November 2. In relevant part: This policy covers when your insured aircraft is in flight. They must also obtain written approval from that certificated flight instructor who is current in make and model. James Doering was the only pilot in the aircraft. The Estates relied on the North Carolina rule that ambiguous insurance contracts are to be construed in favor of the insured. Maintained that the terms
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-3197.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Martha B. TSA was transferred from the Department of Transportation to the Department of Homeland Security. Applicants were required to successfully complete an assessment. Conyers was assessed for the supervisory screener position. He subsequently was informed that he had failed the assessment and that. The administrative judge (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981270.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-4120_018.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
All fourteen persons aboard the two airplanes were killed. Naming as defendants everyone who might have a claim to the insurance proceeds. Including the owners of the smaller plane (all references to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-4045_022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Hoagland made his opposition to the town's actions rather clearly known by posting a homemade
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-2877_016.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Both airplanes were receiving air traffic services from Meigs Field Air Traffic Control Tower. Renee Toone was staffing the air traffic control tower at Meigs Field. The parties assume that Toone's failure to inform the pilots of the two planes that they were on a collision course was the cause of the fatal crash. Most of the state court cases were settled. One was tried. Who at the time of the 1 They were Paul Alinsky. Et al. 3 collision was communicating with Toone about a landing gear problem. Arguing the United States had a non delegable duty to provide air traffic control services and was thus responsible for Toone's negligence. The plaintiffs also alleged the United States was liable for its own negligence by allowing an allegedly untrained and unqualified controller to staff Meigs tower. The plaintiffs alleged that the United States was liable because it negligently delayed approving additional staffing at Meigs. The plaintiffs' cases were consolidated. Each of which was docketed two days later. As the final judgment form was inadvertently attached to the last page of the corresponding Memorandum Opinion and Order.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972627.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. That Great Lakes knew or should have known of these alleg2 edly hazardous conditions. A common carrier owes its passengers
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-2421_023.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was terminated because of poor performance after only seven months as an Aviation Safety Inspector for the Federal Aviation Administration. Marquez was recruited and hired by Gerardo Martinez. Marquez's primary trainer was Donald Rigg. Was computer illiterate. Was disorganized. Rigg's assessment was seconded by senior inspector Sam Latorre. Latorre added that Marquez was the weakest trainee he had seen in his 11 years as senior inspector. That Marquez should never have been hired. The court determined that Marquez could not show that he was satisfactorily performing his job. Noting that his only reason for the tardiness was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/17F9DF6C163AFE378825734D0052D60D/$file/0515206.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court held that PlaintiffsAppellants were not entitled to judicial review of their claims that the TSA violated their First Amendment rights by disciplining and then discharging Gavello. Gavello was called to a manager's office and asked various questions about his union activities. He refused to respond and was subsequently placed on paid administrative leave while TSA management investigated whether he had engaged in union activities while on duty. Gavello mailed a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0128p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At issue in this insurancecoverage dispute is the scope of a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972503.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Are these. Summary judgment is proper
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></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-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july95/92-9232.opa.html">AEROSPACE SERVICES INT'L V. LPA GROUP, INC.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Aerospace Services Int'l v. Senior Circuit Judges.<p> <p> PER CURIAM:<p> <p> Our previous per curiam opinion published at 49 F.3d 719 (11th Cir.1995) is withdrawn. The following opinion is substituted. This is a copyright infringement case in which plaintiff Aerospace Services International (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971588.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. NAS filed a declaratory judgment action against the estates of Bycura and McLear seeking a determination that there was no coverage under the policy for any claims arising from the crash. Because we agree that the language of the request in the application is ambiguous. This was not Bycura's first heart attack. His doctor reported that he was in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=01-4312_064.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plane was unsafe and Mooney was unable or unwilling to fix it yet refused to take the plane off Waypoint's hands and refund the purchase price. Which was filed after Mooney's dismissal. The judges were left scratching their heads. What is the point of further litigation about a warranty issued by an entity that is no longer a party? The district court's reason for dismissing the complaint was that the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act applies only to consumer products. A term that means
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5373a.html">WILLIAMS DONALD V. FBI<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5248a.html">REPUB NATL COM V. FEC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/03/02-1461.htm">02-1461 -- REED V. MINETA -- 03/12/2004<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/945753.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
In which Judges Murnaghan and Michael and Senior Judge Hall concurred.* *Judge Russell heard oral argument in this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. The only issue is the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence of the cocaine found in his suitcase. Carter was arrested at Washington National Airport at approximately 10:30 p.m. on January 14. Were in Carter's possession and were taken from him at the time of his arrest. He told the police that he was in town to clarify a case of mistaken identity with the Washington police. The black carry on bag was opened and inventoried by the arresting officer at 12:40 a.m. on January 15. The gray Skyway bag was not opened. Carter appeared before a magistrate in the afternoon of January 15 and was released on an unsecured bail bond with penalty of $2500. The black bag was returned to him but the gray Skyway bag was held by police. A sniff dog alerted to the gray Skyway suitcase and the FAA police obtained a warrant to search the bag which was found to contain the 660 grams of cocaine.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/941882.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Alleging a carpet manufactured by Shaw and sold by Sherwin Williams was defective. Anderson on the grounds that her testimony was inadmissible under F.R.E. 702 and the reliability prong of the Supreme Court's decision in Daubert v. The court held as well that plaintiffs had failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact that the carpet was defective and granted summary judgment in defendants' favor. Plaintiffs' complaint was originally filed in the Superior Court Division of Wilson County. The action is currently before the court on defendants' motion for summary judgment and their related motion to strike affidavits and testimony of plaintiffs' experts filed in response to defendants' motion for summary judgment. North Carolina store sold
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug97/95-6766.opa.html">ERICSSON GE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. V. MOTOROLA COMMUNICATIONS & ELEC., INC.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Ericsson GE Communications. Is too speculative to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement of the diversity statute. Negotiated a new contract with Motorola.<p> Alleging among other things that the consultant hired by the City was biased in favor of Motorola and that he skewed the decision making process in that company's favor. EGE brought this action to enjoin the enforcement of the contract between Motorola and the City and to have itself declared the lowest responsible bidder. The district court concluded that the City's decision to purchase the APCO 25 technology was the result of improper influence exerted by Motorola on the City's decision makers and. We must determine whether this action properly was brought in federal court. At the time this action was filed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/034353.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LAWAL Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Was convicted by a jury of two counts of making a false statement in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2) (2000). Lawal was sentenced to concurrent terms of two years' probation on each count. Was confidential. Lawal abandons this argument and claims for the first time that his statement was compelled selfincrimination. He also asserts that admission of the testimony was unduly prejudicial because it was irrelevant and informed the jury that Lawal had a prior record or conviction.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19945314.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
PER CURIAM: The issue on this appeal is whether the Federal Aviation Administration (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0301p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Stephen Keller and Grant Sutherlin were convicted of multiple counts of fraud and money laundering in connection with their operation of a viatical company. Sutherlin was sentenced to 151 months of imprisonment and Keller received 168 months. Both defendants' sentences were vacated and their cases remanded for re sentencing. Keller was sentenced to 120 months in prison. Keller was the owner of Kelco. When he was 17 years old. Keller was Kelco's chief executive officer and Sutherlin had responsibility for negotiating the purchase and sale of the insurance policies. Life insurance companies typically will not write policies for persons with terminal illnesses such as HIV and AIDS. So that Kelco would have more policies to re sell to investors. Many of the policies that Kelco purchased were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031005.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Judge Hilton dismissed Pueschel's FTCA suit on the bases that it (1) should have been brought under Title VII. (2) was barred. By the doctrine of res judicata because in a prior Title VII action brought by Pueschel the FAA was found not to have discriminated against her on the basis of her gender and work disability or to have retaliated against her for filing prior complaints. (3) failed to state a claim in light of the fact that Virginia employers do not have a common law duty to ensure that their employees are not subjected to sexual harassment and retaliation. Specifically his conclusion that Pueschel was precluded from bringing a Title VII action asserting discrimination and retaliation claims arising out of her FAA employment. Pueschel further contends that she was not afforded an opportunity to respond to the FAA's motion to dismiss her FTCA suit because the district court did not hold a hearing prior to ruling on the FAA's motion. Pueschel argues that Judge Wexler erred by concluding that her Title VII suit was barred by Judge Hilton's dismissal of her FTCA suit.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19956766.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is too speculative to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement of the diversity statute. Alleging among other things that the consultant hired by the City was biased in favor of Motorola and that he skewed the decision making process in that company's favor. EGE brought this action to enjoin the enforcement of the contract between Motorola and the City and to have itself declared the lowest responsible bidder. The district court concluded that the City's decision to purchase the APCO 25 technology was the result of improper influence exerted by Motorola on the City's decision makers and. Violated the The APCO 16 and APCO 25 are sets of specifications for public radio systems. Is based on specific technological requirements for the equipment while the APCO 16 is based on functional standards. It further concluded that EGE could prove a violation of the bid law by demonstrating that the City's selection of the APCO 25 system was based on
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0389p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The central issue in this case is whether nonemployee union representatives of the organized employees of a construction subcontractor. 2003* This decision was originally issued as an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/36EC4906BDB2B87288256E5A00707A51/$file/9835795.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This case is a study in the politics and law of public art. Janette Hopper and Sharon Rupp are artists whose works were excluded from public display at the Pasco City Hall Gallery in Pasco. As the district court put it:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0172n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiff Appellant's appeal is based on two grounds: (1) plaintiffappellant had exhausted all administrative remedies required by law to be exhausted prior to seeking judicial review of the denial of its FOIA request. 100.00) from the FAA after an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan98/96-2345.man.html">TERRELL V. USAIR (1/6/1998, NO. 96-2345)<BR></A><BR>
Plaintiff argues that the district court erred in concluding as a matter of law (1) that she was not disabled and (2) that. Because summary judgment was proper on the reasonable accommodation issue. She is currently employed at USAir's Orlando Reservations Center. Plaintiff was unable to return to work until 19 April 1993. Plaintiff was compensated only for the hours she actually worked.</P> <P> While Plaintiff was on medical leave for her surgery. She was not provided with a drop keyboard. Was told to use a work station with a drop keyboard when it was available. When a drop keyboard was unavailable and Plaintiff complained to her supervisor about increased pain. She was told just to listen in on other agents' calls.</P> <P> By 28 May 1993. About whether she was interested in working part time at USAir. Plaintiff responded that she was interested. She was recalled as a part time reservations agent in April 1994. Plaintiff was provided with a drop keyboard. The district court concluded that Plaintiff had not presented a triable issue of fact on whether she was disabled and that.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199910565.MA2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is a nonresident subject to personal jurisdiction under the Georgia long arm statute when he improperly discloses another nonresident's trade secret to a federal agency at its Georgia office? As there was no controlling Georgia authority. The court adopted the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199910565.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This diversity case presents the following question of law: is a non resident subject to personal jurisdiction under the Georgia long arm statute when he improperly discloses another non resident's trade secret to a federal agency at its Georgia office? We certify this question to the Georgia Supreme Court because there is no controlling Georgia authority. I. Plaintiffs are the former shareholders of Phoenix Corporation (Phoenix). Which was involved in the development of a modification to the Beechcraft King Air aircraft. While the application was pending. The FAA advised Megaflight that the Phoenix design modifications were deficient. TDI pointed out that it is a Florida corporation. It is not authorized to do business in Georgia. Does not have a registered agent for service of process in Georgia. The plaintiffs conceded that TDI's only contact with Georgia was the submission of its application to the FAA's Atlanta. Argued that this contact was sufficient. Plaintiffs' theory is that TDI's disclosure of the Phoenix proprietary modification in its application to the FAA constituted a tort under the Georgia Trade Secrets Act.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2002/00-13811.opn.html">NAT'L R.R. PASSENGER CORP. V. ROUNTREE TRANSP. AND RIGGING, INC.(3/26/2002, NO. 00-13811)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199910565.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is a nonresident subject to personal jurisdiction under the Georgia long arm statute when he improperly discloses another nonresident's trade secret to a federal agency at its Georgia office? As there was no controlling Georgia authority. The court adopted the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D0555E2F83B8D3CA88256C5B000261BB/$file/0056446.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The District Court for the Southern District of California agreed with BSI that the property in question was not an asset of the judgment debtor FLATOW v. Was killed in an explosion when the bus in which she was traveling collided with a van loaded with explosives. See 28 U.S.C. § 1605 statutory note.3 This provision is commonly referred to as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021215R1.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
No. 02 1267 ORDER Before the Court is the appellant's petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. Panel rehearing is hereby denied. Rehearing en banc is also hereby denied. Which are filed herewith. This Order is entered for the Court at the direction of Judge King. Any disagreement I have with them is in matters of inconsequential detail. I. I am struck with the reliance by the panel on what it obviously believes is some kind of impure motivation on the part of VMI. Although stating that it agreed with the conclusion of the district court that part of VMI's educational mission in the eyes of General Bunting is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021215.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 7 the word
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021115.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: There are two questions before the court: (1) whether there is substantial evidence to support a finding by the National Labor Relations Board (Board) that The Earthgrains Company (Earthgrains) unlawfully withheld a wage increase from employees scheduled to vote in a Board conducted union representation election in violation of sections 8(a)(1) & (3) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). (2) whether there is substantial evidence to support the Board's findings of other unfair labor practices by Earthgrains in violation of section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA. We hold that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the findings on both issues. Was created by the merger of its parent company. We will refer to the petitioner as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199910565.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This diversity case presents the following question of law: is a non resident subject to personal jurisdiction under the Georgia long arm statute when he improperly discloses another non resident's trade secret to a federal agency at its Georgia office? We certify this question to the Georgia Supreme Court because there is no controlling Georgia authority. I. Plaintiffs are the former shareholders of Phoenix Corporation (Phoenix). Which was involved in the development of a modification to the Beechcraft King Air aircraft. While the application was pending. The FAA advised Megaflight that the Phoenix design modifications were deficient. TDI pointed out that it is a Florida corporation. It is not authorized to do business in Georgia. Does not have a registered agent for service of process in Georgia. Actually there was a proliferation of litigation at this point. Since jurisdiction in Georgia will. Require a tort to have been committed there. It appears that ultimately the determination of the jurisdictional issue will depend upon the ownership of the design modification at the time it was disclosed to the FAA.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3F674E8F6048714988256FFF007E8110/$file/0535005.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Santiago's eight year enlistment in the Guard was due to expire on June 27. Shortly before that date his enlistment was extended by a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/512E3C02494CE90588256C5C007CB6B9/$file/0070595.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended by striking 4 PAZCOGUIN v. No change is made in the majority opinion. Judges Thompson and O'Scannlain have voted to deny the Petition for Rehearing. The Petition for Rehearing and the Petition for Rehearing En Banc are DENIED. (2) was an alien without a valid immigrant visa. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). RADCLIFFE 5 2000).1 Our jurisdiction is not foreclosed by IIRIRA § 309(c) (4)(G) which precludes judicial review in cases where an alien is inadmissible or deportable by reason of having committed a controlled substance offense. We have repeatedly held that we retain jurisdiction to determine whether an alien in fact committed acts that would trigger IIRIRA § 309(c) (4)(G). Because the central issue here is whether Pazcoguin in fact admitted to committing the essential elements of a controlled substance violation. We have jurisdiction. Was issued a United States immigrant visa by the American Embassy in Manilla. Until he was approximately 21 years old. Pazcoguin subsequently arrived at the Honolulu International Airport and applied for admission into the United This case is governed by the transitional rules of IIRIRA.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0632n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Oscar Katabarwa is a native of Burundi and a citizen of Rwanda. A hearing on Katabarwa's removal proceedings was held on February 4. Katabarwa relayed that he is the son of a Hutu father and a Tutsi mother. He indicated that he is considered by others to be a Hutu. He subsequently learned that his home was destroyed and that the Sansechecs were looking for him. Have been killed in ethnic violence since October 1993.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200013811.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: These consolidated appeals arise from the district court's final judgment resolving a series of cases that were filed after a passenger train of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/opinions%20by%20date?OpenView&Start=1&Count=100&Expand=7.4#7.4">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/620BD3AC1D32933088256E5A00707A64/$file/9930018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was convicted of two counts of wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Count I of the indictment was based on a fax transmission Garlick sent to a prospective buyer in which he misrepresented the age of the blades. Count II was based on a fax transmission the buyer sent to Garlick agreeing to purchase the blades. 2402 Garlick argues these two counts of the indictment were multiplicitous. The two counts of the indictment were not multiplicitous. This concept is well established in the context of mail fraud. We are not persuaded by Garlick's contention that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Background Ron Garlick was the owner and general manager of Garlick Helicopters. These cards indicated how old the blades were in terms of hours since they were new important because the Federal Aviation Administration requires the type of blades at issue here to be retired once they have reached 1100 hours of use since new. The price of blades is directly proportional to the number of hours remaining in the blades' effective life.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/opinions%20by%20date?OpenView&Start=1&Count=100&Expand=7.11#7.11">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan98/96-2345.man.html">TERRELL V. USAIR (1/6/1998, NO. 96-2345)<BR></A><BR>
Plaintiff argues that the district court erred in concluding as a matter of law (1) that she was not disabled and (2) that. Because summary judgment was proper on the reasonable accommodation issue. She is currently employed at USAir's Orlando Reservations Center. Plaintiff was unable to return to work until 19 April 1993. Plaintiff was compensated only for the hours she actually worked.</P> <P> While Plaintiff was on medical leave for her surgery. She was not provided with a drop keyboard. Was told to use a work station with a drop keyboard when it was available. When a drop keyboard was unavailable and Plaintiff complained to her supervisor about increased pain. She was told just to listen in on other agents' calls.</P> <P> By 28 May 1993. About whether she was interested in working part time at USAir. Plaintiff responded that she was interested. She was recalled as a part time reservations agent in April 1994. Plaintiff was provided with a drop keyboard. The district court concluded that Plaintiff had not presented a triable issue of fact on whether she was disabled and that.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></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-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct28/03-30728-CR0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Wallace was met by local sheriff's department officers after arriving at the Springhill. Wallace was arrested for possession of a concealed weapon. Was later found not guilty of this charge in state court. No contraband was found in these searches or in later searches by the Customs Service. Wallace was unable to produce registration papers for the airplane. The most recent Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) registration certificate for the plane was issued to the Arkansas Forestry Commission in 1988. A three count Indictment against Wallace was filed in the U.S. Count two charged him with knowingly and willfully operating the unregistered aircraft in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 2 46306(b)(6)(A).1 Each offense was alleged to have been committed
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/63EF7964E16307848825702E0080AF3A/$file/0435138.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: This litigation is about the Environmental Protection Agency's registration of 54 pesticide active ingredients that the plaintiff environmental coalitions fear may harm endangered or threatened salmon and steelhead in the waters of the Pacific Northwest. It was not bound by the consultation requirements of the Endangered Species Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/b4ed0fdfd1b8862e88256c1c0080dabd/$FILE/0010599.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He argues the form is fundamentally ambiguous and therefore the district court should have dismissed the indictment. 1 we conclude that the challenged questions on the FAA form are sufficiently confusing. We reverse Culliton's conviction.2 BACKGROUND James Culliton is an aviation lawyer and pilot. Culliton was treated for vision problems. Have you ever had or have you now. Answer
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></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-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/707d3dac3bc60f2488256be90052086f/$FILE/0015058.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
ORDER The petition for panel rehearing is granted. Are withdrawn. The opinions filed concurrently with this order are substituted in their place. Where they are examined by metal detectors and their possessions are x rayed. Both ticketed passengers and the general public were allowed to enter the secured area. Globe argued that Dazo's state law claims were preempted by the Warsaw Convention. Holding that the theft occurred while Dazo was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/70357705C94051F788256F0000589FCF/$file/0335303.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Whitman is employed by the FAA as an air traffic assistant at the Anchorage Air Route Traffic Control Center. Alleging that its drug and alcohol testing program
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/707D3DAC3BC60F2488256BE90052086F/$file/0015058.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
ORDER The petition for panel rehearing is granted. Are withdrawn. The opinions filed concurrently with this order are substituted in their place. Where they are examined by metal detectors and their possessions are x rayed. Both ticketed passengers and the general public were allowed to enter the secured area. Globe argued that Dazo's state law claims were preempted by the Warsaw Convention. Holding that the theft occurred while Dazo was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001762.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: This is an appeal from a decision of the District Court granting judgment in favor of an ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The facts peculiar to this case are largely undisputed. Was. Only when he was in possession of a valid medical certificate issued by an Aviation Medical Examiner (AME) pursuant to Part 67. Which was performed on July 29. Crossman was asked to stay on as an employee until November 30. The plane was sold. The most significant being the R Coronary artery which is 85% blocked. The L Anterior Descending artery is 50% blocked in one of its branches.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-6281.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It further held that his race and age discrimination claims were time barred. Dimsdale was hired as an air traffic controller by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on June 11. Dimsdale was required to spend the first year of his employment in a probationary period. Dimsdale was recently divorced). (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) Pursuant to Fed. The defendant will be referred to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/749583876BB197F6882569FB00617635/$file/9930018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was convicted of two counts of wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Count I of the indictment was based on a fax transmission Garlick sent to a prospective buyer in which he misrepresented the age of the blades. Count II was based on a fax transmission the buyer sent to Garlick agreeing to purchase the blades. 2402 Garlick argues these two counts of the indictment were multiplicitous. The two counts of the indictment were not multiplicitous. This concept is well established in the context of mail fraud. We are not persuaded by Garlick's contention that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Background Ron Garlick was the owner and general manager of Garlick Helicopters. These cards indicated how old the blades were in terms of hours since they were new important because the Federal Aviation Administration requires the type of blades at issue here to be retired once they have reached 1100 hours of use since new. The price of blades is directly proportional to the number of hours remaining in the blades' effective life.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BA7DBD360452813188257081004EB5BD/$file/0355426o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
ORDER The parties have informed the court that they have settled the economic issues in this case. Because the parties have agreed in open court on appeal that there are no objections to vacating the district court's October 17. We do not have to face a collateral estoppel problem in the future. Cause you have all these policies? You have no objection DHX. The case is REMANDED for the purpose of considering vacatur. The court could the court is then facing No. The parties have settled their entire underlying dispute. I also emphasize the duty upon attorneys to affirmatively disclose settlements to the court and our highly circumscribed authority to vacate district court judgments after parties have reached a settlement. 504 cartons of shoes that were owned by the corporation now known as Foot Locker. Concluding that Allianz was not the insurer and was an improper party to the suit.2 DHX appealed the summary judgment order. S.A.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06A0307P-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Robert Caldwell was a warehouse clerk for Meijer at its Tipp City. Are members of the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1099 (the Union). Caldwell was unsatisfied with his union representation1 and endeavored to replace the current union with a new one. This activity was interrupted when Chris Cullen. Complaining loudly and with vulgarity that the employees were already represented by a labor union. Cullen told Evans that someone was bothering people in the distribution lot. This last stop was impromptu. Therefore Caldwell's truck was not parked in a marked space. Evans asked whether he was on the clock and what he was doing. Caldwell testified that he told Evans that he was soliciting for Real Union. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) credited Evans's conflicting testimony that Caldwell never answered his question concerning
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-3159.html">SALVATORE GIOVE V. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION<BR></A><BR>
On the brief were <u>David W. S decision is in accordance with law and supported by substantial evidence. While Giove was not on duty. Giove suspected that the controllers might have failed to advise the pilot of the contents of a Notice to Airmen (". That such a failure might have had something to do with the plane crash. Giove assumed that the NOTAM was still in effect. A NOTAM is a published notice containing information for a specified airport and any pilot flying to that airport is expected to be familiar with the NOTAM.</p> <p ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1469.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Giove is a naturalized American citizen of Italian heritage. Giove was fired from his job as an air traffic controller on the grounds that he had lied to an FAA investigator. That suit and the present matter were both heard by the same federal district court judge. (1) After examining the briefs and appellate record. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. R. 36.3. (1) Defendant National Air Traffic Controllers Association was dismissed from the district court action early on and did not participate in this appeal. <hr> Mr. Giove's grievance was denied by an arbitrator. That denial was affirmed in Giove v. While his grievance was proceeding. That any claims based on other acts were untimely. Giove expressed the opinion that it was inconceivable the judge
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1145.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
. . . [and] (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug97/96-4430.opa.html">KRYS V. LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Krys v. Was a passenger on Lufthansa Flight 463. Samuel Fischmann was best suited to handle the situation. Precisely what symptoms either were evident to Dr. Fischmann or were conveyed to Dr. Fischmann by Krys is a matter of some dispute. Fischmann concluded after his initial examination of the patient that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-1313a.html">INTL BRHD TMSTR V. FHA<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200315340.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Appellant David Morrison was a pilot for Magic Carpet Aviation. Of which Magic Carpet was a wholly owned subsidiary. The employer(s) at issue must have at least 50 employees within a 75 mile radius of the worksite. The court held that although Magic Carpet and Amway (as Magic Carpet's complete owner) were Morrison's joint employers. They did not have enough employees to make the FMLA applicable. Was not Morrison's employer. Because Magic Carpet was a wholly owned subsidiary of Amway. Morrison was also an employee of Amway. Since Amway did not have any employees within 75 miles of his Magic Carpet worksite. Contending that RDV Sports was his employer or. Our review is plenary.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052760p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A bankruptcy trustee was appointed. The malpractice claim founders on two grounds: the company was not harmed by its accountants' actions. In any event the affidavit submitted to support the claim was a sham. PRSI was a fraudulent enterprise. CitX's stock sales were illegal under federal and Pennsylvania law. A receiver was appointed for it. PRSI was CitX's only significant client. At the time PRSI was closed it owed CitX over $2. This was all that was keeping the company theoretically in the black. It was able to sell more securities for over $1. CitX was suspect from the start: one of the original members of CitX's board. Maintains that he was not involved in the company and that his signatures on corporate documents were forged. 4 1 In July 2001. The case was later converted to Chapter 7. Gary Seitz was appointed as trustee.2 B. Schoen and Detweiler compile the financials The defendantsappellees in this case are Robert Schoen. We will refer to the company as CitX and the plaintiffappellant as Seitz.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-9520.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction to review. While the security officers are in charge of policing the slot area. Each type of employee receives tips from customers and are required by casino policy to share these tips. The manner for sharing tips between slot technicians and security officers is the foundation of the dispute leading to this proceeding. All tips were pooled with half the tips going to slot technicians and the other half to security officers. A slot technician's share of the tip pool was smaller than a security officer's share. Tips were not first divided between the different groups of employees. One technician was fired and two others were suspended. The ALJ held that the employees who were (1) In its reply brief. See 29 U.S.C. 157 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/nov95/95-6000.html">KELLEY V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR>
Were on the brief for amici curiae. Was unconstitutional. I. Section 601 of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 was enacted by the 103rd Congress. Was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Or service of an air carrier or carrier affiliated with a direct air carrier through common controlling ownership when such carrier is transporting property by aircraft or by motor vehicle (whether or not such property has had or will have a prior or subsequent air movement). Or provision is no more burdensome than compliance with. Which was relied upon by the district court but was not cited in plaintiffs' complaint. The doctrine of sovereign immunity is not always applicable to suits filed against federal entities or officials. The doctrine does not apply in such cases because
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-5135.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lawrence Sims died when the speeding car he was driving sailed off a rural road. A jury found the death was accidental and awarded Mrs. The district court refused to admit evidence that would have been inadmissible in state court. He was still quite intoxicated when the couple returned home that evening to an unkempt kitchen. She told the 911 operator that Sims
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2000/99-10565.man.html">LAMB V. TURBINE DESIGNS (3/28/2000, NO. 99-10565)<BR></A><BR>
Plaintiffs brought this appeal.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/85BE3DE0FAEE13E388256E5A00707BCB/$file/0035069.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Carey and his three daughters were flying from Costa Rica to Los Angeles. Who was sitting in first class. A flight attendant warned Carey that his children were not permitted to come into the first class cabin. Carey responded by stating that his children were ill. The same flight attendant reprimanded Carey again and told him that an FAA representative was on board who could arrest him. Carey believed that he had to send his daughter back to coach class even though she was in pain and in tears. 1 For purposes of its summary judgment motion. That the Warsaw Convention was Carey's exclusive remedy. Carey argues that the Warsaw Convention is not his exclusive remedy. Even if the Warsaw Convention is his exclusive remedy. An FAA official disclosed that the man the flight attendant referred to probably was not an FAA agent. 3 Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Transportation by Air. Whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the substantive law.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july95/92-9232.opa.html">AEROSPACE SERVICES INT'L V. LPA GROUP, INC.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Aerospace Services Int'l v. Senior Circuit Judges.<p> <p> PER CURIAM:<p> <p> Our previous per curiam opinion published at 49 F.3d 719 (11th Cir.1995) is withdrawn. The following opinion is substituted. This is a copyright infringement case in which plaintiff Aerospace Services International (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3447.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Because the parties are familiar with the facts. Jones was promoted temporarily to fill one of the positions. Her position as a Computer Operator was held open for her. While Jones was working as an RDO. The FAA mandated that those three positions could be filled only by employees who already were permanent employees of DS&S. Jones attempted to apply for one of the positions but was not permitted to bid for it. Three people were hired to fill the positions. She then filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) based on her view that the refusal to permit her to bid for one of the RDO positions was based on her gender. That Jones was not permitted to bid for an RDO position because she was not within the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTU0ODctY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5487-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Some have said. Is an engine of technological development. The telephonic system at dispute in this appeal is an example of that phenomenon it was designed and implemented to ensure that consumers paid charges for accessing pornography and other adult entertainment. The system identified the user of an online adult entertainment service by the telephone line used to access that service and then billed the telephone line subscriber 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 for the cost of that service as if it was a charge for an international phone call to Madagascar. It had a problem as well: It was possible for someone to access an adult entertainment service over a telephone line without authorization from the telephone line subscriber who understood herself contractually bound to pay all telephone charges. If the computer was connected by modem to a telephone line. Charges for accessing the adult entertainment appeared on bills sent to the consumers whose telephone lines were used. This billing system did not have a mechanism to ensure that a telephone line subscriber authorized the computer user to access a given adult entertainment service.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2117.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-3260.html">JODI L. CHASE-BAKER V. DEPT. OF JUSTICE<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were <U>David W. Chase Baker had no right to appeal her dismissal because she was a probationary employee at the time of her termination and her claims of marital status discrimination were not well founded and thus did not vest the Board with jurisdiction to hear an appeal. Because the Board's decision was in accordance with the law. The dismissal is affirmed.</P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CCFB5DD4B6D6347088256BE2007530B3/$file/0070595.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(2) was an alien without a valid immigrant visa. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). 1195 n.4 (9th Cir. 2000).1 Our jurisdiction is not foreclosed by IIRIRA § 309(c) (4)(G) which precludes judicial review in cases where an alien is inadmissible or deportable by reason of having committed a controlled substance offense. We have repeatedly held that we retain jurisdiction to determine whether an alien in fact committed acts that would trigger IIRIRA § 309(c) (4)(G). Because the central issue here is whether Pazcoguin in fact admitted to committing the essential elements of a controlled substance violation. We have jurisdiction. Was issued a United States immigrant visa by the American Embassy in Manilla. Pazcoguin This case is governed by the transitional rules of IIRIRA. Until he was approximately 21 years old. Pazcoguin was paroled into the United States for deferred inspection. Inspector Kalin terminated the proceeding and determined that Pazcoguin was excludable from the United States because of his prior use of marijuana in the Philippines.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/93D5FEEA7222CE8388256A7E0000AE97/$file/0035069.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Carey and his three daughters were flying from Costa Rica to Los Angeles. Who was sitting in first class. A flight attendant warned Carey that his children were not permitted to come into the first class cabin. Carey responded by stating that his children were ill. The same flight attendant reprimanded Carey again and told him that an FAA representative was on board who could arrest him. Carey believed that he had to send his daughter back to coach class even though she was in pain and in tears. 1 For purposes of its summary judgment motion. That the Warsaw Convention was Carey's exclusive remedy. Carey argues that the Warsaw Convention is not his exclusive remedy. Even if the Warsaw Convention is his exclusive remedy. An FAA official disclosed that the man the flight attendant referred to probably was not an FAA agent. 3 Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Transportation by Air. Whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the substantive law.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA2LTQzNzEtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/06-4371-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This dispute between the Association of Flight Attendants (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-3149.html">DIAZ V. DEPT. OF AIR FORCE<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-5118.html">I. K. FRAZER V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr98/96-8594.man.html">UNITED STATES V. MILLS (4/10/1998, NO. 96-8594)<BR></A><BR>
Facts</CENTER> </P> <P> The Millses were officers and majority shareholders of a Medicare services provider. A reasonable jury could have found the following facts true based on the evidence. Some detail is necessary because of the harmless error and sufficiency of the evidence issues that are presented.</P> <P><CENTER>A. <EM>Background</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> The Medicare home health care system has three players. Are entitled only to return of their costs in exchange for their services. Aetna Life Insurance Company was First American's intermediary during most of the time period relevant here.</P> <P> Providers generally receive biweekly payments in an amount based on quarterly figures of how many patients the provider has visited and how much each visit cost. This true up for years as far back as 1990 was incomplete at the time of trial.</P> <P> Jack brought a businessman's outlook to this cost based system. Believing that Aetna was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A55B0A871363802088257089007CBA32/$file/0535005.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: At page 1022. First new paragraph: modify the first full sentence so that it states:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C03/03-30728-CR0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Wallace was met by local sheriff's department officers after arriving at the Springhill. Wallace was arrested for possession of a concealed weapon. Was later found not guilty of this charge in state court. No contraband was found in these searches or in later searches by the Customs Service. Wallace was unable to produce registration papers for the airplane. The most recent Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) registration certificate for the plane was issued to the Arkansas Forestry Commission in 1988. A three count Indictment against Wallace was filed in the U.S. Count two charged him with knowingly and willfully operating the unregistered aircraft in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 2 46306(b)(6)(A).1 Each offense was alleged to have been committed
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2001/99-10565.ma2.html">LAMB V. TURBINE DESIGNS (2/5/2001, NO. 99-10565)<BR></A><BR>
Is a nonresident subject to personal jurisdiction under the Georgia long arm statute when he improperly discloses another nonresident's trade secret to a federal agency at its Georgia office? As there was no controlling Georgia authority. The court adopted the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DF8985DD6BA8242688256DE2005E0142/$file/0235262.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge The extent to which state and local regulation of towing companies is preempted under federal law has been the subject of much litigation. We have previously considered the issue in the context of California regulations. Other circuits have considered similar challenges. Or storage of unauthorized vehicles or the disposal of abandoned vehicles
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-30892.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
PER CURIAM:* We affirm the judgment of the district court because Rule 60(b)(4) F.R.C.P. is not an appropriate vehicle for Eurocopter and AEC to challenge the sanctions order for the following reasons: 1. Appellants have not demonstrated why the proper vehicle for challenging the sanctions order was not a direct appeal from the final judgment. 622 challenge the district court's sanctions order does not comport with the purpose of the rule. a balance between preserving Rule 60(b)(4) is intended to strike the finality of a judgment and insuring that justice was done. The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-1558a.html">CHIRON CORPORATION V. NTSB<BR></A><BR>
With him </p> <p>on the briefs were Richard S. With him on the brief </p> <p>were David W. ) is an independent federal agency </p> <p>charged with investigating airplane accidents. Its principal missions are to determine the </p> <p>probable cause of accidents and make recommendations that </p> <p>will help prevent future accidents. Private parties who are </p> <p>involved in an accident (other than just as victims) may be </p> <p>designated to participate in an NTSB investigation. Their </p> <p>involvement is voluntary and it does not include an adjudica </p> <p>tion of individual claims.</p> <p>In the instant case. Any possible injury to petitioners as defen </p> <p>dants in a civil law suit is not legally cognizable here. Because </p> <p>it is not an injury that petitioners will suffer as a consequence </p> <p>of their participation in the NTSB investigation. In order to have standing to bring this law suit. </p> <p>petitioners must have suffered an injury related to their </p> <p>involvement as parties to the NTSB investigation.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></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-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200702/05-5221a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the briefs was David H. Was on the brief for appellee. With him on the brief were Kenneth L. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. She alleges that the reassignment was effectively a demotion. He advised her that he was making the reassignment because she had
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-5077.html">ALLEN V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200706/06-1023a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the briefs was Hope M. With him on the brief were John C. Thomas Richichi were on the brief for amici curiae Air Transport Association of America. Petitioner also argues that the Final Rule is arbitrary and capricious because it relies upon an insufficient time rationale. We hold that EPA's interpretation of § 231 is not manifestly contrary to the CAA and that the agency did not otherwise act arbitrarily and capriciously in promulgating the Final Rule. Most of the arbitrary and capricious claims raised by NACAA are not properly before the court. Because they were never raised with 3 EPA. Because we find that none of NACAA's claims are meritorious. Are required to adopt State Implementation Plans (`SIPs') that `provide[] for implementation.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200707/05-1225a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Richard S. With her on the brief were Peter D. The guidance is TSA's latest attempt to define the term
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/10/022786P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Seven of the ten contracts were entered into by Barry Holden on behalf of Holden Farms. The other three contracts were entered into by the remaining plaintiffs. The plaintiffs and Hog Slat agree that all of the contracts were fully integrated agreements. Five of the ten total contracts contained a choice of law clause stating that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/07/002827P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The value of a flight for purposes of the officers' reported compensation is based on the Standard Industry Fare Level (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/Locator/3/02/May02.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-3260.html">WRIGHT, DOUGLAS M. V. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief was R. While Wright was talking to his wife. Although there were two in her handwriting. The board found that Wright did not present it to the administrative judge and that it was not material. The board concluded that Anita Wright's two statements did not undermine her credibility because she was justifiably confused at the hearing. 1997 decision that was virtually identical to the one in 1995. The administrative judge held that she was not a credible witness because her testimony differed from Vasquez' and Robinson's and. The board denied Wright's petition for review and he appeals.<p> Discussion<p> We must affirm the board's decision unless it is:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1996/96a1300p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Holding that plaintiff Elizabeth Fedorczyk did not provide any evidence to support her claim that Royal Caribbean's failure to provide adequate abrasive strips in its bathtub was the proximate cause of her injuries. Which is an essential element of the tort of negligence. We will affirm the June 26. I. The following facts are not disputed. The tub in her cabin was about five and one half feet long and two feet. Fedorczyk has no recollection whether her feet were on or off the abrasive strips at the time of her fall. The tub was also equipped with a grab rail which Fedorczyk made a failed attempt to reach when she fell. She re entered the tub and discovered that there was sufficient space between the abrasive strips so that her feet could just fit in between them. She does not know where her feet were at the time of the accident. There were seven as opposed to four abrasive strips. This standard specifies that for any surface that is textured or treated with appliques. There is no definite way of preventing slips altogether.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/02/97-3273.htm">97-3273 -- POINDEXTER V. ATCHISON TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY CO. -- 02/24/1999<BR></A><BR>
A qualified individual with a disability is one
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/05/002527P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Enterprise Leasing Company is a Minnesota corporation doing business as Enterprise Rent A Car (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/02/031890P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was damaged when a fire broke out in its engine compartment. Southern Pine had a property damage insurance policy on the helicopter that was issued by Old Republic Insurance Company through Phoenix Aviation Managers. Which was the insured value of the damaged helicopter. The district court held that Southern Pine was entitled to prejudgment interest and certain costs. That it was not entitled to attorneys' fees or the twelve percent penalty because it had failed to meet the requirements of the Arkansas statute that authorizes fees and penalties in insurance cases. It states that when an insurer liable for a loss fails to pay it within the time specified in the insurance policy after demand is made. The insurer is liable to pay the policyholder. The availability of such damages and attorneys' fees is. United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 2 1 (12%) damages and attorney's fees provided for in this section if the amount recovered for the loss is within twenty percent (20%) of the amount demanded or which is sought in the suit.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/04/032776U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unrebutted testimony at the hearing established that Murphy was asleep in an idling and unsecured aircraft. 1263 (8th Cir. 1997) (deferential standard of review requires affirming so long as agency decision is not arbitrary. 288 (8th Cir. 1985) (NTSB's inference from circumstantial evidence that violation of regulation occurred is not impermissible step if supported by substantial evidence).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept98/97-5178.man.html">NAT'L PARTNERSHIP INV. CORP. V. NAT'L HOUS. DEV. CORP. (9/10/1998, NO. 97-5178)<BR></A><BR>
The appeal raises two narrow questions of law: (1) whether the appointment of a receiver by a federal court exercising diversity jurisdiction is governed by state or federal law. BACKGROUND</CENTER> </P> <P> NHDC is the operating general partner of Mangonia Residence I. The Partnership is a Florida limited partnership that was organized in 1994 to build and lease a 252 unit apartment complex for low income elderly persons in West Palm Beach. (NAPICO) is the managing general partner of National Corporate Tax Credit Fund V (NCTCV). NCTCV is a limited partner in the Partnership with a 98.9% ownership interest. I(NTC) is a special limited partner in the Partnership with a 0.1% interest. ANALYSIS</CENTER> </P> <P> NHDC contends that the appointment of a receiver in a diversity case is governed by state substantive law in accordance with <EM>Erie Railroad Co. v. NHDC favors application of Florida law in the present case because the standards governing the appointment of a receiver under Florida law are arguably more stringent than under federal law. <EM>Compare McAllister Hotel.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/12/031664P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Northwest was the eighth largest airline in the United States. Republic was the ninth largest. The merger was sanctioned by the Department of Transportation but was not granted antitrust immunity. Notification of the class was postponed while the district court considered Northwest's motion for summary judgment on the ground that the statute of limitations had run. That there are three reasons why its suit. Though it was filed eleven years after the merger. Midwestern also argues that its action is not barred by laches. Midwestern asserts first that Northwest's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></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-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept98/97-5178.man.html">NAT'L PARTNERSHIP INV. CORP. V. NAT'L HOUS. DEV. CORP. (9/10/1998, NO. 97-5178)<BR></A><BR>
The appeal raises two narrow questions of law: (1) whether the appointment of a receiver by a federal court exercising diversity jurisdiction is governed by state or federal law. BACKGROUND</CENTER> </P> <P> NHDC is the operating general partner of Mangonia Residence I. The Partnership is a Florida limited partnership that was organized in 1994 to build and lease a 252 unit apartment complex for low income elderly persons in West Palm Beach. (NAPICO) is the managing general partner of National Corporate Tax Credit Fund V (NCTCV). NCTCV is a limited partner in the Partnership with a 98.9% ownership interest. I(NTC) is a special limited partner in the Partnership with a 0.1% interest. ANALYSIS</CENTER> </P> <P> NHDC contends that the appointment of a receiver in a diversity case is governed by state substantive law in accordance with <EM>Erie Railroad Co. v. NHDC favors application of Florida law in the present case because the standards governing the appointment of a receiver under Florida law are arguably more stringent than under federal law. <EM>Compare McAllister Hotel.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DD75298B643A7D7C88256E5A00707A63/$file/9915916.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The three 2350 men who died in the crash were subsequently identified as Brad Keilen. Because there were no eyewitnesses to the crash. The wreckage and bodies were discovered after five hours had elapsed. The appellants claimed that the crash was caused by a defect or defects in the Cessna airplane. Whereas Cessna claimed the accident was solely due to pilot error and negligence. Is defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous. This evidence included expert testimony that the T 303's fuel tank is constructed in a manner that permits air to enter the fuel lines in some circumstances. When the airplane's rate of turn and angle of bank are not balanced (a condition called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2001/001128.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Like all ATCs who were hired between 1972 and 1987. Dungan was a member of the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). 5 U.S.C. Was given the discretion to permit an A TC
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></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-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1468.html">LAITRAM CORP. V. NEC CORPORATION<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1994/94a0753p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We also decide that an arbitrated dispute that is based on the breach of a construction contract growing out of a territorial housing project financed by federal funds does not establish federal question jurisdiction. We will reverse an order of the district court vacating an arbitrator's award. Funding for the project was supplied by a program that receives part of its funding from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under the Comprehensive Improvement Assistance Program. The contract was executed on September 29. No notice to proceed was issued. Contending that it was entitled to compensation for the work it had performed before the termination. The Housing Authority asserted that consideration of the amended claim was unfair and prejudicial. The two cases were consolidated by an order that was originally limited to discovery. Based on evidence that some of the expenses claimed by Coastal might have been inflated or completely false. The district court reasoned that the Housing Authority may have been prejudiced.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></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-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-1098a.html">LA ENGY & POWER AUTH V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="248"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july98/97-5304.man.html">ISKCON MIAMI, INC. V. METRO. DADE COUNTY (7/27/1998, NO. 97-5304)<BR></A><BR>
In addition to arguing that the bans on solicitation and sale of literature are unconstitutional restrictions on speech. ISKCON argues that the areas within MIA where ISKCON may distribute free literature are inadequate and that County regulations impermissibly grant the Director of MIA unfettered discretion to select the areas for such First Amendment activity.</P> <P><CENTER>BACKGROUND</CENTER> </P> <P> In June 1995. Made only after a finding by the Director that the restrictions are necessary to avoid injury. Krishna adherents are required to venture into public places to distribute religious literature and solicit support for the religion. Shortly after the new regulations were passed. Waiting areas are located. We are guided by the Supreme Court's decisions in <EM>International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Regulations on speech in traditionally public fora such as municipal sidewalks and parks are subject to strict scrutiny. As are regulations in fora designated by the government to be used for expressive activities. <EM>Id.</EM> at 678.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19976804.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sitting by designation. **This decision is rendered by a quorum. Whether section 612 of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 completely preempts statelaw tort and breach of contract claims involving
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19976804.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Whether section 612 of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 completely preempts state law tort and breach of contract claims involving
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19972591.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
To
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19972334.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is directed to write policies for citizens who are unable to obtain property and casualty insurance on the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19972334.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is directed to write policies for citizens who are unable to obtain property and casualty insurance on the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19968686.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appellants argued that the subpoenas exceeded the Inspector General's statutory authority and were unduly burdensome. The district court agreed to stay enforcement pending appeal because several issues would be mooted on appeal if appellants were required to produce the subpoenaed information immediately. The Inspector General sought to determine whether CFSA program participants were complying with regulatory payment limitations. The Inspector General determined that $1.3 million in questionable disaster payments were awarded to Mitchell County program participants. DISCUSSION Due to a concern that fraud and abuse in federal programs was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19956312.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND Sue Pritchard was hired as an electrical engineer by SCSI in 1986. Working mostly on nuclear facilities. * We affirm as to the Title VII In July 1990 she was Honorable John R. This depression was exacerbated by the stress involved with her work on nuclear projects. requested and received a transfer to the Quality She Assurance Department. Pritchard was placed on paid disability leave through November of 1992. She was placed on medication. The therefore her symptoms. company contends that all its engineers must have the flexibility to perform nuclear related work. That it would have been her responsibility to apply for any non engineering job. That she was told she would be considered for non engineering jobs.1 She was terminated on June 18. We recognize that this is a controversy that will have to be resolved by the factfinder. 1 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings. Affidavits show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19954445.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Humberto Rodriguez were convicted of various drug related crimes that took place in 1993. The Drug Enforcement Administration and the Miami Police Department learned of a cocaine distribution operation in which kilogramsized bricks of cocaine were being sold from a duplex in Miami. Investigators discovered that Appellant Mercedes Novaton was the record owner of the duplex. The nine appellants have raised a plethora of issues related to their convictions and sentences. We have carefully considered all of their arguments. We summarily reject all of those arguments that are not mentioned in this opinion. 3 1 and that she lived there with her husband Appellant Francisco Novaton. The agents investigating the Novaton residence obtained authority to intercept wire communications on various telephones used by people who were suspected of participating in the conspiracy to distribute cocaine. 000 of which were transcribed). The investigators learned that several co conspirators were engaged in the distribution of cocaine through various houses in Miami.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19953377.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs/appellees/cross appellants (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19949025.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
To which this case was removed from state court. The case was removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (1994). 1 I. The contract was On later extended for another year. The case was converted into a Chapter 7 liquidation and a trustee was appointed. Before the settlement was approved. The case was subsequently removed to the district court. The court did not allow Thomson to recoup the value of shipments that were lost after January 3. 595.82 claim to take into account discounts that Brown had awarded Thomson and unpaid shipping invoices that were issued outside of the statute of limitations period.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19946034.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Will not be used by the transferee. It is quite apparent from the prior opinion. There could be no relation of the intrastate routes to a change in interstate commerce if there was no change in interstate commerce. There are therefore two questions unanswered. The intrastate rights must have
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19944745.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is an appeal by David G. The sole issue on appeal is whether the class of Future Claimants. We hold that the Future Claimants do not have claims as defined by § 101(5) and thus affirm the opinion of the district court. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The factual and procedural history of this appeal is fully set forth in the bankruptcy court's Memorandum Opinion. The relevant facts are as Piper has been manufacturing and distributing general aviation aircraft and spare parts throughout the United States and abroad since 1937. 000 Piper aircraft still Although Piper has been a are operational in the United States. named defendant in several lawsuits based on its manufacture. It has never acknowledged that its products are harmful or defective.1 On July 1. Piper and Pilatus Aircraft Limited signed a letter of intent pursuant to which Pilatus would purchase Piper's assets. 1 The letter of intent Piper made a decision in 1987 to self insure and therefore does not have any product liability insurance covering events or occurrences taking place after that year. required Piper to seek the appointment of a legal representative to represent the interests of future claimants by arranging a set aside of monies generated by the sale to pay off future product liability claims.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19943370.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was docked in navigable waters in southern Florida where it was undergoing a conversion from an oil drilling vessel to a fish processing vessel. Was assisting in the installation of an elevator aboard the Northern Victor. Sitting by designation. cause was removed to federal court based upon the diversity of the parties and upon admiralty jurisdiction. 1 the district court determined that this was a maritime tort. Holding that the suit was time barred because it had not been filed within the applicable three year statute of limitations.2 Subsequent to that decision. The issue before us is a simple one. If the tort is governed by maritime law. Discussion Whether substantive admiralty law applies is a question of law that we review de novo.3 To determine whether substantive If. It is governed by Florida law. The test for admiralty tort jurisdiction was simple. It became apparent that this test was no longer sufficient. The activity from which the claim arises must satisfy a location test and it must have sufficient connection with maritime activity.8
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-2323.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. Plaintiff Josefina Cantellops was the sublessor of property in Condado. Was to eventually take over the lease from CHR and operate a restaurant there. </P> <P> Chapel asked Cantellops if the lessor had consented to the sublease by CHR. Lack of Diversity Jurisdiction</U> </P> <P> The district court determined that plaintiff had presented sufficient facts to show she was a domiciliary of Georgia or Florida and all defendants were domiciled in Puerto Rico. That determination is reviewed for clear error. <U>See</U> <U>Lundquist</U> v. <U>Precision Valley Aviation. 11 (1st Cir. 1991). </P> <P> The complaint was filed on April 28. Cantellops' affidavit said in early 1994 she was living in Florida and moved to Georgia. The complaint alleged she was a resident of Georgia. Defendants make much of the complaint's use of the term
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-2249.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Snyder LLP</U> were on brief for appellants.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1888ERR.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows:</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1469.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.A. was on brief. P.C. were on brief. Finding that Markle's decision to approve the changes to the project without preparing an SEIS was not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1375.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The appellee is absolutely immune from suit for claims arising from her role in prosecuting the administrative action. The district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to review an order of the Federal Aviation Administration. 49 U.S.C. 46110. Unless reasonable grounds are given for delay. 49 U.S.C. 46110(a).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1256.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom Kramer & Friedman was on brief. LLP were on brief. BACKGROUND The Serpa Corporation is a distributor of plumbing supplies. Serpa was the exclusive sales representative in New England for certain plumbing supply products manufactured by defendant Anaco. Couplings are used to transport human waste from buildings to sewer lines. Because the products are manufactured in accordance with industry standards. They are virtually identical across companies. The products were sold through exclusive sales representatives. Tyler was a competitor of Anaco's. Rather than have Serpa serve as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1043.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LLP were on brief. Was on brief. Are chronicled in the district court's opinion. We have often preached. We resist the temptation to repastinate ground that is already well ploughed and affirm principally on the basis of the district court's opinion. Similar issues are entitled to considerable deference.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-9007.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Seufert with whom Seufert Professional Association was on brief for appellants. Whittington IV with whom Brooks McNally Whittington Platto & Vitt was on brief for appellee. I. The facts have been set out in a number of previously published opinions. Our recitation below is limited to the essentials. Had a ten year repayment period and was secured by a second mortgage on the real estate. The transfer was by deed executed on October 8. For a variety of reasons it is preferable to convey the property. 000 was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1229.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Mongue were on brief for Beaulieu Wielsbeke. Jr. were on brief for Jere Scola. Two issues have been BOWNES. Jr. is the appellant. Is an appeal by Scola on the merits from a summary judgment in favor of defendants appellees Beaulieu Wielsbeke. In which the defendants are appellants. Focuses on only one question: whether Scola's appeal from the summary judgment against him was timely filed. Because we find that Scola's appeal was not timely filed. A notice of appeal in a civil case must be filed within 30 days of entry of the judgment or order from which the appeal is taken. This 30 day time limit is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1798.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Perlmutter was on brief for appellant. Fox was on brief for appellee. By the time they extinguished the blaze the PROWLER was still afloat but burned almost to its gunnels. Panek also alleged that Concordia should have prevented the PROWLER from sinking by adequately securing it to the dock while it was still afloat. The case was tried to the district court with an advisory jury. It also found for Panek on his claims that Concordia was negligent and breached its contractual duty to secure the boat by 2 failing to remove the hull of the boat from the water when it was still floating. Was captioned
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1770.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
One such account was held by Banco Central Hispa o for the benefit of First National Bank of Boston (Bank of Boston). The second was held directly by Bank of Boston. A trustee was appointed. Alleging that the aforementioned seizures were illegal and should be nullified.1 After considerable procedural skirmishing. It is important to bear in mind that this appeal 1. tests only the denial of PR DOJ's motion for reconsideration. We will not reverse unless the record displays a palpable abuse of discretion. Urges that the court should have reconsidered because the removed action should have been remanded to the commonwealth courts. A federal court appropriately exercises subject matter jurisdiction over state court claims upon removal when the claims are sufficiently
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1718.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Mejer was on brief for appellant. Colon Pagan was on brief for appellee. This appeal concerns the scope of insurance coverage for the loss at sea of 19 containers en route from Puerto Rico to Miami.1 The disputing parties are the two insurance companies that maintained insurance policies covering the shipper. Ayala and Maduro were stevedores: Ayala's operations were in Puerto Rico. Maduro's were in Miami. Maduro and Zapata agreed to 1 As the full names of the relevant entities in this case are somewhat unwieldy. Each will be referred to by the following abbreviations: Fireman's Fund Insurance Companies (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1459.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
As is explained below. A. Background DuPont is incarcerated at MCI Cedar Junction in Massachusetts. DuPont was in the Departmental Segregation Unit (DSU). He was later placed in the Departmental Disciplinary Unit (DDU). We will not disturb its conclusion absent manifest abuse of discretion. Such relief is unavailable in an individual action under 42 U.S.C. 1983. That defendants have not properly promulgated certain DDU rules. Have not provided certain law library access. This court does not have the power to direct state officials to comply with state law. DuPont asserts that defendants have violated his due process liberty interest in law library access and in not being confined in the DDU by their failure to comply with obligations imposed in the cases cited in the beginning of this opinion. Which is located at Cedar Junction as is the DSU where he was previously housed. Alston requires the preparation and review of health status reports only before an inmate is transferred to an entirely different institution.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1024.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1997 is corrected as follows: On cover sheet. With whom Gary Broida was on brief. Was on brief for appellees. Knowing Rodriguez had threatened to kill Soto and her family if Soto went to the police to have him jailed for his spousal abuse. Because we find that the defendant officers are protected by qualified immunity on that claim. Rodriguez and Soto had two children: Sally was born in 1983. The abuse was apparent to family and friends.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1950.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Shaw & Griffith was on brief. Fox was on brief. O'Neil were on brief. American legal institutions have begun over time to view cities with a certain constitutionally based suspicion. The upshot of the Monell decision is that a municipality is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1933.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jr. were on brief for appellants. As its determination that Rose intended to remain a New York domiciliary is not clearly erroneous. 574 (1985) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1462.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1995 is corrected as follows: On page 11. Tinkle was on brief for appellants. Are as follows. 857 of which were grouped off shore in arrangements referred to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1313.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: 1. Change footnote 3 to read: change Both parties refer us to this Guidance although it was published after the decision by Cyro to reject Grenier's application. We note that a revised version of the Guidance was issued October 10. When an employer could reasonably believe that an applicant will need reasonable accommodation to perform the functions of the job. Jamieson & Nelson was on brief for appellant. Jernigan and Drummond Woodsum & MacMahon were on brief for appellee. District Judge. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1077.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ruling that the claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The pendent state law claims were dismissed as a matter of 2 judicial discretion. This motion was denied on December 19. The initial question we must address in this appeal is one of jurisdiction. Hider does not have a timely appeal from the summary judgment. Hider was required to file his notice of appeal within thirty days after entry of final judgment. Timely filing of a notice of appeal is both mandatory and jurisdictional. Hider's notice of appeal was due on November 18. 1994 and was filed two months late. Hider's Rule 59(a) and 59(e) motions were due to be served by November 2. Since these motions were not served until November 5. They were untimely and did not extend the time period for appeal from the underlying judgment.1 See Cavaliere v. The clerk of the court prepared and entered on the docket a separate document which is labeled
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-2276.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argue that Matta's appeal is untimely and should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In a civil case such as this in which the United States or an officer or agency thereof is a party.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-2215.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Harrington & Richardson was on brief. Inc. was on brief. May a bankruptcy court approve a professional's employment when no application is filed until after the services in question have been rendered? If belated applications are cognizable at all. That are disinterested persons. I I Statement of the Case Statement of the Case The material facts are not in dispute. Although both Richardson and Scotti were familiar with the need for prior judicial approval of professional employment. Neither man sought authorization from the bankruptcy court before or during the period in which services were rendered. The threshold question is whether the statute permits the post facto authorization of professional services at all. Because this inquiry is strictly a matter of statutory construction. Our power of interpretive scrutiny is plenary.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1803.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an appeal by pro se debtor appellant Gaudet from a district court intermediate appeal. Concluding that the bankruptcy court was authorized to assess the fee sanction. Trustee appellee Boyajian moves to dismiss the appeal contending that this court is without appellate jurisdiction to review the judgment affirming the bankruptcy court's order. A brief recitation of the pertinent facts is in order: 1. Was needed to complete the proposed motion. 3. It is obvious from the statement of issues and other filings in this court that Gaudet seeks to revisit the district court judgment affirming the bankruptcy court's order. It is undisputed that the notice of appeal was filed more than thirty days after entry of that judgment. That a notice of appeal be timely filed is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1616.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Wallman & Goldman was on brief for Four Corners Service Station. III were on brief for Mobil Oil Corporation. I I BACKGROUND BACKGROUND Four Corners is a retail gasoline distributor in Three Rivers. Four Corners discovered that the soil beneath its Three Rivers service station was severely contaminat ed with gasoline. Id. at 15.1 The parties were directed to submit supplemental briefs on the right to recover lost profits. These calculations were based on the contention that Mobil's greater product strength in Western Massachusetts would have enabled Four Corners to sell 30% more Mobil gasoline than it did BP gasoline between 1988 and 1990. It found no evidence that Mobil would have permitted Four Corners to exceed the annual purchase caps estab lished in the Agreements. See infra note 3. 6 nonrenewal than it could have sold under the maximum Mobil gallonage limits fixed by the annual caps. 349 (1st Cir. 1994) (claims unaccompanied by adequate argumentation are deemed waived on appeal). Would have afforded it a full and
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1280.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Healey and Healey & Stewart were on brief for appellants. Leonard and Ropes & Gray were on brief for appellee. Both the airplane and the engines (made by a division of Teledyne Industries) were approximately 20 years old. Vadala was killed. Most of the wreckage was destroyed in the post crash ground fire. Nearly three years after the complaint was served. Control of torsional vibration is required in order to comply with Federal Aviation Administration regulations. The Teledyne damper is a small disk comprised of an inner brass ring that floats in a very thin layer of silicone fluid. The ring and fluid are encased by an outer steel shell. Will cause the silicone in the damper to solidify. This process is known as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1152.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Toro & Ortiz Brunet was on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellees. Concise statement of material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue to be tried and the basis of such contention as to each material fact. All material facts set forth in the statement required to be served by the moving party will be deemed admitted unless controverted by the statement required to be served by the opposing party. Concise statement of material facts as to which it is contended that there exists a genuine issue to be tried. Accompanied by a single record reference to Santos' own affidavit affirming the allegations in the com plaint:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1059.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Kaplan and The Kaplan/Bond Group were on brief for appellants. Dana & Gould were on brief for appellee. The district court held that the remedies were preempted. Discerning the law in this area is far from easy. We are constrained to reverse in part and to remand for further proceedings. The basic facts of the case are not in dispute. The captain and owner 2 2 were fined a total of $30. 000 of which was to be available to compensate individuals. The claimants in the present appeal are a group of shellfish dealers who allege severe economic losses arising from the two week hiatus in shellfishing activities. Which held that compensation for economic losses standing alone is unavailable in admiralty cases. The dealers assert that their businesses were injured 4 4 when the World Prodigy spill prevented local fishermen from harvesting shellfish in Narragansett Bay and thereby precluded the dealers from purchasing the shellfish and reselling them to restaurants and other buyers. The dealers' maritime law claims are thus purely for economic losses.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2338.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: p.48. Grasso & Mortensen were on brief for defendants. Berry & Howard were on brief for plaintiffs. *Of the District of Maine. This is an appeal from a final judgment of the district court in an action brought by a number of foreign reinsurance syndicates. At issue are reinsurance contracts (or
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2309.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1995 is amended as follows: On Page 5. Was found to have been disabled since April 30. The 1984 claim was filed without the assistance of counsel and Gilbert failed to pursue the denial past the reconsideration stage. Which was deemed administratively final. 108 (1977).2 Gilbert's motion for summary judgment was also denied. Our review of a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is de novo. Reopening decisions are a matter of agency discretion and generally are not 1. There is no authority for a de facto reopening
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2263.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The agreement was illegally terminated on January 31. A magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation that the motion for dismissal be granted because both parties to the agreement were Florida corporations. II The dispute in this case arises out of the fact that there have been two corporations with the name
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2122.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Roitman & Coleman were on brief for appellant. With whom O'Reilly & Grosso was on brief for appellees. The circumscribed role of federal courts reviewing arbitration awards in labor contract disputes is now well established. Courts must confine themselves to determining whether the arbitrator's construction of the contract was in any way plausible. The issue in this case is whether any plausible reading of a collective bargaining agreement supports an arbitrator's ruling in a dispute over fringe benefit contributions.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1802.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On page 2. Domenico was on brief for appellants. Asserting that plaintiffs had failed to institute suit within the one year period allowed by the contract.1 The Rams argued that their claim was not covered by 1The contract provides. Concluded that a carrier's duty to warn passengers of on shore hazards was so intimately related to traditional carrier passenger relationships that the tort in this case was maritime in nature even though occurring at the resort. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY PROVISION OF LAW OF ANY STATE OR COUNTRY TO THE CONTRARY. 4 Our own view is that this case does not require us to delve into either the locality or nexus requirements for a maritime tort under Executive Jet Aviation. Whether the injuries were suffered on ship or shore. Whether or not the tort were maritime in nature. The salient question in our minds is whether this particular ticket contract limitations provision applies to claims based on injuries suffered on shore after the passenger clearly has left the ship.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1473.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Andrews were on brief for appellants. Inc. were on brief for appellees R.W.F. Because we conclude that the arbitral award was within the scope of the parties' arbitral submission and drew its essence from their collective bargaining agreements. I I BACKGROUND BACKGROUND Appellants were employed at Laurans Standard Grocery Company (Laurans). RWF proposed to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1296.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
She contended the providers' conduct was so egregious as to amount to a deprivation of her constitutional rights to privacy. Because the defendants are all private actors. As complete diversity of citizenship is lacking between the parties. The federal district court did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the state law claims and properly dismissed the action. There is diversity of citizenship if the plaintiff is a `citizen' of a different state than all of the defendants.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1136.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C. were on brief for appellant. Allen & Snyder were on brief for appellees. Was fraudulently induced to discharge six consignments of frozen scallops. The discharged scallops were seized by appellees Fleet National Bank and Cooper ative Centrale Raiffeisen Boerenleenbank B.A. (hereinafter. Glouces 1An order bill of lading is a negotiable instrument. Issued by the carrier to the shipper at the time goods are loaded aboard ship. As documentary evidence of title to those goods.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1962a.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Tierney with whom Tierney Law Office was on brief for appellant. Walsh with whom Kroll & Tract was on brief for appellees Charles B. P.C. was on brief for appellees Jeffrey Mennino. A passenger injured after police officers had chased the motorcycle on which she was riding sued the police officers. The following facts are not in dispute. Was traveling in his police cruiser north on County Road in Lakeville. Which he was operating as he drove along County Road. The posted speed limit on County Road was 40 miles per hour. Was attached as an exhibit to Meninno's deposition. 2 began to pursue the motorcycle. Realized that the police car was following them. Backing off a number of times when it appeared that the bike was wobbling and the riders might fall off. Telling her of the pursuit and asking her to notify the police department in the neighboring town of Freetown that the motorcycle was heading toward the Lakeville Freetown line. Were parked in separate cruisers on Route 18 in Freetown. Before turning left from County Road onto Mason Road and accelerating again to over sixty miles per hour.2 Officer Meninno kept up and told Sullivan by radio that he and the motorcycle were now proceeding eastbound on Mason Road.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1921.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nachman with whom Joan Schlump Peters was on brief for Merit Builders. Palou & Miranda were on brief for Taber Partners I. Gonzalez & Rodriguez were on brief for appellees. A New York general partnership whose sole partners are two New York corporations. S.E. (hereinafter referred to collectively as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1312.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Willard & Redding was on brief for appellants. Were on joint brief of appellees. Were on joint brief of appellees. Although it appears that the Federal Highway Administration is ultimately responsible for the preparation of the final EIS. All of the defendant agencies were involved in the preparation of the EIS. We will refer to the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1017.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Hanson & DeTroy were on brief for petitioners. Cloutier & Associates was on brief for respondent. * Of the Eighth Circuit. Barnard worked as a fish spotter for Zapata and was found disabled for work by his family physician and a Federal Aviation Administration medical examiner. He was grounded on November 8. Plaintiff filed a claim for compensation benefits under the LHWCA and a hearing was held on July 28. An Administrative 2 2 Law Judge (ALJ) ordered Zapata to pay Barnard compensation for temporary total disability and to provide medical treatment.1 Payments were made regularly until October of 1988. Barnard contends that the liability sought in this case is not on account of his work related injury but arises from injuries caused by defendants' intentional. Barnard claims to have suffered permanent psychological damage as a result of defendants' actions. This court held the failure to honor a draft issued as part of the benefits paid constituted an independent wrong and that plaintiff was not precluded under the LHWCA from pursuing independent state law remedies.2 We must respectfully disagree with the district court's ruling.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2063.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom Lespier & Munoz Noya was on brief. P.C. were on brief. Will a federal court tinker with an arbitral award made under the aegis of a collective bargaining agreement. (El Dorado) is a construction company. Union General De Trabajadores de Puerto Rico (the Union) is the authorized representative of the company's construction and maintenance employees in Puerto Rico. Rosado was unemployed for some seven weeks. A grievance was filed. The arbitrator was asked: To determine according to the facts and the applicable collective bargaining agreement if the lay off of the complainant [Rosado] on July 13. Was or [was] not justified. Was laid off for lack of work at a job site in San Juan. A new employee was hired by El Dorado to perform welding duties at a different project in Palo Seco. The Union contended that this assignment should have been offered to Rosado under Section 32 of the Agreement. Which stipulated: Employees with several years of service with the COMPANY and who are employed at the time of signature of this AGREEMENT shall be considered preferred employees for re employment.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1723.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for appellant. Sherden and Peabody & Arnold were on brief for appellee. *Of the Third Circuit. The district court was to certify these findings and rulings to the Clerk of this court. At the time this action was brought. Rather the magistrate judge found that Montle was by then physically residing in Houston. Resided by the time this action 2 was commenced within the same state as plaintiff. Diversity of citizenship was entirely lacking. As the district court was without jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332. It should have granted Montle's original motion to dismiss on that ground. Was on brief for appellant. Sherden and Peabody & Arnold were on brief for appellee. *Of the Third Circuit. While not specifically alleging
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1694.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On page 6. Wishart and Jackman & Roth were on brief. Was on brief. It is settled that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1689.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sullivan was on brief Cornelius J. Sullivan was on brief for appellant. for appellant. Was on brief for appellee. Was on brief for appellee. Appellant Alan Taub was employed as a CYR. When he was terminated for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1679.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. Were on brief. We sustain her appeal.1 I I A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on her theory of the case so long as the theory itself is a cognizable one and the evidence of record. Appellate review is plenary. Flores was charged with assaulting an FBI agent after her flight had landed and custody had attached. To the extent that there is record rooted support for the defendant's version of the evidence. Appellant was en route from New York to Puerto Rico aboard a regularly scheduled American Airlines flight. Tina Quarnstrom was a flight attendant on the airplane. Her principal duties were to provide food service. The relationship between Flores and Quarnstrom was turbulent from the start. Quarnstrom responded that all the blankets were taken. Flores asked Quarnstrom why she was being so rude. Where she remained until the flight landed and she was placed under arrest. The prosecution's version of the touching is much different. Quarnstrom testified that her watch was damaged. It is undisputed that the flight proceeded without further incident.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1613.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
DeMallie & Lougee were on brief for appellants. DeMallie & Lougee were on brief for appellants. Were on brief Section Tax Division and David I. Were on brief for appellee. for appellee. A closely held corporation of which Ralph and his three brothers were the only individual shareholders. The IRS determined that the alleged loans were taxable as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1432.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
They point to other Massachusetts authority that permits a plaintiff to recover for harm caused by such behavior even though the plaintiff is not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1334.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On page 3. That order was not issued by the Judge from whose final orders the appeal is taken.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1291.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellee. * Of the Second Circuit. These assets were owned by plaintiffs and valued at $693. The courier was to enter the country and deposit the assets at the San Juan branch of the Royal Bank of Canada. They contacted the bank and were told that the courier had not arrived. Plaintiffs then contacted the Customs Service and were told. Mitri Lajam's decomposed body was found in Puerto Rico's rain forest El Yunque. Attallah that they had no leads as to who was responsible for the criminal acts committed. The indictment was the conclusion of a federal investigation into the death of Mitri Lajam. El as Attallah was approached by the U.S. That complaint was dismissed without prejudice on the sole ground that plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies inasmuch as their suit was filed prematurely. If after that six month 3 the United States was filed on October 3. Negligently failed to provide adequate security for the assets which were stolen or lost while under the exclusive custody and control of the Customs agents.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=90-1957.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: Page 2. William Shakespeare tells us in a famous passage from Romeo and Juliet that labels are not important. Rather that content is what counts.6 In more recent times. The BETTY F is thus a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=90-1041.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1992 is amended as follows: On page 7. Meagher & Flom were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for the United States. Nickens was indicted and convicted in a jury trial on three counts: importation of cocaine. Because his flight was a continuing flight en route to Madrid. He was required to wait in an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2409.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Spellman</SPAN> were on brief. Glass</SPAN> was on brief. A magistrate judge found that a major dispute existed as that term is used in the jurisprudence of the RLA and further found that the defendants had engaged in prohibited conduct. One manifestation of this bias is that. While this pavane is in progress.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2071.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Rivera</SPAN> was on brief. Were on brief. Procedural Background</STRONG></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1808.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Charset=utf 8
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1285.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The tax rate at the time was 24.4 cents per gallon.</p>\ </span>' var WPFootnote2 = '<span class=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1163.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Tijani Momoh was accused of stealing United States mail. The package was purportedly being shipped to an address in Lagos. </span>On the front of the completed DHL airbill accompanying the package were the names and addresses of the shipper and the addressee. There was a notation of $80.40 in total charges. There was also a section of the airbill that stated. Centered above the individual terms and conditions was an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2246.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gonzalez Law Office</SPAN> was on brief for appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2148.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Wood</SPAN> were on brief. Sullivan</SPAN> were on brief. Was on brief. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1990.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.S.C.</SPAN> were on brief. LLP</SPAN> were on brief. Concluding that the scheme was preempted by federal law. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></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-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1678.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellant. <P> <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1670.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Guillemard</SPAN> were on brief for appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1333.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. Which was entered 127 days after sentencing. Was invalid. Any error that the district court may have committed by entering Cheal's restitution order after the 90 day period did not constitute plain error. Nancy Cheal was 60 years old and lived in a five bedroom double wide trailer home along with her second husband and four great grandchildren. Although the purpose served by these clubs is not clear. Cheal organized and began to advertise the investment scheme that led to her criminal convictions.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1119.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Various claims were filed asserting rights to a portion of the properties. All were stricken except for the claim of Daniel Rivera Ruiz (Rivera). Nor did he communicate with the court regarding any problem that he might have had either in attempting to retain new counsel or in mustering an opposition to the pending summary judgment motion.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1968.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Knight LLP</SPAN> were on brief. Sinclair</SPAN> were on brief. The package was returned unclaimed. The package was signed for by someone other than Twomey.</P> <P> Twomey did not contact Delta for nine years. The package was returned to Delta marked
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1958.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
All of which were denied. All of which were granted. The district court denied the motion.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1889.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
O</SPAN> with whom <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1791.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellants. <P> <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1688.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.A.</SPAN> was on brief for appellant.</SPAN> <BR WP=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1027.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Hoch</SPAN> were on brief. Were on brief. Were on brief. The program is the product of a consent decree entered in 1973. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2737.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ciandella</SPAN> were on brief. P.A.</SPAN> were on brief. The district court granted summary judgment in plaintiffs' favor on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to support the Town of Kingston's decision to deny plaintiffs' application to construct a tower. Arguing that the Town's rejection of the plaintiffs' application is supported by substantial evidence. Because we conclude that there was substantial evidence to support the Town's decision in the record. The Board rejected the plaintiffs' application on four grounds:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2282OPN.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Simpson</SPAN> was on brief. Were on brief. Its meat is highly valued by epicures across the country. American lobsters along the Atlantic Coast are overfished. Lobster fishermen who reside in and whose vessels are based in Rhode Island brought suit challenging the Secretary's regulations on various grounds.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2028.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.A.</SPAN> was on brief for appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1787.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LLC</SPAN> were on brief. P.A.</SPAN> were on brief. Was set to expire in April of 1999. Houlton Cable was entitled to initiate formal renewal procedures by submitting a written request to the Town between April and October. Minutes from the public hearing and the Town Council's subsequent meeting indicate that Houlton Cable's refusal to provide high speed Internet access to its subscribers was a major factor in the Town's decision to reject the renewal proposal. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2184.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Claiming that she was a citizen of Florida whereas all the defendants were citizens of Puerto Rico. Because it is Valentí. N's citizenship that is at issue here. The critical date here was December 10. The plaintiff's jurisdictional assertion hinged upon her contention that she was a citizen of Florida at that time. They took the position that the plaintiff's true home was in Puerto Rico.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1901.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Capone LLP</U> were on brief. With whom <U>Hale and Dorr LLP</U> were on brief. Appellant claims that this decision was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2003/014259p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
These costs have been or will be incurred by plaintiff appellant Morton International. Who are not parties to this appeal. We will remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The following facts are undisputed. A mercury processing plant was operated at the Site. The plant was the largest domestic producer of intermediate inorganic mercury compounds. The compounds were formulated. The plant was owned by F.W. It was transferred to Wood Ridge Chemical Corporation (its parent company is Velsicol Chemical Corporation) in 1960. The plant was closed in 1974. Velsicol and Morton were held strictly liable. That judgment was upheld following numerous appeals and successive litigation. Various other entities were required to perform a remedial investigation/feasibility study for the Site. Morton is trying to recover from other allegedly responsible parties some of the costs it has incurred and will continue to incur to clean up the Site. The defendants argue that Morton's characterization of the PVM transactions is inaccurate.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2003/014259a1.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2003) ORDER AMENDING OPINION The opinion in the above case is hereby amended as follows: 4 1.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2003/031301u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. A brief overview of the facts of this case is helpful to understanding the procedural decision of the District Court challenged in this appeal. Hallie Ortiz was one of the four life tenants. That the parcel was not subject to the litigation. The amended complaint alleged that the 1965 Deed to Hallie Ortiz was invalid. That the three acre parcel now held by Carolyn 2 was subject to the interests created by the 1961 Deed. The remaining three elevenths remainder interest is held by the United States under the 1970 Indentures. The United States circulated a letter to the parties stating it would not attend the mediation sessions
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2003/022805u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. Chautauqua itself is not a party to the appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to § 46110(a) as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2003/011788p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The primary question is whether the District Court erred in affirming the Bankruptcy Court's order. ]
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Mar2002/002890.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
They contend that the District Court of the Virgin Islands did not have subject matter jurisdiction over this foreclosure action because Land Holdings collusively manufactured diversity. They contend that Land Holdings should have been precluded from filing this foreclosure action in the Virgin Islands because they had not complied with the registration requirements of the Virgin Islands' Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2003/023359u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appellant Craig Vukich appeals the dismissal of his complaint following the District Court's determination that his present claims were compulsory counterclaims to a previous lawsuit. Vukich argues that his allegations of breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation by Nationwide are not logically related to the prior action. We review de novo the District Court's determination that Vukich's suit should have been pursued as a compulsory counterclaim in the Fleming action. We will affirm the District Court. 2 I. Vukich accumulated certain deferred earnings as a form of benefits and was entitled to received those earnings in the event of a disability. There are tw o com panion lawsuits. Vukich alleges that Nationwide was contractually permitted to either withhold his deferred compensation and allow competition. It is clear that both the Fleming lawsuit and this case arise from the same factual predicate and relate to the proper interpretation of the employment agreement. If it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2004/034169p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Factual Background OPINION OF THE COURT The IAM is an unincorporated labor organization that is the certified collective bargaining representative of US Airways' mechanics and related personnel. District Lodge 141 M is the IAM's negotiating arm. The IAM and US Airways have been parties to collective bargaining agreements governing US Airways' mechanics and related employees. S Checks are the most extensive type of scheduled maintenance checks. The district court concluded that the dispute between US Airways and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2002/002537.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Alleging he was terminated in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2003/024254u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
BACKGROUND The parties are familiar with the facts of this case. We will provide but a brief summary of those facts at the outset. The plan states that it will pay life insurance benefits to the beneficiary of the basic policy named on the proper form. The optional policy is not among those listed that he could have checked off or circled. 2 In 1990. The decedent was laid off by GM. He was purportedly required to resubmit documentation to reinstate his group life insurance benefits. Stated: In addition I have asked on more then [sic] one occasion for a copy of my conformation [sic] of my benificiary [sic] designation to be sure my wife Patricia Kubichek is my sole benificiary [sic] on all policies. Please forward this to the correct department and person so I may have a copy for my records. GM was unable to locate its copy of this letter. The letter does not indicate who the beneficiaries of these policies are. 300.00 in proceeds from the basic life insurance policy was paid to Brennan. Kubichek moved for summary judgment on the ground that no documentation was produced showing that the decedent ever changed the beneficiary of his optional policy from her to Brennan.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2002/013746up.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This civil action was filed in 1998 by plaintiff Michael J. BAI should have been permitted to pursue its original underlying claim for $141. Which was also to be a network of physicians. Zdenek included plaintiff's bills with the invoices defendant SOA was to pay. GSON was legally formed. Defendant insisted that payment was contingent on plaintiff successfully obtaining managed care contracts for the defendant. Dwyer asserted at trial that plaintiff was not entitled to payment because it did not obtain managed care contracts for defendant. Was to pay the remaining $20. The District Court ruled that plaintiff was entitled to recover $51. The Court concluded it was entitled to recover on the settlement agreement. No additional findings were necessary. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Taxation of costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) is reviewed only for abuse of discretion. Plaintiff is entitled to sue on the original claims. Asserts that the settlement agreement is a substitute contract.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2002/013183.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The parties entered into settlement discussions during which the plaintiff contended that the airplane's crash into the water resulted only in emotional distress to her husband and that his death by drowning was a separate occurrence from the crash itself.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2003/022945p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is whether Indiana's or Pennsylvania's choice of law rules govern a suit against the United States by the estates of passengers killed in the crash of a small private aircraft. The plane was hangared in Pennsylvania. The corporation that owned it was incorporated in Pennsylvania. D.C. of a chart incorrectly showing that a long inactive instrument landing approach at the airport was active. The District Court determined that because acts of negligence were committed in both Indiana and the District of Columbia (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2004/023431np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. It is not necessary to recite the facts of this case in detail. It is sufficient to note that Gorini was employed for more than four years by AMP Incorporated. Was terminated in April 1999 following Tyco's acquisition of AMP. Gorini thereafter sued Tyco under ERISA for benefits he was allegedly due under two employment severance plans that Tyco maintained. He claimed that he was entitled to relief under WARN for Tyco's failure to timely notify him of this layoff. Tyco was granted summary judgment on Gorini's claim that Tyco had failed to disclose an annual report for one of the severance plans as required under ERISA. Gorini was granted summary judgment on claims that Tyco did not disclose other documents relating to the plans. It found that Gorini was entitled to damages under WARN and to a portion of the claimed vacation pay. We exercise plenary review over a partial summary judgment when it is appealed as part of a final judgment. We therefore review any point on which summary judgment was granted to ensure that the party granted judgment was entitled to it as a matter of law and that there was no genuine issue of material fact.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1995/95a1158p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are called upon in this case principally to perform one of our most delicate duties determining whether Congress exceeded its constitutional authority in enacting a federal law. At issue is the power of Congress to criminalize
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1999/983519.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Township claims that the District Court erred in concluding that its zoning ordinance was impermissibly exclusionary under the Pennsylvania Constitution. We conclude that the Township's ordinance is not invalid under state law or the TCA and will reverse. PCS systems are arranged around service
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1997/97a1748p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court entered judgment for the defendant but in an amount that was substantially less than the amount of his counterclaim. We will affirm the judgment of the district court without further comment. As it is based upon that court's assessment of the evidence. We will discuss whether the amount in controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C.A. 421.04) was. 000 minimum required for diversity jurisdiction when the suit was filed. Also alleged that it was entitled to recoup an additional $3. Brown further argues that Spectacor conceded that even Spectacor's claim to recover benefits from Brown was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1997/97a1748p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court <p>entered judgment for the defendant but in an amount that <p>was substantially less than the amount of his counterclaim. <p>The defendant appeals. We will affirm the judgment of the <p>district court without further comment. As it is based upon <p>that court's assessment of the evidence. We will discuss <p>whether the amount in controversy requirement of 28 <p>U.S.C.A. 421.04) was. 000 minimum required for diversity jurisdiction <p>when the suit was filed. Also alleged <p>that it was entitled to recoup an additional $3. Brown further argues that <p>Spectacor conceded that even Spectacor's claim to recover <p>benefits from Brown was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></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-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1998/98a1853p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. The material facts underlying this appeal are not in dispute. Which is in the business of. Some changes were made. The lease contained a stipulation from TWA that the liquidated damages provision contained in the original lease was valid. Authorizing TWA to make whatever payments were necessary to cure its past default and to continue to meet its obligations coming due under the lease on or after March 31. The order made clear that TWA was not assuming the lease pursuant to section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code. Was retaining its right to petition the court for an order authorizing either the assumption or rejection of the lease in the future. TWA concedes that the planes were returned in worse mechanical condition than required under the lease. Its efforts were unavailing. Interface was forced to place the two L 1011s in long term or
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1996/96a1317p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Coastal filed a counterclaim against Nautilus alleging that Nautilus was solely responsible for the grounding. We are asked to determine whether the district court erred in admitting opinions and conclusions contained in a Coast Guard Report of the incident into evidence. We will affirm the ruling of the district court. I. We need only briefly set forth the underlying facts as they are detailed in the district court's opinion. The approach to the berth was unsafe.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1998/98a1871p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Before the Court is not a petition for review of the final order of an administrative agency but a petition for an order compelling the respondents. Petitioners allege that we have subject matter jurisdiction over their claims pursuant to three statutes: (1) The All Writs Act. We hold that a writ of mandamus is not available under these circumstances and. Even though this Court is vested with jurisdiction to review the Secretary's actions for unreasonable delay. We will therefore deny the petition. 3 I. Is a structural and anti corrosive element which has been used in the metal. 000 workers in these industries are regularly exposed to hexavalent chromium. 62 Fed. In response to concerns that hexavalent chromium is a carcinogen. Which is still in effect today. The Secretary declined to set an emergency temporary standard because he found the evidence insufficient to support the allegation that a standard was immediately
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2000/993513.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. INTRODUCTION Before us is an appeal from the order of the District Court granting a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the Virgin Islands Wrongful Discharge Act (WDA or
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1997/97a1622p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an appeal under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act involving the failure of a plan administrator to notify a plan participant of the irrevocability of his retirement benefit election and joint annuitant designation. There are two principal issues on appeal. Whether the failure to explain the irrevocability of the benefit election was a breach of the administrator's fiduciary duty. We will affirm in part. Flying Tiger was the plan administrator until 1989. Thereafter Federal Express was the plan administrator. The plans are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1997/97a1607p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that the district court is precluded from exercising further jurisdiction over that claim and must remand the case to the state court from which it was removed. 2 I. On which Elizabeth Naomi Bromwell was a passenger. Were killed in the collision and Wurm suffered serious physical and psychological injuries. These actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and were consolidated into a single case. Both Meyers Trucking and Stacey are citizens of Michigan. Wurm is a citizen of Missouri. The three decedents were citizens of Maryland. The terms of the settlement agreement are. Inc. and David Stacey to be legally liable and on account of which suit was brought in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania at Civil Actions Nos. 90 1120. It being understood and agreed that the acceptance of said sum is in full accord and satisfaction of a disputed claim and that the payment of said sum is not an admission of liability by Ralph Meyers Trucking.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July2000/991893.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1995/95a1111p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are the Contacts Such That Application of American Law Would Be Reasonable? 41 a. Was seriously injured when she was sucked into the propellers of a scuba diving vessel. Plaintiff was a member of the crew of the vessel. Which was in St. We first find American maritime law potentially applicable in this case because the plaintiff is an American citizen. We consider whether applying American law is reasonable under the circumstances. Lucia might have in this case are undefined and. By this we do not mean that the vessel involved here was unlike those in traditional. The activity here was non traditional. Which as we explain is an important consideration in non shipping contexts. One of the defendants is a corporation organized under the laws of St. Was registered in St. Are so threatened or so strong that America’s interests must be ignored. The significance of plaintiff’s American allegiance is an especially important factor. The relevance of the plaintiff’s having entered into her employment contract in the United States is also enhanced.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1995/95a1095p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We agree with the district court that the parties are not entitled to a jury trial under CERCLA. We will vacate the judgment in favor of the buyer and remand for a hearing on the contractual issues. Whose sole shareholder was and is Alex Kaufman.[fn1] Kaufman had worked at the Fords site for over twenty years and served as the president of Grace's chemical division there from 1962 until the sale in 1978. The site was polluted by the manufacturing operations that had been carried on over the years. The proceedings before the district court have been chronicled in a series of published opinions.[fn2] Although unresolved claims between the parties remain (including potential insurance coverage). One of which we find is dispositive of this appeal.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1998/98a1783p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The sole issue we must resolve in this appeal is whether TWA was insolvent on November 4. TWA was insolvent. We will reverse the district court's order. Eighty eight days after the deposit was made. Seeking a declaration that the $13.7 million deposit was a preferential transfer which was voidable under 11 U.S.C. (2) for or on account of an antecedent debt owed by the debtor before such transfer was made. (3) made while the debtor was insolvent. The Bankruptcy Court Proceedings The bankruptcy court held a four day bench trial in February 1994 to determine whether the deposit was indeed a preferential transfer. The court focused its attention on the statutory requirement that TWA was insolvent on the day of the transfer. Following the code's guidance that a corporation is insolvent when
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1998/98a1780p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That caused damage to its surrounding engine was separate property from the engine or was merely a component of the engine. 2) whether East River bars a tort claim for post sale duty to warn under a negligence theory when the damage is purely economic. 3) whether East River bars a tort claim for negligent repair when the damage is purely economic. The district court held 1) that the rod was not separate property from the engine. 2) that even when the injury is only economic. There is a post sale duty to warn claim if a defendant manufacturer had actual knowledge that the 2 product was defective. That GE did not have actual knowledge of the defective part prior to Sea Land's injury. 3) that East River bars a tort claim for negligent repair when the damage is purely economic. I. Facts Sea Land is a bareboat charterer of many vessels including the Sea Land Enterprise. The Enterprise was constructed in 1980. The Enterprise's SSDG is powered by a GE diesel engine. The diesel engine is made up of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1996/96a1241p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. The company's Drug and Alcohol Policy and any provisions of the expired Agreement that were not part of the negotiations. A positive test result or refusal to submit to a drug test is grounds for disciplinary action. Exxon explained it would be aggressively enforcing its Alcohol and Drug Policy and gave
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1998/98a1798p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction to review thefinal orders of the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. The Secretary of Banking at the time of the events we describe was Sarah W. This 1991 agreement was prompted when Meritor proposed that its 12% Subordinated Capital Noteholders (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1997/97a1509p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are frivolous and will affirm the orders of the district court. Their joint proposal was rejected in favor of another bidder. Sea Air alleged that VIPA's choice of bidders was unlawful because it violated VIPA's bidding statute. The Commerce Clause and FAA claims because they were included in Sea Air's third amended complaint. Filed just two weeks before trial was scheduled to begin. The gravamen of his complaint was the same as that of the earlier dismissed action. Huck contends that the final and unappealed judgment entered against Sea Air in the earlier case did not bar his lawsuit because the earlier decision was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1998/98a2026p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It was improper for the DEA to use administrative forfeiture instead of judicial forfeiture. We will deny CIGNA's Petition for Review. That agreement was not filed with the FAA (as required by law) until after seizure of the plane more than three years later. CIGNA insured the jet under a standard policy which was later amended at Yskamp's request to cover losses caused by war or confiscation. Which was granted. Yskamp conceded that this flight and a prior one with the same suspects were odd. Because the bulk of the payment was in cash. The turn around time was short. Pilots for Yskamp stated initially (but later retracted when Yskamp was present) that they had informed him of their suspicions. Even though Haldan was not named on the policy. Included with this notice was a petition for expedited release of the jet. Confirming its understanding that the DEA would proceed on the petition for expedited release and stating that CIGNA's decision whether to post bond was still pending. That neither Yskamp nor CIGNA had taken reasonable steps to assure that the jet was not used for conveying illegal drugs.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1684p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The question before us is whether the district court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion under Fed. Pennsylvania's statutory period for bringing a personal injury action is two years. 42 Pa. Boley's attempted service by mail was insufficient under Pennsylvania law. We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Which were not a part of the record before the district court when it ruled on the motion to dismiss. We grant Kaymark's motion to strike those portions of Boley's motion that were not before the district court. A court's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1670p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Profession or trade
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1996/96a1407p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It held alternatively that her claim was barred by the exclusive remedy provided by the New Jersey Worker's Compensation Act and that. The claim would fail on its merits because defendants' conduct was not sufficiently outrageous under New Jersey law. This was incorrect as a matter of law. The worker must prove that the employer's actions were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr2001/003064.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was settled on the eve of trial. We have isolated those that ar e germane to the three issues reaching us on appeal. We will reverse the District Court's judgment in two respects. Which is at the heart of this controversy. Allied offers in writing to per form such work on such terms which are equal to or better than the bid otherwise most acceptable to the U.S. That Allied is then able to meet U.S. No third party was told that Allied held the right to review and match their final bids. Allied was unable to compete with an offer that included debt forgiveness. Allied's Fraudulent Inducement Claim Allied next claims that it was fraudulently induced into accepting Section V of the Settlement Agreement. 2) That the dismantling specification will not include the provision for . . . any environmental remediation (including any remediation and/or removal of asbestos) by Allied. Work in and around the dust was far mor e difficult than anticipated because . . . [the sinter dust] impacted the way facilities were dropped.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/Locator/3/99/May99.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I) [Netscape]
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200708/06-1034a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Joel V. With him on the brief was Bridget M. The interest income is susceptible to tax in both the United States and the foreign state. Where the relevant tax rate in the U.S. was 50% and in the foreign country was 25% with a 10% refund. Were the foreign rate 50% with no refund. Thus the two countries are on a see saw: When one country's tax revenue goes up. Or rather this iteration of this case (for it is the third time we have heard an appeal from the Tax Court concerning the same transaction). Is a peculiar elaboration of these simple principles.1 During the 1970s and early 1980s. In an The previous iterations of this case are. Becoming a middleman on the old loans (paying the creditors what was owed to them from the original borrowers and in turn receiving payments from the original borrowers) and. This appeal is about the U.S. tax treatment of that $139. We will refer to appellant as PNC even when speaking of the Riggs I through V period. 4 First. PNC's loans to the Central Bank were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200707/06-1094a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was with him on brief. Heenan was with her on brief. Means was on brief for intervenor Tejon Ranchcorp in support of the respondent. 2 Before: SENTELLE. Section 3(h)(1) of the Act defines the term
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200706/05-1419a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
EchoHawk was on the briefs for petitioner Ohngo Gaudadeh Devia. Jr. was on the briefs for petitioner State of Utah. 2 Catherine Cortez Masto. Fitzpatrick were on the brief for amicus curiae State of Nevada in support of petitioners. Were on the brief for federal respondents. Bauser were on the brief for amicus curiae Nuclear Energy Institute. Gaukler were on the brief for intervenors Private Fuel Storage. Because it is speculative whether 3 the project will ever be able to proceed. While most ISFSIs are located at the reactors where the spent nuclear fuel is generated. Its preferred option was to build a new. PFS's alternative option was to build an intermodal transfer facility. At which spent nuclear fuel would be These petitions for review were considered on the record from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and on the briefs filed by the parties. Which is specific to the site designated in the proposed lease. Its term is twenty years. On the ground that the intermodal transfer facility was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200704/05-7170a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200704/05-5033a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the brief was Donald R. With him on the brief were Kenneth L. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Woodruff was injured in a fall at work. The claims asserted in that complaint are not before us in this case. While Woodruff was away. Eoyang told him he could resume his supervisory duties only when he was able to return to work on a regular basis. Eoyang responded: While you have gradually increased your hours to 80 hours a pay period. You have yet to be able to resume a regular schedule such that I can rely on your availability as a supervisor. .... . . . Full time schedule and are able to work a regular eight or nine hour schedule. Without the breaks you now have. I will reconsider my decision at that time. He was able to return to full time work by April. Eoyang agreed to these accommodations with the following proviso:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200701/06-5059a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
On the briefs was David G. With her on the brief was Todd S. With her on the brief were Harriet A. With him on the brief was D. Because appellants have produced no evidence of continuing TVA authority over the project. Adjacent to the site are several areas of historic significance. Other Reconstruction era African American communities that have applied for historic status. Or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. In response to which Karst filed an amended complaint adding allegations against all three and asking the court to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200701/04-3076a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on the joint brief for the appellants. United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Was on brief. We will vacate the sentences and remand for resentencing because we cannot say that the district court's Booker error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We will address both. 1 4 with intent to distribute. Henry and Harrison were retried on the drug conspiracy count. The district court utilized a formula derived from Detective Thomas's expert testimony to calculate the amount of heroin for which Henry and Harrison were responsible. Henry's and Harrison's Guidelines range was 360 months to life imprisonment and the district court again sentenced them to life imprisonment. It is well settled that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200609/05-1008a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Ian H. With him on the brief were James C. Circuit Judge: CTIAThe Wireless Association (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200607/05-1124a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was W. With him on the brief was Karen L. The Commission is generally without authority to review such decisions. (The entities listed before the italicized
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="157"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200603/05-5168a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
O:\Slip\WP\2005\05 5168 Subpoena30a.odl.wpd
With her on the briefs were Peter D. With her on the brief was Jon C. The amount of money a State may receive under Title IV B is capped. A question that arises when a State prepares its CAP is how it should allocate expenditures that benefit more than one federal program. We are told. Is
OPINION/ORDER
Jr. was on brief. Were on brief. Which prohibit airline and airport operators from employing in specified positions an individual found to have been convicted within the previous ten years of any one of several listed crimes.1 The IBT argues that. The TSA was required to promulgate the 2004 Guidance pursuant to the notice and comment procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act and to publish it in the Federal Register. In the 10 year period ending on the The regulations were promulgated pursuant to the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA). The individual was convicted (or found not guilty by reason of insanity) of
OPINION/ORDER
On the briefs were Kenneth P. May were on the brief for amici curiae The Progress & Freedom Foundation. Ruden was on the brief for amicus curiae American Society of Travel Agents. 2 Thomas L. With him on the brief were Robert H. States that an independent computer reservation system (
OPINION/ORDER
An airline might find itself training a pilot at considerable expense who would have little or no opportunity to use the acquired skills flying the airline's planes. To give those pilots
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Kenneth L. Chief Judge: Rasheed Rashad appeals the decision of the district court rejecting his claim to have received ineffective assistance of counsel. Rashad alleged his trial counsel never told him his sentence might have been reduced for accepting responsibility if he had pleaded guilty rather than going to trial. The district court ruled that Rashad suffered no prejudice because he could not have pleaded guilty while maintaining his innocence to some of the charges against him. Because the district court seems not to have realized that it had the discretion to accept a guilty plea in these circumstances. I. Background Rashad was arrested after selling crack cocaine to a government informant in two separate transactions. One of which was captured on videotape. Government attorneys showed Rashad the videotape and recounted all their evidence of his drug offenses with the goal of convincing him to plead guilty and to supply information regarding other individuals whom the Government was pursuing.
OPINION/ORDER
Senior Circuit Judge ORDER It is. McGrail Deputy Clerk Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Federal Reporter or U.S.App.D.C. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of any formal errors in order that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. With him on the briefs were Roscoe C. Specifically at issue is Treasury's selection of a ``weighted national average'' methodology to calculate locality pay increases under the Federal Law Enforcement Pay Reform Act of 1990 (``FLEPRA''). The conceptual difficulty arises because locality pay increases are geographically fixed while the DCRA's equalization provision is based on the salary of an agent in active service. Notwithstanding the fact that Secret Service agents have postings throughout the United States and overseas. No issue is before the court regarding the entitlement of those retirees to locality pay adjustments. Treasury's methodology is fair and valid. That Treasury as opposed to the District of Columbia is the proper locus of decisionmaking for calculating the amount of locality pay for Secret Service retirees who have opted to retire under the DCRA.
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief was Charles L. The OIG released a highly critical report that was later described in a Washington Post article. The only important fact about the OIG's audit is that the OIG never offered Trifax an opportu nity to comment on the unfavorable report before making it public. That
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was David C. With him on the brief were Roscoe C. Quentin Riegel were on the brief for amici curiae Industry Coalition on Technology Transfer. Circuit Judge: The principal question on appeal is whether Exemption 3 of the Freedom of Information Act (
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Jay P. With him on the brief were Arthur F. I. The Waterbury Sheraton Hotel was first opened in the mid 1980s by owners Joseph and Loretta Calabrese. Was certified as the bargaining representative of the hotel's service. Provided that Waterbury would
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was Lynn F. With him on the brief were Henderson J. Because D.C. law creates no entitlement to a contract before it is formally awarded. Are not assured of winning contracts. For D.C. agencies may cancel the bidding process even after bids have been opened if cancellation is in the
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Laurie T. With him on the brief was John C. Ezzell must demonstrate an
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was Steven M. With him on the brief were Arthur F. The company and the union entered into a collective bargaining agreement that was effective from May 26. Because it was tainted by the company's unlawful refusal to bargain in April and by its unlawful assistance to the employees' decertification efforts. There is a presumption that the employees' disaffec tion from the union is the result of the employer's unlawful conduct. Was both
OPINION/ORDER
When the case was originally argued in October 2000 we were taken aback to learn that part of the property subject to the FAA's challenged approval of the Airport Master Plan was under the Army's control and the Army had not yet taken actions to dispose of the property. 2002 (four months after the supplemental briefs were submitted). Enclosing a terse memorandum from a Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army indicating he was withdrawing the October 25. When we received this latest extraordinary letter from the government's counsel the opinion was already in galleys scheduled to issue on April 9. Who argued all along that the case was ripe and who still maintains the case is ripe. To argue that the case is ripe not for the reason we gave but for another reason. We are utterly baffled. Since our ripeness concern was a prudential one we did not wish to devote judicial resources when it might not be necessary it. Was obviated once we had prepared our opinion. Petitioner's second concern is our holding that it lacked prudential standing to assert the FAA's alleged violation of NEPA.
OPINION/ORDER
Was on brief. Acting United States Att
