Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to
consider using additional terms to narrow it.
 |
ISKCON OF POTOMAC V. RIDENOUR JAMES M.
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Richard B. With him on the brief were Michelle M. Fred Wertheimer. 2 Trevor Potter was on the brief for amici curiae John McCain. Federal campaign finance law is complex. BCRA is no exception. Though few of its details are important to this litigation (and those that are we describe later in our analysis).
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Cynthia L. With him on the brief were R. Stetson were on the brief for intervenor Motion Picture Association of America. Circuit Judge: It is axiomatic that administrative agencies may issue regulations only pursuant to authority delegated to them by Congress. The principal question presented by this case is whether Congress delegated authority to the Federal Communications Commission (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were John R. With her on the brief were Kenneth L. Concluding that even if all exterior postal properties are public forums. The regulation is a valid restriction on the time. I The appellants are seven individuals and organizations that attempt to place initiatives on state ballots by collecting signatures on petitions. They contend that sidewalks and other exterior areas of post offices are particularly fertile locations for the procurement of such signatures.1 Until relatively recently. Postal Service regulations were silent on the subject of soliciting petition signatures on postal premises. An activity that is also constrained by regulation. Impeding ingress to or egress from post offices are prohibited. 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(h)(1) (emphasis added). They argued that the regulation is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to their specific petitioning activities. On the ground that there were insufficient facts in the record to entitle either party to judgment as a matter of law.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
At issue is whether the First Amendment precludes imposition of civil damages for the disclosure of portions of a tape recording of an intercepted telephone conversation containing information of public significance when the defendants. Wyoming Valley West School District was in contract negotiations with the Wyoming Valley West School District Teachers' Union (the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Bader were on brief. Pierce Atwood were on brief. The Maine Committee is a nonprofit membership corporation. Among its activities thus funded is the publication of voter guides describing the position of congressional candidates on
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Because we conclude that the record sufficiently supports the Village's claim that the liquor prohibition is a reasonable attempt to reduce or eliminate the undesirable
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is unconstitutional. Holding that the regulation is unconstitutional and enjoining the FEC from enforcing the regulation against VSHL or any other party in the United States. We hold that the regulation is unconstitutional because it is not limited to communications that contain express words of advocacy as required by Buckley v. Is too broad. The injunction will be limited to barring the FEC from proceeding against VA. Our holding that the regulation is unconstitutional and the injunction that we have authorized give VSHL complete relief. I. VSHL is a Virginia based nonprofit corporation established
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Appellants filed lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington seeking damages for the constitutional rights that were alleged to be violated by the emergency order. Four of the Appellants also filed individual claims in which they alleged that their constitutional rights were infringed by Seattle police officers in the course of the conference. We determine that the emergency order was a constitutional time. We also determine that there are genuine issues of material fact whether the emergency order was constitutional as applied to certain Appellants. Emily Maloney were also named plaintiffs in the lawsuit. They are not parties to this appeal. 1 5952 MENOTTI v. CITY OF SEATTLE All persons who were arrested by the City of Seattle and its police agents or its affiliated police agents on December 1 and 2. Pursuant to the defendants'
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
When a certain amount of money is spent for the purpose of defeating or passing a voter decided proposition. GETMAN disclosure is needed. CPLC's attack is two fold. CPLC contends that California ambiguously defines which political communications are subject to regulation. We reject CPLC's first claim and hold that California's definition of
|
|
TIME WARNER ENTRTNMT V. FCC
|
 |
ALLI COMMTY MEDIA V. FCC
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Opinion by Judge Berzon *Brian Sandoval is substituted for his predecessor. Brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all. . . . Were published under fictitious names. It is plain that anonymity has sometimes been assumed for the most constructive purposes. We are asked in this case to rule on the constitutionality of a Nevada statute that requires certain groups or entities publishing
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Senior District Judge: Presently before the Court is Appellant Abdul Nasir's (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs appellants (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Before the court are consolidated petitions for review which challenge an order of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) preempting state regulation of telecommunication services which utilize a relatively new technology called Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). This opinion is being issued by the remaining members of the panel pursuant to 8th Circuit Rule 47E. 6 1 Service Commission of the State of New York is not ripe for review and otherwise affirm the FCC's order and deny the petitions for review. I VoIP is an internet application utilizing
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
1996 is amended as follows: On page 42. Insert
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Except for recipients who are blind. Unless they fall within one of the statutory groups. 2 Plaintiffs have never challenged the statute's elimination of the DME program. Are not limited to: Prosthetics.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Sitting by designation. * At issue in this case is the constitutionality of the City of Neptune Beach's sign code. I. Solantic is a business operating emergency medical care facilities in various locations. A videotape showing the sign was viewed by the district court and is part of the record. Solantic states that the EVMC sign
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The court decided that the section was a content neutral ordinance leaving open to the plaintiff ample alternative channels of communication and that it therefore did not violate either the First or Fourteenth Amendments. We conclude that although the standards employed by Chapter 64 are constitutionally permissible. The procedures it employs to effect them are not. Is a resident of the Architectural and Historic District (the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Potter is substituted for his predecessor. Willard Johnson are homeless persons in Seattle. They have found it difficult to receive mail. Although some homeless shelters will accept mail on behalf of residents. They will only hold mail for a limited time and mail theft in shelters is a recurring problem. 1994).1 No fee postal boxes are available to customers who are ineligible for carrier delivery service. The regulation has since been changed to require an applicant to have a verifiable point of contact even if he or she provides proper identification or is known to the postmaster or box clerk. 2001). 2 The regulation has since been changed to require the customer seeking a no fee box to have a physical address. No fee boxes are unavailable in large cities such as Seattle because the Postal Service delivers mail to all physical addresses in the area. All general delivery mail is sent to one designated facility in Seattle. The mail is held for pickup at a designated post office for thirty days. General delivery service is intended primarily to serve as a temporary means of delivery.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The court decided that the section was a content neutral ordinance leaving open to the plaintiff ample alternative channels of communication and that it therefore did not violate either the First or Fourteenth Amendments. We conclude that although the standards employed by Chapter 64 are constitutionally permissible. The procedures it employs to effect them are not. Is a resident of the Architectural and Historic District (the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With whom Robert Roughsedge and Michael Williams were on brief. LLP were on brief. We affirm: the record shows beyond hope of contradiction that the ban on unattended structures is a content neutral restriction on the time. There is no violation of the Free Exercise Clause because the regulation is a neutral law of general applicability. The regulation was only intended to apply to private parties. There is nothing in the record that shows preferential treatment in respect to any unattended structure erected by such a party.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Lori Wiechelt were on brief. P.C. was on brief.
|
|
REPUB NATL COM V. FEC
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Which made a notable ruling that defendant appellant Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The plaintiffs are a collection of associations and individuals led by the American Civil Liberties Union. Because we cannot find that any of the plaintiffs have standing for any of their claims. Of telephone and email communications where one party to the communication is located outside the United States and the NSA has
|
|
98-2199 -- AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION V. JOHNSON -- 11/02/1999
Which criminalizes the dissemination by computer of material that is harmful to minors. Had demonstrated that they were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that section . Which provides as follows: 30 37 3.2 Dissemination of material that is harmful to a minor by computer A. Dissemination of material that is harmful to a minor by computer consists of the use of a computer communications system that allows the input. Whoever commits dissemination of material that is harmful to a minor by computer is guilty of a misdemeanor. The statute provides the following defenses: In a prosecution for dissemination of material that is harmful to a minor by computer. It is a defense that the defendant has: - in good faith taken reasonable. Including any method that is feasible with available technology.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
AKRTL was informed by the Alaska Public Offices Commission that if it wished to engage in
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Enough is Enough. In which the Court held that our decision affirming the District Court's grant of a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is in danger of losing his job as a corrections officer because. The threshold test of expressiveness necessary to raise a First Amendment compelled expression claim is no longer as stringent as we previously suggested in Steirer by Steirer v. In such a case the appropriate rubric for a First Amendment claim is simply
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Arise out of plaintiffs' claims that their banks improperly disclosed information authorities. relating to their checking accounts to federal The complaint in each case was dismissed on the ground that the safe harbor provisions of the Annunzio Wylie AntiMoney Laundering Act. I. THE LOPEZ CASE We will discuss the two cases separately. A. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Because this case is before us on appeal from a Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim. Which we are required to accept as true. For now the factual boundary of this case is marked by the metes and bounds of the complaint. The FedWire Fund Transfer System is an electronic funds transfer system which permits large dollar fund transfers by computer to computer communications between banks. First Union is a bank within the FedWire Fund Transfer System and uses
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: The key issue presented in this petition for review is whether the Federal Communications Commission exceeded its authority. Which is the exclusive province of federal regulation. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(3)(A). Which are regulable by the states. We dismiss the petition of the Vermont Board because it is not a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
At stake in this case is the constitutionality of an ordinance promulgated by the City of Brentwood. Because we conclude that the ordinance is a content neutral restriction on the time. The purpose of the ordinance was
|
|
ACTION CHILD TV V. FCC
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. NCRL is a non profit. Its major purpose is not the nomination or election of candidates. NCRLPAC is an internal political committee established by NCRL to engage in express advocacy consistent with the views of NCRL. NCRLPAC's primary purpose is to support or oppose specific candidates and political parties. NCRLC FIPE is also an internal political action committee created by NCRL. Its sole purpose is to make independent expenditures and it may not make monetary or inkind contributions to candidates. This action is the sequel to litigation that was commenced in 1996. Is unconstitutional because it
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The complaint in each case was dismissed on the ground that the safe harbor provisions of the Annunzio Wylie Anti Money Laundering Act. I. THE LOPEZ CASE We will discuss the two cases separately. A. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Because this case is before us on appeal from a Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim. Which we are required to accept as true. For now the factual boundary of this case is marked by the metes and bounds of the complaint. The FedWire Fund Transfer System is an electronic funds transfer system which permits large dollar fund transfers by computer to computer communications between banks. First Union is a bank within the FedWire Fund Transfer System and uses
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The city expressly permits the distribution of written materials to private residences if the literature
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Plaintiffs are charities that Indiana's Telephone Privacy Act (
|
|
LOPEZ V. FIRST UNION NAT'L BANK OF FLORIDA
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Lopez v. The complaint in each case was dismissed on the ground that the safe harbor provisions of the Annunzio Wylie Anti Money Laundering Act. THE LOPEZ CASE</b><p> <p> We will discuss the two cases separately. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY<p> <p> Because this case is before us on appeal from a Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim. Which we are required to accept as true. For now the factual boundary of this case is marked by the metes and bounds of the complaint.<p> The FedWire Fund Transfer System is an electronic funds transfer system which permits large dollar fund transfers by computer to computer communications between banks. First Union is a bank within the FedWire Fund Transfer System and uses
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="705"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov97/96-4931.man.html">LOPEZ V. FIRST UNION NAT'L BANK OF FLORIDA<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lopez v. The complaint in each case was dismissed on the ground that the safe harbor provisions of the Annunzio Wylie Anti Money Laundering Act. THE LOPEZ CASE</b><p> <p> We will discuss the two cases separately. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY<p> <p> Because this case is before us on appeal from a Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim. Which we are required to accept as true. For now the factual boundary of this case is marked by the metes and bounds of the complaint.<p> The FedWire Fund Transfer System is an electronic funds transfer system which permits large dollar fund transfers by computer to computer communications between banks. First Union is a bank within the FedWire Fund Transfer System and uses
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="700"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTIyNjQtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2264-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who are unlicensed street vendors of clothing painted with grafitti. (2) its conclusion that remand is unnecessary to determine whether § 20 453 is a reasonable time. Because we hold that New York City's licensing requirement is a valid. We conclude that plaintiffs have not demonstrated a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="700"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0419p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court held that the Rule was constitutional and that the defendants enjoyed qualified immunity. Plaintiffs now appeal the holdings that the Rule was not contrary to the freedom of association guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments and that the defendants enjoyed qualified immunity. Rule 12 was repromulgated as Rule 24. Rule 24 was replaced by a substantially identical Rule 46. Rule 46 was revised to clarify the definitions of family member and visitor and recognize the power of the MDOC to grant individual employees limited exemptions to the Rule. An employee would have to submit a misleadingly titled
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012352.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
District Judge: This matter is before the Court on the Defendants' appeal of the Western District of Virginia's grant of Summary Judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs. At issue is the constitutionality of Va. The District Court's ruling granting summary judgment and striking down the statute is AFFIRMED. Plaintiffs' speech is accessible both within and outWe do not recite here the specifics of how the Internet functions. We note that the general contours of the Internet have been described in various other judicial opinions. Plaintiffs facially challenged the constitutionality of section 18.2 391 and were granted a permanent injunction by the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia enjoining the enforcement of the statute. Of commercial materials that are harmful to juveniles. Several plaintiffs brought suit challenging the 1985 amendment as facially unconstitutional on the grounds that it was impermissibly vague and violated the First Amendment. The statute was eventually upheld by the Fourth Circuit in light of a narrowing construction accorded to the statute by the Supreme Court of Virginia.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3260_051.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is the third appeal arising out of an effort by the Internal Revenue Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054425p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Appellants are home and business owners who were issued criminal citations by the City of Bradford. 2 which have now been amended. Violate the First Amendment because they are impermissibly content based. Are in fact content neutral and permissible under the First Amendment based in part on our holding in Rappa v. We will affirm the holding of the District Court. Fred Pysher are residents of the City of Bradford. The properties at issue are Riel's residence. Riel's and Thompson's signs were handmade cardboard and plywood signs containing criticisms of City officials. Some of the signs included:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="692"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4C2FE62749488A3E8825720C006FB770/$file/0515667.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Have since dismissed their claims. 1 17676 ACLU v. The ordinances that are the focus of Plaintiffs' complaint were adopted as part of the City's effort to revitalize the downtown area of Las Vegas: In the early 1990s. Downtown Las Vegas was suffering from an economic downturn. The area was seen as sleazy and unsafe. Downtown casinos were unable to compete with the glitzy Las Vegas Strip. Key economic factors showed that the area was in decline. Were closed off to automotive traffic. The street and sidewalk were torn up. Various underground infrastructure eleFSELLC is a private company charged with operating the Fremont Street Experience in downtown Las Vegas. The Fremont Street Experience is described in detail below. 2 ACLU v. CITY OF LAS VEGAS 17677 ments were installed. The street was decoratively repaved as one large promenade. As the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="692"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2772.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
RVS was preparing to open a business at the Auburn Street location called Moulin Rouge. The Ordinance only applies to dancers who are clothed nude and semi nude dancers are regulated by a separate Rockford ordinance that deals with
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="689"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200506/04-7034a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With them on the briefs were Randy J. With him on the brief were Donald J. On the brief were John A. Have standing to sue Chief Judge GINSBURG wrote Sections I. We conclude the plaintiffs do have standing but the Act does not provide them a right to sue in federal court. We held that compensation scheme was not fully consistent with the 1934 Act. The Congress instructed the Commission to devise a new plan that would
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2000/991324.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Enough is Enough. At issue is COPA's constitutionality. A statute designed to protect minors from
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="684"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-7007.html">PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA V. DISBLED AMERICAN VETS<BR></A><BR>
For petitioner Paralyzed Veterans of America.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Lawrence B. Argued for petitioner Disabled American Veterans.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Ronald L. Joseph Holmes.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>Stephen B. Flagg</u
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="684"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012090.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Opinion filed 9/19/02 is reinstated. Opinion filed 9/19/02 is vacated. That it is void for vagueness. Was summarized more fully in Bryant I. A regulated abortion clinic is defined as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0168FFB46E51AC548825718F00493302/$file/0356621.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Both these ordinances and Santa Monica's administrative interpretation of them have changed substantially. Appellants' persistent urging and Santa Monica's willingness to change its regulations have together produced a transformation in the applicable permitting scheme that to the credit of all par SANTA MONICA FOOD v. We hold that Santa Monica's Community Events Ordinance is. Is not constitutionally sound and cannot be enforced. The facial challenges to other ordinances either are moot or fail on the merits. We are not to be understood as having reviewed or approved aspects of the ordinances or implementing regulations not here challenged. We have endeavored throughout to be quite specific about the limited nature of the challenges to which we respond. 2 Santa Monica has requested that we take judicial notice of six documents: Staff Report. Santa Monica submits that each document is a certified public record. The first four documents are on file with the City Clerk of the City of Santa Monica. The remainder can be accessed at Santa Monica's official website found at www.santa monica.org/ccs/events and are on file with the Open Space Management Division of the Community and Cultural Services Department of the City of Santa Monica.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0086p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was employed as a Resident Specialist Coordinator (RSC) at NorthWest Community Corrections Center. Early in her employment she learned that she was making less money than a Caucasian male RSC and complained to her boss at a staff meeting. McClain was fired. McClain was fired before the end of her 120 day probationary period. The district court held that McClain was entitled to notice and a hearing prior to her termination under state law but that state law did not create an implied private right of action. (2) her right under Ohio law to due process creates a property interest that is protected by the Federal Constitution. (3) her disparate treatment claims (one for disparate pay and one for termination) should have survived NorthWest's motion for summary judgment. (4) her retaliation claims should have survived NorthWest's motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment was warranted in favor of NorthWest as to McClain's state and federal due process claims. Summary judgment was not warranted on McClain's discrimination claims or her retaliation claims.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="671"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/07-7008.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the brief were Peter D. Preminger is the chairman of the Santa Clara County. As far as the facial challenge was concerned. Preminger's section 502 petition was docketed in this court. We have jurisdiction
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="669"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/12/98-3264.htm">98-3264 -- SOUTHWESTERN BELL WIRELESS INC. V. JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS -- 12/27/1999<BR></A><BR>
Also contends that the court's order is overbroad. We agree with the district court and hold that (1) the BOCC's RFI regulation is impliedly preempted by federal law. (3) the district court's order is not overbroad. Wireless communications are transmitted by radio at a frequency assigned by the FCC. SW Bell is obligated to provide wireless telecommunications services to its customers. <u>remedy the problem or show to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator</u> that the tower or other site equipment is not the cause of the interference or disruption. If the interference . . . causing the functional interruption is not remedied within the 24 hours. Set a hearing to show cause why the applicable Permit shall not be terminated and the site . . . shall not cease operation</u> until the problem is remedied. The BOCC was aware of FCC authority and regulations in the RFI area. SW Bell and other wireless communications providers participated in public hearings and provided written comments about the Interference Regulation and
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="669"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199902/98-3080b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were David G. With them on the brief were Laura S. Owen moved in the district court to dismiss an indictment charging tax evasion and related crimes on the ground that the indictment was beyond the prosecutorial jurisdiction of Independent Counsel Kenneth W. It gave Indepen dent Counsel Starr jurisdiction to investigate whether any individuals or entities have committed a violation of any federal criminal law. Who are reasonably believed to have committed a violation of any federal criminal law arising out of such matters. Including persons or entities who have engaged in an unlawful conspiracy or who have aided or abetted any federal offense. The Special Division ordered that the Independent Counsel have prosecutorial jurisdiction to fully investigate and prose cute the subject matter with respect to which the Attor ney General requested the appointment of independent counsel. These grants of authority were under 28 U.S.C. s 593(b)(1). Secret Service records indicate that James Riady had made several visits to the White House in the days before the payment to Hubbell was made.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="664"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2600.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Entered summary judgment for the City on the ground that the restrictions were narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest. O is located at 599 Thames Street in Newport. The property is zoned
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="664"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/994021P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case is before us en banc upon remand from the United States Supreme Court. Believing that it will be helpful in analyzing the issues presented. At issue were the so called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="656"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/96DB0E84FBE9E0FE88256D6F0006B8FE/$file/0016858.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Weston was on the briefs. Were on the briefs. Were also on the briefs. A sexually oriented business is an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="656"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DA3B3F9E453575FF88256E5A006A3286/$file/0017425.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The group's fourth demonstration is the centerpiece of this case. Lead plaintiff Sister Bernie Galvin was in contact with the United States Park Police to discuss a permit for RWHP's planned demonstration.1 DefenThe relevant regulations. Are found at 36 C.F.R. § 2.51 and provide in relevant part: (a) Public assemblies. Parades and other public expressions of views are allowed within park areas. Issue a permit on proper application unless: (1) A prior application for a permit for the same time and place has been made that has been or will be granted and the activities authorized by that permit do not reasonably allow multiple occupancy of that particular area. Or (2) It reasonably appears that the event will present a clear and present danger to the public health or safety. Or (3) The event is of such nature or duration that it cannot reasonably be accommodated in the particular location applied for. The building was located some distance away from the Wherry Housing. Reverend Karen Oliveto described the purpose of the protest as being to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="656"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3829_022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who are licensed merchant marine officers. 98 Stat. 2863 (1984) (current version at 46 U.S.C. § 2114 (2002)).2 The plaintiffs claim that they were discharged in retaliation for engaging in statutorily protected correspondence with the United States Coast Guard (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="656"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/676D397A1C9495DF88256EAD005AB833/$file/0017425.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2004 is amended as follows: Replace the first paragraph at Slip Op. p. 3374.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="653"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1107.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C.</U> were on brief. Burling</U> were on brief. Flom LLP</U> were on brief. Was on brief. Were on brief. <U>Chief Judge</U>.</STRONG></FONT><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="651"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may97/94-6699.o2.html">INTERNATIONAL CAUCUS OF LABOR COMMS. V. CITY OF MONTGOMERY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>International Caucus of Labor Comms. v. Senior Circuit Judge.<p> <p> PER CURIAM:<p> <p> The opinion originally issued in this case is withdrawn. <i>International Caucus of Labor Comms. v. The following opinion is issued as the opinion of the Court on this appeal.<p> This case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of a city policy banning tables from city sidewalks. Were distributing literature from a card table placed on the sidewalk when police told them to leave or submit to arrest. The district court found that The International Caucus is an organization devoted to altering the contemporary political landscape. One of its preferred ways is to place tables in public areas in an effort to attract people to take its literature from these tables. The letter stated in relevant part:<p> Your actions do not violate the laws of this city unless you impede the orderly flow of traffic in the streets and at the street corners.<p> <p> Your organization will not be allowed to set up tables or booths on the sidewalks of this city.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="651"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034231p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an appeal from an order of the District Court denying the motion of Appellant NBT Bank. At issue is a claim by NBT under Article 4 of Pennsylvania's Uniform Commercial Code (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="651"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may97/94-6699.o2.html">INTERNATIONAL CAUCUS OF LABOR COMMS. V. CITY OF MONTGOMERY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>International Caucus of Labor Comms. v. Senior Circuit Judge.<p> <p> PER CURIAM:<p> <p> The opinion originally issued in this case is withdrawn. <i>International Caucus of Labor Comms. v. The following opinion is issued as the opinion of the Court on this appeal.<p> This case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of a city policy banning tables from city sidewalks. Were distributing literature from a card table placed on the sidewalk when police told them to leave or submit to arrest. The district court found that The International Caucus is an organization devoted to altering the contemporary political landscape. One of its preferred ways is to place tables in public areas in an effort to attract people to take its literature from these tables. The letter stated in relevant part:<p> Your actions do not violate the laws of this city unless you impede the orderly flow of traffic in the streets and at the street corners.<p> <p> Your organization will not be allowed to set up tables or booths on the sidewalks of this city.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DD51CB5C3834F00F88256C1E0002A94D/$file/9955106.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who were eligible to access the website. Pilots Gene Wong and James Gardner were included on this list. Davis claimed he was concerned about untruthful allegations that he believed Konop was making on the website. Morella related that Nobles was upset by Konop's accusations that Nobles was suspected of fraud and by other disparaging statements published on the website. Konop believed Nobles had obtained the contents of his website and was threatening to sue Konop for defamation based on statements contained on the website. INC. 12459 claims to have learned only later from the examination of system logs that Davis had accessed the website using Wong's name. Because he claims the district court improperly quashed subpoenas for witnesses Konop sought to have testify at trial. DISCUSSION The district court's grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. We must determine whether there are any genuine 12460 KONOP v. Which was intended to afford privacy protection to electronic communications. Which was designed to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="645"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/63E10539AB01C82D8825707600147873/$file/0435287.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: We again are asked to decide whether a provider of payphone services may sue a long distance carrier to recover compensation that federal regulations. The circumstances have changed materially: since our decision in Greene. Which was made without the participation of the Federal Communications Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="643"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/06/033547P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A Missouri based chapter of a non profit corporation that was chartered in Arkansas in 1994. After the State notified Unit 188 that its application was denied because it did not meet the AAH program's eligibility requirements that were set forth in state regulations. Holding that the State's reasons for denying Unit 188's application were unconstitutional. It argues first that the district court erroneously concluded that it is collaterally estopped from litigating the constitutionality of its denial of Unit 188's application based on Unit 188's racially discriminatory membership criteria. It maintains that the district court erred in holding that the State's application of a regulation barring participation in the AAH program by organizations for which courts have taken judicial notice of a history of violence violated Unit 188's first The Honorable Catherine D. I. This is the third appeal to this court arising out of the State's ongoing efforts to keep Missouri Klan groups out of the AAH program. Filed an action seeking a declaratory judgment that it was not required to approve the application.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001500.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Manner of speech in a fashion that preserves ample alternative avenues for communication and is supported by the City's substantial aesthetic interests.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2001/99-14823.opn.html">FED. ELECTION COMM'N V. PUB. CITIZEN (10/10/2001, NO. 99-14823)<BR></A><BR>
We consider a challenge to 2 U.S.C. § 441d(a)'s requirement that a communication expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate disclose whether the communication was authorized by a candidate or candidate's committee. Which appears to be the only federal court of appeals to have addressed the constitutionality of § 441d(a). 65 F.3d 285 (2d Cir. 1995).<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2001/99-14823.opn.html">FED. ELECTION COMM'N V. PUB. CITIZEN (10/10/2001, NO. 99-14823)<BR></A><BR>
We consider a challenge to 2 U.S.C. § 441d(a)'s requirement that a communication expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate disclose whether the communication was authorized by a candidate or candidate's committee. Which appears to be the only federal court of appeals to have addressed the constitutionality of § 441d(a). 65 F.3d 285 (2d Cir. 1995).<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5C9228AF3051340788256C840006238F/$file/0035466.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On page 3737 of the slip opinion. P. 41(a)(2) without specifying that he was requesting dismissal without prejudice. A dismissal under this paragraph is without prejudice. Rule 41 provides that orders that fail to specify whether dismissal is with or without prejudice are to be interpreted as dismissals without prejudice. Federal Practice and Procedure § 2367 (2d ed. 1994) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0248p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because we conclude that the defendants have failed to produce evidence that justifies the restrictions on commercial speech imposed by the ordinance. Pagan is a resident of Glendale and formerly the owner of a 1970 Mercury Cougar that he wanted to sell. Notified Pagan that the sign was a violation of Glendale Traffic Code § 76.06. Was ultimately unsuccessful in obtaining a satisfactory resolution of his dispute with the Village. Determined that Chief Fruchey was entitled to qualified immunity. Pagan has waived any argument that the district court's decision respecting Chief Fruchey was incorrect. 723 (6th Cir. 2006) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may98/96-7073.man.html">SAMMY'S OF MOBILE, LTD. V. CITY OF MOBILE (5/8/1998, NO. 96-7073)<BR></A><BR>
Encourages undesirable behavior and is not in the interest of the public health. The Candy Store were licensed to sell alcoholic beverages for on premises consumption and offered topless female dancing. The complaint alleges that the ordinance is unenforceable under the doctrine of equitable estoppel and that it violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment. The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that the ordinance is unenforceable under the doctrine of res judicata.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may98/96-7073.man.html">SAMMY'S OF MOBILE, LTD. V. CITY OF MOBILE (5/8/1998, NO. 96-7073)<BR></A><BR>
Encourages undesirable behavior and is not in the interest of the public health. The Candy Store were licensed to sell alcoholic beverages for on premises consumption and offered topless female dancing. The complaint alleges that the ordinance is unenforceable under the doctrine of equitable estoppel and that it violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment. The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that the ordinance is unenforceable under the doctrine of res judicata.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="625"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5D0BF69CA7958F7888256B75000353BC/$file/0035466.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Hargis was disciplined for violating the coercion regulation when he informed a guard that shaving with a razor blade endangered his safety due to his medical condition and that the guard's actions and statements could come up in pending state court litigation. We are asked to decide two questions: (1) whether there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants' application of the coercion regulation in this case violated Hargis's right to free speech and (2) whether the district court abused its discretion in dismissing Hargis's retaliation and Eighth Amendment claims with prejudice. Because the ADA claim was neither alleged nor argued in the district court. We will not consider the ADA claim on this appeal. 721 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that ordinarily this court will not hear issues raised for the first time on appeal). 3731 I. While the case was pending. Beauchamp responded by explaining that he had discussed Hargis's medical problem with the prison medical staff and was told that Hargis had no diagnosed medical condition that would interfere with his ability to shave.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="625"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/06/961098P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The results of which were similar to those in the other studies. The incidence of major crimes in surrounding areas was 23 percent The Honorable Michael J. Property turnover was substantially higher. Convinced the staff that the downtown area in Minneapolis was best able to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="625"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/12/033848P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs are nonprofit organizations who rely on professional charitable solicitors for their fundraising. The Act exempts telephone solicitations made by charitable organizations if
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="622"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199914823.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We consider a challenge to 2 U.S.C. § 441d(a)'s requirement that a communication expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate disclose whether the communication was authorized by a candidate or candidate's committee. Which appears to be the only federal court of appeals to have addressed the constitutionality of § 441d(a). 65 F.3d 285 (2d Cir. 1995).1 Since we conclude that the candidate authorization disclosure is narrowly tailored to serve the overriding governmental interest in assisting voters in evaluating the candidates. We uphold § 441d(a)'s requirement that a communication expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate disclose whether the communication was authorized by a candidate or candidate's committee. As is evident from the text. Depends upon who paid for the communication and whether the communication was authorized by a candidate. Shall clearly state that the communication is paid for by such other persons and authorized by such authorized political committee.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200512/04-5257a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the briefs were Gregory G. With him on the brief was Rhonda M. Peter Buscemi was on the brief for amici curiae State and Local Bar Associations in support of appellees. Babb were on the brief for amicus curiae The Conference of Chief Justices in support of appellee American Bar Association. The Bar Associations sought a declaratory judgment that the FTC's decision that attorneys engaged in the practice of law are covered by the Gramm Leach Bliley Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-5043.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
District Judge.(2) Plaintiff Appellant Sherry Hamby was employed by Associated Centers for Therapy (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-8022.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for Philip Morris appellants. Were on brief for United States Tobacco Company appellants. Were on brief for appellees. The specific plaintiffs appellants are Philip Morris Incorporated. The specific defendants appellees are L. We consider the statutes' respective texts along with the relevant historical and legislative contexts in which they were enacted. Normally we consider the record evidence with respect to each motion separately
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CD6343F0008C15FC882571A200744061/$file/0417496.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On slip Opinion page 5645. We explained that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0A893E056B32B153882571EE00794928/$file/0516132.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are called upon to navigate between two equally important interests: the church's right to access a government building that is open to other groups. We conclude that the district court erred when it found that the church was likely to succeed on the merits of its First Amendment claim and therefore abused its discretion in granting preliminary injunctive relief. We have FAITH CENTER CHURCH v. I. The relevant facts are not disputed. The County's goal in making these meeting rooms available is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/612890D3944707D088257299004F7654/$file/0516132.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended by inserting the following after
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="612"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0008p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Alleging that Byerley violated Dean's First Amendment rights during a confrontation that occurred while Dean was picketing in front of Byerley's residence. We also reach the issue of whether Byerley is entitled to an immunity defense. Dean expressed concern that it was incomplete and explained that he was unable to recall the addresses of all of his prior residences. Dean further alleges that while he and the hired individuals were picketing near Byerley's residence. [Byerley] then stated that he was going to have [Dean] arrested for picketing.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="612"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-7098.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were David M. Of counsel on the brief were Donald E. The appeal was submitted for our decision. We hold we have jurisdiction to review the order. Only insofar as its constitutionality is challenged.2 Because we also hold. To reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard were not violated during the proceedings leading to the order. The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.<p> The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and its Committee on Admission and Practice (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/03-1429.htm">03-1429 -- MAINSTREAM MARKETING SERVICES INC. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION -- 02/17/2004<BR></A><BR>
The primary issue in this case is whether the First Amendment prevents the government from establishing an opt in telemarketing regulation that provides a mechanism for consumers to restrict commercial sales calls but does not provide a similar mechanism to limit charitable or political calls.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1CB92EF5AD825DA188256CCA0011916F/$file/0215416.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
AT&T appeals on the ground that the application of California's consumer protection laws is preempted by the Federal Communications Act and the Federal Arbitration Act. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The 1934 Act was intended to address the unique problems inherent in a monopolistic environment.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/058EC3532F25D02588256F1C0052B980/$file/0016531.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Weston was on the briefs. 13936 DREAM PALACE v. Was on the briefs. COUNTY OF MARICOPA 13937 adult oriented businesses were associated with
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1156.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that the Telecommunications Act does not prevent the PUC from exercising its express statutory authority under Section 214(e) of the Act in a way that affects the interstate components of services offered by carriers who are otherwise subject to the PUC's jurisdiction. We also conclude that Section 214(e) governs ETC <hr> designations and does not require state commissions to issue rules and regulations regarding the conditions that are imposed on a carrier seeking ETC designation. Services and rates in rural and high cost areas that are comparable to other areas. 47 U.S.C. 254(b). This funding is distributed as public subsidies to telecommunications carriers who apply for and receive designation as ETCs. 47 U.S.C. 214(e). ETCs are eligible to receive the subsidy by committing to offering the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/024575D35B3EF12488256AAF0057FB4B/$file/0035537.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which was enacted by the City of Coeur d'Alene. Abridges his right to free speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. 1 The district court rejected Edwards's challenge and granted summary judgment for the City after finding that the ordinance was a valid
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may99/98-4091.man.html">ONE WORLD ONE FAMILY NOW V. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH (5/20/1999, NO. 98-4091)<BR></A><BR>
Vending from streets and sidewalks is prohibited. The only exception to this general prohibition is that full service restaurants operating from an enclosed structure may serve food on outdoor tables.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1519.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Article XXVIII of the Colorado Constitution is a citizen passed campaign finance reform amendment designed to limit the influence of certain types of corporations' general funds on state elections. Colorado Secretary of State Mike Coffman is automatically substituted for former Colorado Secretary of State Gigi Dennis as the Defendant Appellant/Cross Appellee in this case. <hr> part to CRLC and in part to the Secretary. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm. We hold that the challenged sections of Article XXVIII regulating corporate expenditures and electioneering communications are unconstitutional as applied to CRLC because CRLC meets Supreme Court approved exemption requirements for a voluntary ideological corporation that seeks to engage in political speech. We conclude that Article XXVIII's definition of a political committee is unconstitutional as applied to CRLC because it fails to incorporate Buckley v. That political contributions from corporate treasuries are not an indication of popular support for the corporation's political ideas and can unfairly influence theoutcome of Colorado's elections.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B7F975216438AC9B88256E5A00707C67/$file/0035537.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which was enacted by the City of Coeur d'Alene. Abridges his right to free speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. 1 The district court rejected Edwards's challenge and granted summary judgment for the City after finding that the ordinance was a valid
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0B9961F8896B700688257203005698B1/$file/0436136.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We affirm the district court's decision that Bertram Sacks has standing to challenge the ban on travel and that the travel ban regulation was validly promulgated. To demonstrate a concrete and imminent likelihood that he will be penalized for violations of the restriction on medical donations. The twelve years of United States and United Nations sanctions were a dire time for Iraqi civilians. Sacks and other Voices members traveled to Iraq repeatedly while the sanctions were in effect. It is necessary to review the history of the Iraqi sanctions regime. Available at http://www.unicef.org/publications/index 4439.html (reviewing data on increased infant and child mortality during the sanctions regime period and concluding that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/9_opinions/92-5123c.html">SANJOUR WILLIAM V. EPA<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may99/98-4091.man.html">ONE WORLD ONE FAMILY NOW V. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH (5/20/1999, NO. 98-4091)<BR></A><BR>
Vending from streets and sidewalks is prohibited. The only exception to this general prohibition is that full service restaurants operating from an enclosed structure may serve food on outdoor tables.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></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-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0331p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Both times Ohio State Highway Patrol (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/871BAC121EA04C0388256CD8005C3CAD/$file/0117065.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Negative political advertising is nothing new. Where's my pa?
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0340p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
By failing to develop a transition plan for 1 These ind ividuals are Cora L ee B oswo rth. Which was denied. The court also concluded that plaintiffs were not entitled to compensatory or punitive damages because such damages are not available under Title II absent proof of intentional discrimination. Arguing that the court erred in finding that plaintiffs have a private cause of action under Title II to challenge violations of § 35.151. Be altered in such manner that the altered portion of the facility is readily accessible and usable by individuals with disabilities.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043844p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The number of shares to be converted was controlled by a formula based on the current market value of the shares less a 17% discount for Berckeley. There is no dispute that Colkitt breached his end of the bargain. Asserts that he was justified in not complying with the Agreement because Berckeley made material misrepresentations in the Agreement 3 that violated federal securities laws and constituted common law fraud. We will affirm in part. Is the Chairman of the Board and principal shareholder of National Medical Financial Services Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="591"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E5EBCD45A39A569088256F31007B813F/$file/0216989.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
When the circus or the rodeo is playing there. Is owned by the State of California and operated by 1 A District Agricultural Association (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="591"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200708/04-5350c.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Daniel J. Duff were on the brief for amici curiae John E. Edmonds was on the brief for amici curiae Emil Freireich and Stephen Strum in support of appellants. With him on the brief were Peter D. Turner was on the brief for amici curiae American Society of Clinical Oncology. Schultz was on the brief for amici curiae National Organization for Rare Disorders. Circuit Judge: This case presents the question whether the Constitution provides terminally ill patients a right of access to experimental drugs that have passed limited safety 3 trials but have not been proven safe and effective. The district court held there is no such right. A divided panel of this Court held there is. Because we conclude that there is no fundamental right
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="591"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-7087.html">ARACELIS RODRIGUEZ V. TOGO D. WEST, JR<BR></A><BR>
On the brief were <u>David M. Of counsel was <u>Sharon Y. Of counsel on the brief were <u>Donald E. <u>Senior Circuit Judge</u>.</p> <p ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D312FCE0A245914288256E0B005DC6BB/$file/0235269.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He seeks declaratory and injunctive relief on two grounds: (1) that the OMIA is a content based regulation that favors commercial over non commercial speech. (2) that the OMIA vests unbridled discretion in state officials and lacks necessary procedural safeguards.1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A magistrate judge recommended that the action be dismissed because the OMIA equally burdens commercial and noncommercial speech and is not content based. Products or services which are not sold. Manufactured or distributed on or from the premises on which the sign is located. (b) Facilities not located on the premises on which the sign is located. Or (c) Activities not conducted on the premises on which the sign is located. The sign may remain provided a permit is obtained by the owner. The OMIA contains an exemption that permits
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051882p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case was argued before a panel consisting of Judges Roth. The decision is * (Filed July 18. We will affirm the District Court and hold that the Regulation. Is not unconstitutional. The ABC has broad authority in this realm and is statutorily authorized to promulgate rules and regulations
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034433p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1 an association of law Joining FAIR in its preliminary injunction motion and in this appeal are: the Society for Law Teachers. We hold that FAIR has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its First Amendment claims and that it is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. Background Facts 2 and Procedural Posture Law Schools' Nondiscrimination Policies Law schools have long maintained formal policies of nondiscrimination that withhold career placement services from employers who exclude employees and applicants based on such factors as race. The facts on appeal are not in dispute. Supp. 2d at 277. 7 2 virtually every law school now has a comprehensive policy like the following: [The] School of Law is committed to a policy of equal opportunity for all students and graduates. A servicemember is separated from the military if it is found that he or she
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2001/985341.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The defendants had assisted in the interception of radio communications and therefore were subject to the more severe statutory penalties ofS 605. The issue on appeal is whether S 605. Argue that S 553 is the sole statutory remedy for cable piracy of signals sent over terrestrial cable lines. We will vacate the penalties imposed and remand the case for further proceedings. 2 I TKR. To prevent subscribers from receiving services they have not purchased. Cable pirates have permeated the marketplace with unauthorized decoders that render viewable previously scrambled transmissions. Cable City represented to customers that its descramblers were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="581"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/11/973359P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Members of the Twentieth Century Holiness Tabernacle Church (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="581"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/08/984078P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Maintain that the provisions are unconstitutional and therefore the grant of preliminary injunctive relief was appropriate. I. BACKGROUND IRLSPAC and IRLC are affiliated organizations that have as one of their purposes. The mailings were reported to the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board (the Board). One of IRLC's primary expenditures of money is for the publication of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="581"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/014569.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Senior Circuit Judge: Appellant Peter DeMott was convicted of failing to obey a lawful order to move from one location to another while participating in a demonstration at the Pentagon Reservation. He attacks on numerous grounds the regulation he was convicted of violating and a regulation requiring demonstrators at the Pentagon to obtain a permit. We will affirm his conviction. The River Entrance faces the Potomac River and is part of the River Plaza area. The River Entrance is regarded by those responsible for security as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="578"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216718.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="578"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/74F2383E591B74158825717600786CFB/$file/0417496.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Honolulu was among the first municipalities to enact 5642 CENTER FOR BIO ETHICAL REFORM v. The question presented in this appeal is whether the Ordinance may be used to restrict an advocacy group from towing aerial banners over the beaches of Honolulu. We must first decide whether the Ordinance is preempted by federal law. The Ordinance is a reasonable and viewpoint neutral restriction on speech in a nonpublic forum. The banner towing prohibited by the Ordinance is neither a historically important form of communication nor speech that has unique identifying attributes for which there is no practical substitute. BACKGROUND Honolulu's aerial advertising Ordinance is part of a longstanding scheme aimed at regulating outdoor advertising in order to protect the critical visual landscape that has made the area famous. Is not disputed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="578"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011151.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 25 the reference to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june98/96-8586.man.html">UNITED STATES V. CORRIGAN (6/25/1998, NO. 96-8586)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> Thirteen protesters staged political demonstrations on the grounds of the Fort Benning military base in Georgia and were subsequently convicted of criminal trespass pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1382 (1994). Asserting that their convictions were obtained in violation of the First Amendment. Because the regulation prohibiting political demonstrations on the base was not applied in a content neutral fashion. We conclude that the regulation was applied in a content neutral fashion and that the appellants' convictions were not obtained in violation of the First Amendment. We therefore affirm the judgments of the district court.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The United States Army School of the Americas (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200211/01-1149a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Ronald G. With him on the brief were Jane E. With him on the brief were Liliana E. Video descriptions provide aural descriptions of a television program's key visual elements (such as the movement of a person in a scene) that are inserted during pauses in the program dialogue. The FCC announced that it was seeking commentary on proposed rules mandating video description. MPAA contends that the new regulations should be struck down because they are not authorized by s 1 and they are precluded by s 713 of the Act. S 1 is not a source of authority. MPAA's petition for review is hereby granted. NFB's petition for review is dismissed as moot. Because the regulations to which they object will be vacated pursuant to the court's judgment in this case. Video description is defined in the statute to include
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-7156a.html">BOEHNER, JOHN A. V. MCDERMOTT, JAMES A.<BR></A><BR>
With </P> <P>him on the briefs was R. With him on </P> <P>the briefs were Frank W. Assistant Attorney Gener </P> <P>al at the time the briefs were filed. With him </P> <P>on the brief were Christopher Landau and Daryl Joseffer.</P> <P> Theodore J. With him on </P> <P>the brief were Seth M.M. If the person knew it </P> <P>was illegally intercepted. Is it part of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june98/96-8586.man.html">UNITED STATES V. CORRIGAN (6/25/1998, NO. 96-8586)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> Thirteen protesters staged political demonstrations on the grounds of the Fort Benning military base in Georgia and were subsequently convicted of criminal trespass pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1382 (1994). Asserting that their convictions were obtained in violation of the First Amendment. Because the regulation prohibiting political demonstrations on the base was not applied in a content neutral fashion. We conclude that the regulation was applied in a content neutral fashion and that the appellants' convictions were not obtained in violation of the First Amendment. We therefore affirm the judgments of the district court.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The United States Army School of the Americas (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19968586.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: 1 Thirteen protesters staged political demonstrations on the grounds of the Fort Benning military base in Georgia and were subsequently convicted of criminal trespass pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1382 (1994). Asserting that their convictions were obtained in violation of the First Amendment. Because the regulation prohibiting political demonstrations on the base was not applied in a content neutral fashion. We conclude that the regulation was applied in a content neutral fashion and that the appellants' convictions were not obtained in violation of the First Amendment. I. The United States Army School of the Americas (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-7070.html">SELLERS, JR. V. PRINCIPI<BR></A><BR>
On the brief were <u>David M. Of counsel was <u>Robert E. Woodrow</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Richard J. ) that they are not entitled to increased disability ratings for service connected post traumatic stress disorder (". Sellers is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199909/98-7156a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was R. With him on the briefs were Frank W. Assistant Attorney Gener al at the time the briefs were filed. With him on the brief were Christopher Landau and Daryl Joseffer. With him on the brief were Seth M.M. If the person knew it was illegally intercepted. Is it part of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-1149a.html">MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA V. FCC<BR></A><BR>
Et al.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19968586.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Thirteen protesters staged political demonstrations on the grounds of the Fort Benning military base in Georgia and were subsequently convicted of criminal trespass pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1382 (1994). Asserting that their convictions were obtained in violation of the First Amendment. Because the regulation prohibiting political demonstrations on the base was not applied in a content neutral fashion. We conclude that the regulation was applied in a content neutral fashion and that the appellants' convictions were not obtained in violation of the First Amendment. I. The United States Army School of the Americas (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="573"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1966_040.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Wisconsin Community Services was formerly Wisconsin Correctional Foundation. The name was changed while this action was pending in the district court. 1 2 No. 04 1966 Disabilities Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981059A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
CORRECTION MADE ON COVER SHEET *Judge Ervin heard oral argument in this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. Circuit Judge: Stretching in front of the Fairfax County Government Center Complex is a large grassy mall. Surrounding the mall is the street which leads to the Government Center Complex. The entire mall is outdoors. Fairfax County (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-5293a.html">AMATEL JOSEPH V. HAWK, KATHLEEN<BR></A><BR>
With him on the briefs <p> <p> <p> were <i>Frank W. With her <p> on the brief were <i>Ann M. Taylor</i> was on the brief for amici curiae National <p> Coalition for the Protection of Children &. The statute is not enforced directly. Ruled that it <p> was facially invalid as a violation of the First Amendment and <p> enjoined its enforcement. Federal regulations authorized prison wardens <p> to reject a publication
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug98/96-8972.man.html">FALANGA V. STATE BAR OF GEORGIA (8/19/1998, NO. 96-8972)<BR></A><BR>
Chief Judge:</P> <P> The principal issue in this case is whether Georgia's prohibiting lawyers and their agents from soliciting professional employment from potential clients face to face and without invitation survives First Amendment commercial speech scrutiny as applied to appellees/cross appellants. Who are licensed to practice law in and members of the State Bar of Georgia. Most of their clients are poor and uneducated. Uninvited solicitation are constitutional as applied to Falanga and Chalker.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9236CC5DE216457088256C09005A60DC/$file/0016752.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that Procedure 770 is an exaggerated. Unreasonable response to prison officials' legitimate concerns about the safety of prison staff and thereby unconstitutionally restricts the public's First Amendment right to view executions from the moment the condemned is escorted into the execution chamber. It is helpful to understand the execution process. Approximately 25 minutes before the execution is scheduled to take place. Though his legs are free. The condemned is handcuffed and his wrists are shackled to his waist. The condemned is laid on a gurney. To which he is secured with six straps. Two of the four guards leave and two medical technicians enter to insert two intravenous lines (one is redundant. Once the intravenous lines are inserted. Representatives of the public and the press have been allowed to witness California's entire execution process from start to finish. Strap him into the chair and administer the lethal gas until he was declared dead. Witnesses were not permitted to watch Bonin as the guards brought him into the chamber.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug98/96-8972.man.html">FALANGA V. STATE BAR OF GEORGIA (8/19/1998, NO. 96-8972)<BR></A><BR>
Chief Judge:</P> <P> The principal issue in this case is whether Georgia's prohibiting lawyers and their agents from soliciting professional employment from potential clients face to face and without invitation survives First Amendment commercial speech scrutiny as applied to appellees/cross appellants. Who are licensed to practice law in and members of the State Bar of Georgia. Most of their clients are poor and uneducated. Uninvited solicitation are constitutional as applied to Falanga and Chalker.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-3140.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The attempt to prove concealment was flawed. Because the government produced no evidence that the defendants failed <hr> to comply with SEC regulations governing the reporting of such personal use and the jury was never instructed regarding the SEC's reporting requirements. Transmission of a required report can serve as the predicate for a wire fraud offense only if the report is itself false or fraudulent. The government alleged that the reports were deceptive because they failed to disclose the great value to the defendants (about $1 million each) of their personal use of corporate aircraft. Were false. Further prosecution of these charges is barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. If there was no wire fraud. There was no money laundering. They were based on the failure of the defendants to disclose their personal travel on corporate aircraft in various internal forms used to prepare reports for the SEC. The core issue with respect to these failures to disclose is the defendants' intent. They argued at trial that other Westar officers almost always failed to report such travel and that one could infer that they thought such disclosure was unnecessary.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199809/97-5293a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Frank W. With her on the brief were Ann M. Taylor was on the brief for amici curiae National Coalition for the Protection of Children & Families. The statute is not enforced directly. Ruled that it was facially invalid as a violation of the First Amendment and enjoined its enforcement. Federal regulations authorized prison wardens to reject a publication
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/10/984112P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an appeal from a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of an ordinance of the City of Lincoln. The District Court1 held that the ordinance was facially invalid because it violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. I. The plaintiffs are four individuals who have engaged in demonstrations opposing abortion in the vicinity of Westminster Presbyterian Church in Lincoln. The plaintiffs believe that abortion is wrong. The plaintiffs have engaged in protests and demonstrations on the public sidewalk that adjoins the church. Crabb is Unfit to be an Elder. Other protesters (not the plaintiffs) have demonstrated near the church with other kinds of signs. The opinion of the District Court is reported at 23 F. Legislative Intent and Findings. (a) It is the intent of this ordinance to preserve the peace at religious premises in order to protect and secure several significant and compelling interests of this city. Focused picketing disrupts and endangers or outright destroys individual freedom of religion. (e) The mechanism of such injury to individual freedom of religion operates as follows: infants and young children are emotionally vulnerable to focused picketing in close proximity to them.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200107/99-1009a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were William Malone and Nicholas P. With him on the brief were Christopher J. With him on the brief were James H. Or use of [anten nas that are designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service. Is invalid on its face. If there is no taking. We deny the petition. 1 Petitioners are the Building Owners and Managers Associa tion International. Or use of [a s 207 device] ... is prohibited.... 47 C.F.R. s 1.4000 (1996). The rule allowed for several exceptions: Restric tions on s 207 devices were permissible if they served a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec2000/001733.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
S 261.10(k):
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2398.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LLC</SPAN> was on brief. Will &. Were on brief. No permit was forthcoming. I. While the suit was pending. We hold that the Fish Pier is a non public forum. That the leafletting ban which is content neutral and reasonable in light of the uses to which the pier is put is a valid exercise of governmental authority. We hold that Massport's permit requirement is valid on its face: the neoteric regulations sufficiently limit official discretion and the restrictions imposed are both content neutral and narrowly tailored.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/12/982147P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Have filed a petition for rehearing with a suggestion for rehearing en banc. Is invalid. The Fargo picketing ordinance is facially unconstitutional for reasons given in Kirkeby II. Appellees assert that the principal issues in this appeal are not governed by Frisby v. 487 U.S. 474 (1988) but are governed by Kirkeby II. This panel granted a rehearing to reconsider whether we are bound to affirm the district court's determination that the Fargo ordinance is unconstitutional based on Kirkeby II. Certain words and phrases used herein are defined as follows: A. Which is used as a place of residence. For only a few hours and The ordinance in question here was subsequently amended by the Fargo City Council on February 1. 1993. 2 1 The picketers would have been released that night if they had paid a $50 bond. 3 released her to the custody of her parents. Deciding that the ordinance was constitutional on its face but unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs on October 10. The district court concluded that the officers' conduct was not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-9518.htm">98-9518 -- U.S. WEST INC. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMM. -- 08/18/1999<BR></A><BR>
222 and are impermissible because they violate the First and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution. It is seductive for us to view this as just another case of reviewing agency action. This case is a harbinger of difficulties encountered in this age of exploding information. Administrative interpretation is at the heart of our responsibility. Which was enacted as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. At issue here are the FCC's regulations clarifying the privacy requirements for CPNI.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200606/05-1186a.pdf">O:\BENCH_MO\2005-2006\CORKRAN\MARCH CASES\AT&T V. FCC\AT&T OPINION (6-23-06).WPD<BR></A><BR>
With him on the briefs were William T. On the brief were Thomas O. The Commission denied the request for two independent reasons: (1) the petition was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2000/99-11385.man.html">COALITION FOR THE ABOLITION OF MARIJUANA PROHIBITION V. CITY OF ATLANTA (7/27/2000, NO. 99-11385)<BR></A><BR>
The appellants appeal the district court's determination that portions of the festival ordinance were constitutional. We AFFIRM the holding of the district court.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/00-1040.htm">00-1040 -- WELLS V. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER -- 07/02/2001<BR></A><BR>
The East Steps
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1090.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom Hardy Wood Tabor & Chudacoff was on brief. The House's head doorkeeper.1 The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of House Rule 45 a rule that purports to ban both lobbyists and lobbying from the floor of the House while the House is in session on its face and as applied. Among them was Rule 45 (the full text of which is reproduced in the appendix). Rule 45 banishes all lobbyists from the floor of the House (and the House lounge) while the House is in session. The rule permits members of the public to be on the House floor while the House is in session. The legislator plaintiffs have not appealed and. Government officials who lobby are given considerably more leeway. Are otherwise exempt from the Act's provisions. Neither elected officials nor other public employees are required to wear identification badges. The House provided two galleries overlooking the chamber which were accessible to all members of the public.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb95/99-11385.man.html">COALITION FOR THE ABOLITION OF MARIJUANA PROHIBITION V. CITY OF ATLANTA (7/27/2000, NO. 99-11385)<BR></A><BR>
The appellants appeal the district court's determination that portions of the festival ordinance were constitutional. We AFFIRM the holding of the district court.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199911385.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The appellants appeal the district court's determination that portions of the festival ordinance were constitutional. BACKGROUND CAMP is a non profit organization focused primarily on forming alliances and associating with other groups concerned with marijuana issues. It now fell within the 1994 Festival Ordinance's definition of an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2000/99-11385.man.html">COALITION FOR THE ABOLITION OF MARIJUANA PROHIBITION V. CITY OF ATLANTA (7/27/2000, NO. 99-11385)<BR></A><BR>
The appellants appeal the district court's determination that portions of the festival ordinance were constitutional. We AFFIRM the holding of the district court.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb95/99-11385.man.html">COALITION FOR THE ABOLITION OF MARIJUANA PROHIBITION V. CITY OF ATLANTA (7/27/2000, NO. 99-11385)<BR></A><BR>
The appellants appeal the district court's determination that portions of the festival ordinance were constitutional. We AFFIRM the holding of the district court.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199911385.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The appellants appeal the district court's determination that portions of the festival ordinance were constitutional. BACKGROUND CAMP is a non profit organization focused primarily on forming alliances and associating with other groups concerned with marijuana issues. Their application was denied because the City determined that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0025p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
His claim that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/07/952891P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court held that the state's exclusion of the group did not violate the The policy employed to decide which persons are permitted access to the lobby is vague and subject to For this reason. The facts of this trial case and BACKGROUND are essentially on a undisputed. for After a consolidated bench hearing request preliminary injunction. Families Achieving Independence and Respect (FAIR) is a looselyorganized group of past and current welfare recipients providing educational support for low income persons. system' and 'welfare reform.'
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-4030.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is subdivided into numbered districts and subdistricts. A majority of Chicago land available for development is zoned R. Churches are permitted uses as of right in all R zones. Are termed Variations in the Nature of Special Uses (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0363p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A patron of the Columbus Metropolitan Library (Library) was evicted from the Library as a result of going barefoot. Defendant appellee Board serves as the regulating authority of the Library and is authorized by Ohio Revised Code § 3375.40 to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-4057.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
These matters are before the court on two separate petitions for rehearing. The petitions were filed separately and correspond to the two opinions issued in these appeals on April 17. The requests for panel rehearing are denied by the original panel which decided these cases. The en banc petitions were transmitted to all of the judges of the court who are in regular active service. A poll was requested. The decisions of the panel will stand. The en banc requests are denied. Judges Lucero and McConnell have filed dissents to the denial. They are attached and incorporated in this order. That response is also incorporated in this order. Because the panel's opinion will leave our circuit unnecessarily entangled in future review of time. It is important to distinguish between transitory and permanent speech. Not unlike most public parks in America in which permanent monuments have been placed. The government must have exercised some control over the form and content of the speech before the fact. 1141 43 (10th Cir. 2001) (holding sign was government speech where the city had
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/10/992146P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The appellants contend that the ordinance is unconstitutional. The ordinance provides: (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in focused picketing in that portion of any street which abuts on the property upon which the targeted dwelling is located. Or which abuts on property within fifty feet (measured from the lot line) of the property upon which the targeted dwelling is located. With or without signs. (2) Sidewalk space shall mean that portion of a street between the curb line and the adjacent property line. (3) Street shall mean the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel. (4) Targeted dwelling shall mean any building or dwelling unit within a building. Regardless of where located. (d) This section shall not be construed to authorize conduct which is otherwise prohibited by law. The ordinance prohibits focused picketing that is directed toward a particular person in a rectangular zone in front of that person's dwelling and extending 50 feet on either side of the lot.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061318p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LLP is whether plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence of loss causation to survive a summary judgment motion. We will affirm the grant of summary judgment. A closely held supply chain management company that was acquired by Vertex Interactive. The Merger Agreement was negotiated between October and December 2000. Vertex promised to obtain an effective registration of the three million shares and the shares underlying the options
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/05/952891P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nebraska (Local Office). 1988 in the district FAIR was denied access to the Local Office. Concluding that FAIR's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were not violated because: (1) the Local Office's policy was not vague. (2) the Local Office was not a public forum. (3) the Local Office's regulation of expressive conduct was reasonable. (4) the Local Office's prohibition on FAIR's efforts to advocate its position to a captive audience was not motivated by opposition to its viewpoint. The requirement of independent appellate review is a rule of federal constitutional law. We are obliged to make a fresh examination of crucial facts. This Court's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200512114.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The key issue is whether. Did not resolve it because all but one of the claims for relief in that appeal were rendered moot by a repeal of the challenged ordinance. CAMP was unable to apply for a permit because Atlanta imposed a moratorium on the issuance of permits from November 27. That other provisions were constitutional. (2) whether the challenge by CAMP to the moratorium on festival permits is moot because the moratorium has expired. Our review of these issues involving these parties is familiar territory. We also conclude that the complaint of CAMP regarding the denial of its application for a permit during the moratorium is not moot. A
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0002n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Comfort or repose of neighboring inhabitants or at a volume which is plainly audible to persons other than those who are in the room in which such device or instrument is played and who are voluntary listeners thereto. (b) Except for organized events which have received any type of permit from the City in conjunction with the event. PROCEDURAL HISTORY & FACTUAL BACKGROUND Appellants are anti abortion activists who protest at abortion clinics in Cleveland. A warrant was issued for Gaughan's arrest. He was arrested by the Cleveland police pursuant to the warrant. The charge for violating § 683.01(a) was later dismissed. Uniformed police were present during the protests and were aware that Gaughan was playing the recording. The police told him that the recording could be heard inside the clinic and gave him a citation for violating C.C.O. § 683.01(a).1 The citation stated that he was playing the recording
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2002/013301.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The primary issues presented in this appeal from the District Court's order denying preliminary injunctive relief are whether the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment allow the Borough of Tenafly. Because there is no evidence that the acts in question are expressive. Because the other requirements for injunctive relief are satisfied. In practice they have often done so. House number signs nailed to utility poles in plain view are 1. Our description of the facts is based on our independent review of the record because. Local churches are tacitly allowed to post permanent directional signs bearing crosses on municipal property. Orange ribbons were affixed to utility poles
</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=00-2357.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jr.</SPAN> was on brief for appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1774.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
L.L.P were on brief. Were on brief. Which was made without affording Beverly an opportunity to submit written briefs. Beverly argues that the regulation is unlawful. We conclude that there is such substantial evidence. The union negotiator indicated that the company would have to come up from its three percent figure if the parties were to reach agreement. The parties went on to discuss an unrelated dispute (whether certain employees were part of the bargaining unit) and tempers flared. While these negotiations were taking place. Included in its new system was a new policy requiring unit employees to pay a five dollar fee for lost timecards. A hearing was held before a Board ALJ. The Board ordered the company immediately to put into effect the annual four percent wage increases that were customary prior to January 1. Standard of Review The applicable standard of review for NLRB action is provided by the National Labor Relations Act. These statutes require us to apply different standards of review depending upon what type of determination we are reviewing.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-1305a.html">RADIO TV NEWS DIR V. FCC<BR></A><BR>
With him <p> on the briefs were <i>Richard E. Moline</i> were on the <p> briefs for appellant Freedom of Expression Foundation. Argued the cause for respondents. <p> With him on the brief were <i>Frank W. Assistant <p> Attorney General at the time the brief was filed. With him on the brief was <i>Gigi B. Albert</i> were on the brief <p> for amicus curiae Safe Energy Communication Council.<p> <p> Before: Edwards. Petitioners1 maintain that the rules are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200501/04-5026a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Kirk T. With him on the brief was William H. A magistrate judge concluded that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's defense of the Act was not substantially justified. On appeal we reject the Commission's argument that it should not be held liable for fees because it was obligated to defend the statute. We also conclude that the Commission's defense was a reasonable one on the merits. Makes it unlawful for any commodity trading advisor (CTA)
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200605/04-5350a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
O:\Slip\WP\2005\04 5350 Abigail Alliancea28a.odl.wpd
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Appellants are two political activists who were arrested for criminal trespassing while distributing Libertarian Party literature outside the post office in East Brunswick. We will affirm. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff Appellants John Paff and James Konek are officers of the Libertarian Party of Somerset and Middlesex Counties in New Jersey. The Libertarian Party is a national organization that advocates a free market economy and seeks to
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: There is no reason inherent in the technological features of cyberspace why First Amendment and defamation law should apply differently in cyberspace than in the brick and mortar world. Has chosen for policy reasons to immunize from liability for defamatory or obscene speech
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Indiana where they had stopped to eat after attending a school soccer game.1 As 1 The facts described in this paragraph are those that gave rise to the Hodgkins' first challenge to the Indiana Curfew law. The statute was revised and the Hodgkins challenged the new statute. The police took Colin and his friends to a curfew sweep processing site where he was given a breathalyser test and escorted to a bathroom where he was required to submit a urine sample to be tested for drugs. Both tests were determined to be negative. It is a curfew violation for a child fifteen (15). 1 (...continued) though the facts that follow are those that gave rise to the initial lawsuit and are not those of the case before us today. They are included in order to give context and background to the current dispute. 4 No. 01 4115 (2) after 11 p.m. on Sunday. A third statute in force at the time of Colin's arrest exempted from application of the curfew statute any child who was: (1) accompanied by the child's parent. These statutes formed what we will call Indiana's prior curfew law.
|
|
RANCH HOUSE, INC. V. AMERSON (1/17/2001, NO. 98-6857)
We conclude that the wisest course is to remand this case to permit further argument and development of the record on several critical issues. Including Defendants' claim that § 200.11 is intended to combat the
|
|
GONZALEZ V. LEE COUNTY HOUS. AUTH. (12/2/1998, NO. 97-2952)
A reasonable person in Moran's position would not have known that Gonzalez's letter of September 28. A reasonable person in Moran's position would have known that her termination of Gonzalez's employment was unlawful. See . Moran told Gonzalez that she did not want a black person placed in a vacant elderly housing unit.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Are proper defendants under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and are not immune under the Eleventh Amendment. These arguments are beyond the scope of this interlocutory appeal. Background 2 Plaintiffs are twenty one mentally disabled Texas residents (most of whom sue through their next friends) and the Arc of Texas (a nonprofit organization that advocates for the rights of individuals with mental disabilities). Defendants are three Texas state officers sued in their official capacities as Commissioners of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. The Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation.2 Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are not adequately providing community based living options to individuals. The programs to which Plaintiffs seek access are offered by Texas as part of its Medicaid plan. 901 (2004). state participation is voluntary. Which is still pending in the district court. Certain obligations that otherwise attach to states' provision of Medicaid services are waived.
|
|
RANCH HOUSE, INC. V. AMERSON (1/17/2001, NO. 98-6857)
We conclude that the wisest course is to remand this case to permit further argument and development of the record on several critical issues. Including Defendants' claim that § 200.11 is intended to combat the
|
|
GONZALEZ V. LEE COUNTY HOUS. AUTH. (12/2/1998, NO. 97-2952)
A reasonable person in Moran's position would not have known that Gonzalez's letter of September 28. A reasonable person in Moran's position would have known that her termination of Gonzalez's employment was unlawful. See . Moran told Gonzalez that she did not want a black person placed in a vacant elderly housing unit.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Are proper defendants under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and are not immune under the Eleventh Amendment. These arguments are beyond the scope of this interlocutory appeal. Background 2 Plaintiffs are twenty one mentally disabled Texas residents (most of whom sue through their next friends) and the Arc of Texas (a nonprofit organization that advocates for the rights of individuals with mental disabilities). Defendants are three Texas state officers sued in their official capacities as Commissioners of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. The Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation.2 Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are not adequately providing community based living options to individuals. The programs to which Plaintiffs seek access are offered by Texas as part of its Medicaid plan. 901 (2004). state participation is voluntary. Which is still pending in the district court. Certain obligations that otherwise attach to states' provision of Medicaid services are waived.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
YOUNG V. GOBER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Jr. is the General Vice President of the Eastern Regional Office of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. Is temporarily secured to the ground with stakes to ensure that it does not tip over. Also includes anything constructed which is not enclosed within another structure and is placed in a stationary location.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Nottoway County contends that its decision to deny the permit was indeed supported by
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The myriad provisions in the federal criminal code are justified. We are required in this case to determine whether Congress has authority under its power
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
They were unconstitutionally prohibited from protesting in the traditional public forums surrounding the Broadmoor Hotel (Broadmoor) in Colorado Springs. Approximately (1) NATO is the popular acronym for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Which is located across the street. The perimeter was roughly defined by five checkpoints at roadway intersections surrounding the Broadmoor property. The security zone was completely closed to all persons except conference attendees. The task force's primary security concern was the threat of a terrorist attack utilizing explosives. Broadmoor employees were bused into the zone from an off site staging area. They were pre screened by metal detectors and scanners. Several hundred members of the national and international media were allowed into the security zone. Members of the media were pre screened at an off site staging area (the World Arena) and bused into the Broadmoor. Members of the media were restricted to an area around the International Conference Center.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With them on the briefs were Thomas F. With him on the brief were Daniel M. With him on the brief were Mark C. Muench were on the brief for the Local Exchange Carrier intervenors. It considered whether calls to internet service providers (
|
|
SHOFF V. UNITED STATES (3/28/2001, NO. 00-10566)
The letter also notified Plaintiff that if he was dissatisfied with the denial he could
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Sulloway & Hollis were on brief. With whom Seufert Professional Association was on brief. THE ERISA ISSUE The curtain raiser question in this case involves whether the program under which Johnson sought benefits is subject to Title I of ERISA. We 3 scrutinize the record and test the district court's conclusion that the program is within the safe harbor. Preemption is triggered. Or may determine whether a jury trial is available. We are uncertain which of these boggarts has captured the minds of the protagonists in this case. Given the marshalled realities the parties agree 4 that the ERISA difference is of potential significance here. It is entirely plausible under the circumstances of this case that the applicability vel non of ERISA makes a meaningful difference we refrain from speculation about the parties' tactical goals and proceed directly to a determination of whether the court below correctly concluded that state law provides the rule of decision. 256 (8th Cir. 1994) (explaining that the existence of an ERISA plan is a mixed question of fact and law).
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Opening briefs have been filed by four petitioners or groups of petitioners: (1) BellSouth Corp. We also have received briefs from numerous intervenors. Petitioners contend that various specific actions taken by the FCC in the Order that directly affect the application and calculation of access charges are in violation of the 1996 Act. That other decisions made the by FCC in the Order are arbitrary and capricious. The IXCs argue generally that the Order does not make the transition to competitive access rates quickly enough and is too cautious in its concern for universal service. Argue that the FCC was insufficiently cautious with respect to protecting universal service and left them exposed to inefficient competitive entry in the short term. The FCC counters that the challenged provisions of the Order are the result of a reasonable exercise of its authority to regulate rates for interstate services under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Are not arbitrary and capricious. We review agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act to determine whether it is
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Footnote 1 the second sentence of the footnote is amended to read: Gen. (4) Any conduct or entertainment by any person whose private parts are exposed or who is wearing transparent clothing that reveals the private parts. Or any sexual acts that are prohibited by law. A court must consider
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Richard E. Moline were on the briefs for appellant Freedom of Expression Foundation. With him on the brief were Frank W. Assistant Attorney General at the time the brief was filed. With him on the brief was Gigi B. Albert were on the brief for amicus curiae Safe Energy Communication Council. Petitioners1 maintain that the rules are
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
La Tour is a certified public accountant who lives and works in Fayetteville. The inspector told La Tour that indoor signs were not regulated.2 La Tour then purchased an electronic sign that displays messages up to twenty one characters long. Or is animated.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Linda E. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were Richard J. On the brief was Mark R. We hold that it was improper for the Veterans Court to affirm the Board based on the court's analysis of a communication not relied on by the Board. Was awarded service connection and a 50 percent disability rating in 1985 for a left leg injury and varicosities of both legs. Mayfield alleged that the required causation was established because Mr. Mayfield's veins were in such poor condition that he was unable to undergo a bypass operation to treat his coronary artery disease. The Board held that a remand was necessary for the VA to comply with the notice and duty to assist requirements of the new law. 5107) are fully complied with and satisfied.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: At issue today is the constitutionality of several zoning and public nudity ordinances adopted by the City of Daytona Beach (
|
|
SHOFF V. UNITED STATES (3/28/2001, NO. 00-10566)
The letter also notified Plaintiff that if he was dissatisfied with the denial he could
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
As that phrase is used in § 1958(a). Valoze's cellular phone number was registered in a South Georgia area code. This telephone call was recorded. Both men were physically located in Georgia. The money would only be
|
|
96-1483 -- Z.J. GIFTS D-2 V. CITY OF AURORA -- 2/10/1998
The district court held that the regulation was a content based restriction of speech as applied to Z.J. Gifts' remaining claims for relief were dismissed as moot. The city appealed.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The present action was commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in April 2006 by or on behalf of artists whose ages then ranged from 16 to 20. New York residents are adults at age 18.). That plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their claims that the challenged provisions violate their First Amendment and equal protection rights. Defendants have appealed. Contending principally that the district court erred in finding that plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their claims. Amendments to § 10 117 were adopted to expand former § 435 13.2(c)'s prohibitions by raising the age restriction on the sale of such items from 18 to 21 and by introducing a strict liability provision that prohibits persons under the age of 21 from possessing such items in certain places. The Challenged Provisions of the City Code The new or amended subsections that are challenged in this action provide as follows: (c) No person shall sell or offer to sell an aerosol spray paint can.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is unconstitutional under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Arguing the district court erred in granting summary judgment and that the peddling ordinance is unconstitutional. Finding that the ordinance 2 No. 02 1372 is not a proper time. Manner restriction and is an impermissible prior restraint on free speech. As is evident from the title. Weinberg is no stranger to selling his wares outside the United Center and its forerunner. Explaining that he was in violation of the City's peddling ordinance. Then Weinberg sought and obtained a temporary restraining order which permitted him to resume book sales outside the United Center and the parties agreed to have the case transferred to a magistrate judge. Is not a reasonable time. Is void for vagueness. Each of these is addressed in turn.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Or that was produced using materials that have been mailed. Definitions of § 2252A's terms are contained in 18 U.S.C. § 2256. The section was amended just days before Maxwell's trial. The amendments are of no moment in this case. § 2256. Data stored on computer disk or by electronic means which is capable of conversion into a visual image. Its case relied on establishing that the images were produced by materials that did. The first three grounds are insufficient to warrant reversal. The fourth ground is that the application of § 2252A(a)(5)(B) to the facts of his case amounts to an unconstitutional exercise of the Commerce Clause. (B) such visual depiction is. Or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Or (D) such visual depiction is advertised. Or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. (9)
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Challenge the United States Department of Agriculture's (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Who is deaf. Bircoll's Disability Bircoll is a profoundly deaf individual with no hearing in his left ear and ten percent hearing in his right ear. Was raised in the hearing world. Bircoll's primary form of communication is lipreading. Bircoll is more effective in reading lips if he is facing the speaker with good light and little background noise. Bircoll has greater success in communicating with speakers who do not have facial hair. Bircoll usually understands about fifty percent of what is said. Bircoll usually communicates with an amplified telephone (one that is louder than a normal phone) and a teletypewriter. Such as calling someone to say he will be late. He will make the phone call. One leg is shorter than the other. He was wearing his hearing aid that evening. Bircoll did not finish his drink because his stomach was bothering him. As he was leaving the gas station. Because trees and bushes were obstructing his view. Bircoll pulled into the intersection to see if there were any oncoming cars. When Bircoll saw that it was clear.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Which was previously operated as a monopoly overseen by the several states. Conditions of such arrangements are set forth in interconnection agreements established between the carriers. The state utility commissions are empowered. Arguing that they were immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution. The PUC and Verizon each appealed and the appeals were consolidated. We have jurisdiction over the final decision of a District Court. We conclude that the PUC and the Commissioners are not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court under the 1996 Act. We will. We will affirm the District Court in part and reverse it in part. Is able to compete with an ILEC without having to bear the prohibitive cost of building its own telecommunications network. Both an ILEC and a CLEC are required to
|
|
CRUMPTON MADOLYN L. V. STONE, MICHAEL
|
|
BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS V. MCIMETRO ACCESS TRANSMISSION SERVICES (1/10/2002, NO. 00-12809)
We are asked to review two orders of the Georgia State Public Commission (the
|
|
BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS V. MCIMETRO ACCESS TRANSMISSION SERVICES (1/10/2002, NO. 00-12809)
We are asked to review two orders of the Georgia State Public Commission (the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
IFS cross appeals the district court's1 conclusion that IFS is a debt collector for purposes of the FDCPA. BACKGROUND IFS is primarily a check guarantee company that contracts with merchants who accept checks from customers. A check written to a merchant is endorsed with a stamp that includes IFS's account information at Huntington National Bank (HNB). If the check is dishonored by the drawer's bank. The National Automated Clearing House Association (NACHA) is an association of financial institutions who use the ACH. McDonald's and the Crow Bar contracted with IFS for their check guarantee services. 2 After the checks were returned by the merchants' banks. Three of the four dishonored checks were presented twice. Volden argued in the district court that IFS was a debt collector under the FDCPA. IFS countered that it was not a debt collector. Even if it were. IFS was a 2 South Dakota law provides that [i]f a merchant or place of business conspicuously posts a notice on its premises . . . Stating that a fee will be assessed against returned checks.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is president and sole shareholder of Fish. There were four licensed. The income which the adult entertainment industry generates for the Village is critical. Ex. 11.) 1 Joelner claims to have been doing business at the 2226 Kingshighway location since 1990 or 1991. The stated goal of the increase was to protect the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was Henk Brands. With him on the brief were David W. Albert were on the brief for amici curiae Center for Media Education. At issue is the facial constitutional ity of two provisions of the Cable Television Consumer Pro tection and Competition Act of 1992. Time Warner argues that both provisions facially that is. We conclude that both provisions are facially constitutional. The district court held that the subscrib er limits provision is unconstitutional. The channel occupancy provision is constitutional. The Standard of Review Time Warner argues that the subscriber limits provision is a content based restriction of its ability to communicate with its audience. As such is subject to strict scrutiny. See * The district court at least appears to have found the channel occupancy provision constitutional on its face. Whether or not the regulations ultimately promulgated by the Commission will pass constitutional muster under [intermediate scrutiny] is. The Government denies that the subscriber limits provision is content based.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: The second paragraph on slip op. 1131. Line 3: the words
|
|
02-4030 -- HEIDEMAN V. SOUTH SALTLAKE CITY -- 11/04/2003
Circuit Judge.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
These findings are based on studies and police declarations from other jurisdictions. CITY OF LA HABRA The Appellants are Bill Badi Gammoh. The case was subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Appellants were unsuccessful before the district court. Close up performances using the term
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We agree that the ordinance is constitutional and affirm the judgment of the district court. Minors may participate in any activity during curfew hours if they are accompanied by a parent. The ordinance exempts minors who are engaged in interstate travel. Are on the sidewalk abutting their parents' residence. Or are involved in an emergency. The ordinance does not affect minors who are
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Who was a secretary at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for a short time in 1972. During several public appearances and on a world wide web site Liddy stated that the burglars' objective during the Watergate break in was to determine whether the Democrats possessed information embarrassing to John Dean.1 More specifically. Liddy asserted that the burglars were seeking a compromising photograph of Dean's fiance that was located in Wells's desk among several photographs that were used to offer prostitution services to outof town guests. The district court determined that Wells was an involuntary public figure who could not prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. Because we determine that Wells is not a public figure for purposes of the ongoing public debate regarding Watergate and we also conclude that Louisiana law does not apply to two of Wells's defamation counts. We reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1 John Dean was legal counsel to President Richard M.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
North Dakota and several police officers asserting that they were arrested in violation of their constitutional rights for alleged violation of Fargo's residential picketing ordinance. This matter is now before the court en banc. Certain words and phrases used herein are defined as follows: A. Which is used as a place of residence. Deciding that the ordinance was constitutional on its face but unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs on October 10. The district court concluded that the officers' conduct was not
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The district court found that the University's campus was a nonpublic forum and that all the challenged restrictions on speech were reasonable. I. Gary Bowman is a professing Christian who engages in street preaching about his religious beliefs and convictions as a tenet of his faith. Bowman considers the University a uniquely suitable place to communicate his message because of its close proximity to his residence in Oklahoma and the significant number of students that can be found in outdoor areas. 2 The University is the flagship campus of the University of Arkansas System. Bowman is classified as a Non University Entity.2 The Policy places a five day cap per semester per entity on the use of facilities and outdoor space by Non University Entities. A reservation is required regardless of the use that will be made of the space. The Policy further prohibits the use of space by Non University Entities during so called Use of indoor space is governed by individual use policies which are not at issue in this case.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We agree the ordinance is facially content neutral. If the Board's reasonable reliance were not in dispute. It is located just off an exit ramp on I 70. The total population of the unincorporated portions of Dickinson County is small. The store's inventory is almost entirely adult oriented. The only calls for service attributable to The Lion's Den were in connection with demonstrators who gathered to protest the store's opening.
In response. The evidence shows it is unlikely any of the commissioners had those documents at that time.
On July 16. Multiple drafts were prepared and considered by the Board before it settled on a final text. Especially vocal in his support of restricting sexually oriented businesses was Philip Cosby. Was insufficient to force The Lion's Den to move from its current location. Which is approximately 1150 feet from the nearest residence. Relevant provisions of the Second Ordinance are as follows: (1) Owners of stores devoting more than 35 percent of the inventory or floor space to adult materials must obtain a license from the County.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. Were on brief for appellee. Were on brief for Health Industry Manufacturers Association. The district court determined that plaintiff's claims were preempted by the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (
|
|
96-3025 -- MISSION GROUP KANSAS INC. V. RILEY -- 06/01/1998
For profit postsecondary institutions are statutorily barred from participating in Title IV programs unless they derive at least 15% of their gross revenues from sources other than Title IV. See 20 U.S.C.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The letter also notified Plaintiff that if he was dissatisfied with the denial he could
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Tootalian was on brief for appellant. Fournier were on brief for appellees. I. The defendant MBTA is a municipal corporation that operates the subway system serving the metropolitan Boston region. Each station is divided into two sections. Plaintiff Jews for Jesus is a not for profit corporation that conducts religious activity. Plaintiff Steven Silverstein is the branch leader of the Boston office of Jews for Jesus. Their primary contention is that the Guidelines impose a ban on leafletting. The Authority counters that the regulations are a reasonable infringement of First Amendment rights and are necessary to preserve the system's transportation function. 1 The twelve stations are Science Park. The current Guidelines were adopted after this suit began. 3 the MBTA points to a concern for public safety to justify the restriction on leafletting. The court applied a tenet of overbreadth doctrine that permits facial invalidation of a regulation whose reach beyond properly prohibited speech is
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Certain words and phrases used herein are defined as follows: A. Which is used as a place of residence. Deciding that the ordinance was constitutional on its face but unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs on October 10. The district court concluded that the officers' conduct was not
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Concluding that they are reasonably related to legitimate penological interests and do not infringe PLN's due process rights. Inmates are allowed only a facility bank account. All of an inmate's funds must be deposited therein and transactions involving any other financial account are only permitted by written permission.(2) I R. It was not enforced initially. Another one year grandfathering period was allowed for Level II and III inmates until March 2. If the material is included as part of a firstclass letter that does not exceed one ounce in total weight. (2) The procedures for censorship of mail listed in subsection (d) of this regulation shall be used for censorship of publications. (3) No publication that meets either of the following conditions shall be allowed into the facility: (A) Contains sexually explicit material. Or is otherwise illegal. The test for censorship of mail in subsection (d) of this regulation. (4) Inmates shall have the option of having censored publications in their entirety either mailed out of the facility at their own expense or discarded. (5) Before transferring between institutions or facilities.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The letter also notified Plaintiff that if he was dissatisfied with the denial he could
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
These motions were premised on plaintiffs' lack of standing and defendants' qualified immunity and were made by public officer defendants in their individual capacities. Which was to be held June 78. Field Day was constrained by the provisions of New 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 York's Mass Gathering Law. PUBLIC HEALTH LAW § 225(5)(o) (providing that the Mass Gathering Law is to apply to gatherings that are
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This proceeding is before us pursuant to 2 U.S.C.S 437h. The present challenge was filed in the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania by Renato P. By making campaign contributions to a number of candidates for federal office through enlisting company employees and others to forward contributions to the candidates that were thereafter reimbursed by one of the companies. Individuals who have reached their federal direct contribution limits. Soft money is sometimes used to fund so called
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
N Walker Merino were on consolidated brief. There are fewer than 8. The Commission and the Commonwealth (which had intervened in the proceedings below) appeal from this ruling.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Line 7 the reference to Section 14A is corrected to read
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This proceeding is before us pursuant to 2 U.S.C.S 437h. The present challenge was filed in the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania by Renato P. By making campaign contributions to a number of candidates for federal office through enlisting company employees and others to forward contributions to the candidates that were thereafter reimbursed by one of the companies. Individuals who have reached their federal direct contribution limits. Soft money is sometimes used to fund so called
|
 |
ACTION FOR CHILDS TV V. FCC
|
|
UNITED STATES V. FRANDSEN (5/25/2000, NO. 98-2174)
Marvin Frandsen and Bryan Morris (
|
|
AM. CHARITIES FOR REASONABLE FUNDRAISING REGULATION V. PINELLAS COUNTY (8/10/2000, NO. 99-10945)
The challenge is based on the Commerce Clause. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendant County concluding that the Ordinance was facially constitutional. Who are charities soliciting within the County.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With them on the briefs were William R. With them on the brief was Jay L. With him on the briefs were J. Open access is the essence of Orders 888 and 889. Open access transmission is expected to increase competition from alternative power suppliers. Are intended to create a market in which customers may purchase power from any of a number of suppliers. Will no longer have to purchase power from its local utility but instead may seek cheaper power anywhere in the country. All key players in the electricity market have challenged various provisions of Orders 888 and 889. Utili ties have been heavily regulated at both the federal and state levels. Economies of scale have justified the construction of large (greater than 500 MW) generation facilities. Techno logical advances in the 1970s and 1980s have permitted small plants to operate efficiently as well. These alternative suppliers have created a wholesale market for low cost power. They have and will continue to exercise that market power in order to maintain and increase market share.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With them on the briefs were William R. With them on the brief was Jay L. With him on the briefs were J. Open access is the essence of Orders 888 and 889. Open access transmission is expected to increase competition from alternative power suppliers. Are intended to create a market in which customers may purchase power from any of a number of suppliers. Will no longer have to purchase power from its local utility but instead may seek cheaper power anywhere in the country. All key players in the electricity market have challenged various provisions of Orders 888 and 889. Utili ties have been heavily regulated at both the federal and state levels. Economies of scale have justified the construction of large (greater than 500 MW) generation facilities. Techno logical advances in the 1970s and 1980s have permitted small plants to operate efficiently as well. These alternative suppliers have created a wholesale market for low cost power. They have and will continue to exercise that market power in order to maintain and increase market share.
|
|
UNITED STATES V. FRANDSEN (5/25/2000, NO. 98-2174)
Marvin Frandsen and Bryan Morris (
|
|
AM. CHARITIES FOR REASONABLE FUNDRAISING REGULATION V. PINELLAS COUNTY (8/10/2000, NO. 99-10945)
The challenge is based on the Commerce Clause. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendant County concluding that the Ordinance was facially constitutional. Who are charities soliciting within the County.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
These matters are before the court on the petition for rehearing filed on behalf of Garfield and Kane Counties. We have determined to amend the original panel opinion on page 86. A copy of the amended opinion is attached to this order. The petition for panel rehearing is otherwise denied in all respects. Most of the transportation routes of the West were established under its authority. R.S. 2477 rights of way were an integral part of the congressional pro development lands policy. The statute thus had the effect of
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Pouillon was arrested by Owosso. The arrest was ostensibly for
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
One of the issues before the district court was whether the ordinance was properly supported as targeting the untoward
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Their applications were ultimately denied on the basis of an
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. Qwest Corporation is an incumbent provider of local telephone services in Minnesota. One method of connecting local and long distance networks is through a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
2) its decision is not supported by substantial evidence. We will affirm in part and reverse in part. I. Factual Background The parties have stipulated to the following facts. Are licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to provide wireless cellular telephone service to the Borough of Ho Ho Kus. Is licensed to provide wireless mobile radio services. Bell Atlantic and Nextel are referred to collectively throughout this opinion as the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Based on their
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Marvin Frandsen and Bryan Morris (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Marvin Frandsen and Bryan Morris (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief. Duncan were on brief. Circuit Judge.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
PSC were on brief for appellant. Ivan Diaz Lopez for appellee.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Overview We are asked to decide whether the City of Santa Monica's refusal to permit a candidate for the City Council to designate his occupation as
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was on brief for plaintiff Toby Klang Ward. Were on brief for defendants Carol A. Were on brief for the School Committee of the Town of Belmont. We affirm part of the attorneys' fees judgment and remand the rest for a determination of whether any of Ward's litigation was frivolous. A favorable vote would have granted Ward tenure. The jury found that none of the defendants' votes were motivated by that discussion. Ward had a constitutional right to notice that her discussion was prohibited before the School Board could retaliate against her for that discussion. That Hickey and Gibson were not so motivated. To conclude that Tinkham's disagreement with Ward's views was an essential element of Ward's 2 See the jury's special verdict forms in the appendix. 3 The jury's response to question six contradicts its response to the other questions regarding Gibson and Hickey. The contradiction was unexplained on the record. The issue is moot. 5 First Amendment claim.4 Since the jury found no disagreement. Tinkham was entitled to qualified immunity.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
To answer two questions pertaining to § 253 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: (1) what is the preemptive scope of § 253. Because amendments were made to relevant state laws after the district court rendered judgment. This decision is rendered by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). 2 ** * I. Congress announced that it was passing
|
|
97-9528 -- WALKER STONE CO. INC. V. SECRETARY OF LABOR -- 09/22/1998
816(a)(1) and holds that breaking up rocks which are obstructing a crusher constitutes
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is the subject of this interlocutory appeal. Heartland brokered a mortgage for the Glovers with an
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Moore was on brief. Were on brief. Case were on brief. Either because the petition was filed prematurely or because Horsehead lacks standing. We hold that Horsehead's petition was filed prematurely and we are therefore without jurisdiction to consider it. I. BACKGROUND Electric arc furnace dust (Dust) is a byproduct of the primary production of steel. 000 tons of Dust are generated annually by domes tic steel mills. Dust is listed as a RCRA hazardous waste because it contains cadmium. 1995 and the rule was published in the Federal Register and became effective the next day. It currently controls a dominant share of the Dust recycling and disposal business and asserts that the de listing rule
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Were on the briefs. Was on the briefs. Here we are presented with a will contest involving a member of an Indian tribe in a Department of the Interior probate proceeding where we must decide whether state or federal law of evidence applies. Covington executed a will leaving all her Indian trust allotments to her great grandson. The will listed one of Covington's grandchildren. Though the term
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This is a First and Fourteenth Amendment case involving municipal regulation of signage. The main questions before us are: (1) whether we have jurisdiction to review the district court's invalidation of the earlier ordinance. (2) whether the current ordinance's height and size restrictions are narrowly tailored to serve a substantial government interest. Which were not adjudicated by the district court. Is in the business of erecting and operating signs. Service or . . . entertainment[] which is not conducted. Alleging that the city's sign ordinance was unconstitutional both on its face and as applied. The court held that although the height and size restrictions are content neutral. They are not narrowly tailored to advance the city's interests and do not leave open ample alternative means of communication. Holding also that the height and size restrictions are severable. The court invalidated the entirety of the original ordinance on the ground that the provisions distinguishing between No. 04 6324 Page 4 on site and off site signs were not severable.
|
|
MCI TELECOM CORP V. FCC
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO brief is granted. Is ordered filed. The motion of appellee County of San Diego for leave to file reply in support of its petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc is denied. Is hereby amended. The attached amended opinion is filed concurrently with this order. The petition for panel rehearing is denied. No further petitions for panel rehearing will be entertained. The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge of the court has requested a vote on en banc rehearing. The petition for rehearing en banc is denied. We conclude that the burdens imposed by the WTO were sufficient to sustain a facial challenge under § 253(a) and that Congress did not intend to permit enforcement of § 253(a) through a § 1983 damages action. It was not until December 1947 that Bell Labs scientist D.H. Overcoming the limitations of the single cell transmission system that was constrained by the number of channels available within the radio spectrum first allocated to mobile communications by the Federal Communications Commission (
|
|
RAYMOND GALLEGOS, V. ANTHPNY PRINCIPI
Argued for respondent appellee.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
These new restrictions have been hotly contested in both state and federal courts. Although the term
|
|
03-3005 -- TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT CO. V. NATIONAL MULTIHOUSING COUNCIL -- 08/27/2004
Circuit Judge.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Line 25 a comma is inserted after the word
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
McClelland were on the briefs. Were on the brief. The Commission designed a scheme intended to ensure that any system not facing such competition would nevertheless charge approximately the same rates as if it were in a competitive market. A system operator's initial permitted rate either was its rate in effect on September 30. Or was calculated in accordance with certain FCC formulas and worksheets with out reference to rates in effect on September 30. One of the cable operators' complaints in that case (and the only one relevant to Time Warner's instant petition) was that the FCC unreasonably did not allow
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Union Township amended the resolution to eliminate the provisions that the district court concluded were likely to be held unconstitutional. Union Township also eliminated other provisions that were not found to be suspect by the district court. A divided panel of this court ruled in favor of Deja Vu on the following two points: (1) that the resolution was an unconstitutional prior restraint on protected First Amendment expression because it failed to provide for prompt judicial review of an adverse licensing decision. (2) that the resolution's more restrictive closing times for adult cabarets without liquor licenses as compared to those with liquor licenses was a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. We granted a rehearing en banc to reconsider whether the resolution is consonant with both the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The resolution was enacted pursuant to the authority granted to Union Township by Ohio Revised Code § 503.51 59 for the purpose of protecting the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Latturner were on brief. Hayden were on brief. These matches were not exact. Deborah Barnes was a customer of BankBoston. Your accounts will transfer to the Fleet accounts that are most similar to your existing BankBoston accounts. Everything will happen automatically. So you won't have to do a thing.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The exception is Plaintiff's claim that the Government negligently failed to discharge a nondiscretionary duty to perform a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment for McClatchy on the ground that Thornton presented no genuine issue of material fact showing that she was disabled within the meaning of the ADA.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment for McClatchy on the ground that Thornton presented no genuine issue of material fact showing that she was disabled within the meaning of the ADA.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is a prerequisite to filing suit against a carrier under the Carmack Amendment. Which is to provide the carrier adequate notice of the claim so that it can conduct an independent investigation of the damage. Because the regulations at issue in this case were promulgated while the ICC was still in existence. The electronic impact recorder that had been installed in the transformer was retrieved and read. Additional tests revealed that the transformer was not operating properly and needed repair. Where claims are not filed . . . in accordance with the foregoing provisions. Such claims will not be paid. The transformer was interchanged to the FECR in Jacksonville. NSR maintains that the damaging
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The IRS received information suggesting that BDO was promoting potentially abusive tax shelters without complying with the registration and listing requirements for organizers and sellers of tax shelters. As well as any
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With whom the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The IRS received information suggesting that BDO was promoting potentially abusive tax shelters without complying with the registration and listing requirements for organizers and sellers of tax shelters. As well as any
|
|
AUGUSTINE DAVID HENDERSON V. ROGER KENNEDY
Argued the cause for appellees.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was Deborah J. With him on the briefs were Bennett L. With him on the brief were Thomas O. With him on the brief were Richard M. Edward Shakin were on the brief of ILEC Intervenors in support of respondent. Although this relay is imperceptible to the caller. How the call is paid for matters a great deal to the participating telecommunications carriers. The `originating' carrier A is ordinarily required to compensate the `terminating' carrier B for the use of carrier B's facilities.
|
|
GOLD COAST PUBLICATIONS V. CORRIGAN
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Gold Coast Publications v. A newspaper publisher contends that the Ordinance is a facially invalid abridgment of the newspaper's rights of free speech and free press under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and comparable provisions of the Florida Constitution. The district court concluded that the Ordinance was facially valid except for three provisions that require the use of a particular make and model of newsrack or its
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec94/92-4764.html">GOLD COAST PUBLICATIONS V. CORRIGAN<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gold Coast Publications v. A newspaper publisher contends that the Ordinance is a facially invalid abridgment of the newspaper's rights of free speech and free press under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and comparable provisions of the Florida Constitution. The district court concluded that the Ordinance was facially valid except for three provisions that require the use of a particular make and model of newsrack or its
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B493EB799D718B7E88256C09005B098A/$file/0115854.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that the ordinance is constitutional. We do not address the propriety of the district court's award of partial summary judgment to the city based on the district court's determination that the ordinance is not content based. Promoting safety was by regulating the proliferation of newsracks within the special district. Honolulu Weekly was founded as a free weekly publication. Article 15 was designed to regulate newsracks throughout the Waikiki Special District. As was the case along Kalakaua Avenue. Because space (especially the most desirable space within the district) is limited. Although Honolulu Weekly is a free publication. Because the display window for the coin operated newsracks is larger.1 Honolulu Weekly also surmised it would have a better chance of obtaining the locations it desired by bidding with the coin operated group and feared it would not be considered a credible media publication if lumped among the advertising leaflets and tourist promotional papers that constituted most of the free publications.
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B05F3200F4BD992288256ECF0057CC71/$file/0235936.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
ORDER The opinion appearing at 368 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2004) is AMENDED as follows: On page 1191. The challenged Ordinances are explicitly intended to combat the secondary effects of adult stores' speech. The district court ruled that the purpose of the Ordinances is to regulate the harmful secondary effects associated with sexually oriented businesses. Preamble/Findings (4)(k) (
</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/99a0431p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a black lung benefits case that began nearly twenty five years ago with the death of a coal mining employee named Harold Milliken. The ALJ concluded that Evelyn Milliken was entitled to survivor's benefits. We conclude that the Board's affirmance was not legally erroneous and that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence. I. BACKGROUND 3 The only new evidence of any import introduced at a modification hearing was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/03/022705P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Also dismissed were alleged statutory violations for omitting information required by 22 1 rel. An
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0340p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Park or public area of the city of Dearborn unless such activity is granted approval by resolution by the City Council. No permit shall be issued for a special event unless application is made not less than 30 days before the date the special event is sought to be held. If the City Council finds that the special event is to be held for a lawful purpose and will not in any manner act so as to breach the peace or unnecessarily interfere with the public use of the streets. Place and manner restrictions as a condition to granting such permit if said restrictions are reasonable and necessary for the protection of the public health. There is no exception to the thirty day advance notice requirement contained in the Ordinance itself. Although Chammout claimed that he did not organize the march and was not aware that it lacked a permit. Was labeled simply as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/feb97/96-2000.wpd.html">REVO V. DISCIPLINARY BD.<BR></A><BR>
Unless the recipient of the solicitation is a relative of (1) The Honorable Joseph F. Except as provided in Paragraph A of Rule 16 703 [allowing contact with prospective clients who are relatives or with whom the lawyer has a prior personal. Concerns an action for personal injury or wrongful death or otherwise relates to an accident involving the person to whom the communication is addressed or a relative of that person. Is a personal injury lawyer who practices in Albuquerque. Which are specifically banned by Rule 16 701(C)(4). Revo sought a declaratory judgment that the ban was unconstitutional on First Amendment and Equal Protection grounds. The case was assigned to another district judge. The district court held that New Mexico's blanket ban on direct mail advertising is an unconstitutional violation of Mr. We have an obligation to make an independent examination of the whole record in order to make sure that the speech regulation does not constitute a forbidden intrusion on the field of free expression.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1997/97a1734p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Indigent inmates are guaranteed care. Their prison accounts are debited for the relevant charges. The following facts are uncontested or were found by the district court. Between 100 and 120 are federal inmates housed under contract with the federal government. The remaining 550 inmates are held under state law. Approximately 35% of the inmate population is Hispanic. Adopted a program under which the inmates held under state law are generally charged small fees when they seek health care. The purpose of the fee program is not to generate revenue but to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1997/97a1734p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Indigent inmates are guaranteed care. Their prison accounts are debited for the relevant charges. The following facts are uncontested or were found by the district court. Between 100 and 120 are federal inmates housed under contract with the federal government. The remaining 550 inmates are held under state law. Approximately 35% of the inmate population is Hispanic. Adopted a program under which the inmates held under state law are generally charged small fees when they seek health care. The purpose of the fee program is not to generate revenue but to
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1116.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellee. AAC is a Massachusetts not for profit corporation which includes among its main purposes AIDS education of the general public. The MBTA is a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It is explicitly authorized to
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DAAA6273214AA58388256EA000809B6A/$file/0235936.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Whether the City of Spokane's ordinances regulating the location of adult oriented retail businesses (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034220p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs are persons who borrowed from the two banks and signed second mortgages. Appellees in this case are the settling parties. Appellants are a number of law firms and plaintiff class members who challenge the District Court's jurisdiction. The alleged mastermind of the scheme was the Shumway Organization (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0225p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The United States was engaged in a criminal investigation of Plaintiff Steven Warshak and the company he owned. (2)
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4D377C9418B42EB488256E4E00784B23/$file/0215693.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Property is the only location within Morgan Hill actually zoned for hospital use. Provided such uses are shown on the development plan for a particular PUD district as approved by the city council.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/07/97-9522.htm">97-9522 -- FARMERS TELEPHONE CO. INC. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION -- 07/19/1999<BR></A><BR>
</strong> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991991.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 10 the line is corrected to read
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc5ODVfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7985_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Or demonstrations that are designed to entice children to congregate. That the prohibition is a content based restriction on speech but that it does not violate the First Amendment because it is narrowly tailored to the compelling state interest of protecting children from sexual predators. Hobbs contends principally (a) that the prohibition is not narrowly tailored and hence violates the First Amendment both on its face and as applied to him. That the prohibition is content neutral and nonpunitive. BACKGROUND 19 20 21 22 23 Playland Park (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/04/994021P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The issue before us in this appeal is whether Canon 5 of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct. Were narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest in maintaining the independence and impartiality of Minnesota's judiciary. Were not impermissibly vague. I. The Minnesota Constitution provides that judges
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1783.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Pine Tree Legal Assistance were on brief. Participating retailers accept the stamps as if they were cash. The Secretary of Agriculture is charged with overseeing the federal aspects of the food stamp program. Income was not to include the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1994/94a0831p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lawrence Seidman (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1999/975693.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The Blockbuster Sony Music Entertainment Centre (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FE9F1815D464382788256DB7007B0E19/$file/0270988.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Hernandez applied for suspension of deportation under a provision of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033823p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: We have before us two cases that have been consolidated on appeal. 1 While the District Courts in these cases both addressed the constitutionality of a New Jersey regulation A third appeal that was originally consolidated. Has been severed and is being resolved in a not precedential opinion. 5 1 governing the processing of incoming inmate legal mail. Do state prisoners have an interest protected by the First Amendment in being present when their incoming legal mail is opened? We conclude that New Jersey has not shown that its legal mail policy is reasonably related to its interest in protecting the safety and security of its prisons. We will affirm the grant of injunctive relief in Allah and reverse the District Court's summary judgment for the defendants in Jones.2 I. New Jersey regulations governing the Department of Corrections required that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="462"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200106/00-5070a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the brief were Wilma A. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs Henderson and Phillips allege that they are evangelical Christians. Buttons and bumper stickers
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="462"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962003.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
David
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="462"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-1374a.html">OMNIPOINT CORP V. FCC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="462"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A3AC4A8F164DA30288256BBA0080B31D/$file/9935320.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
FACE gives aggrieved persons a right of action against whoever by
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="462"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0F569EF00290007188256BC0005876E6/$file/9935320ebcorrected.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\temp21\PlannedParenthoodLetter1.wpd
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Starr is to investigate and prosecute matters
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. Facts Appellant PDS is a Virginia corporation engaged in the business of preparing topographic maps from aerial photography and ground surveys. Appellant Webb was employed by PDS as the photogrammetric manager during this time period. The contractors were then paid according to the actual number of hours worked. After which additional approval was required. Which were then used to prepare the PDS invoices for the VDOT jobs. Would have resulted in PDS leaving
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
As follows: On page 9 the designation for the footnote is corrected. Line 8 the word
|
|
01-4134 -- TOOL BOX V. OGDEN CITY CORP. -- 01/22/2003
566 (1991) (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
She contends that the BIA's holding that she was ineligible to apply for suspension of deportation under former Immigration and Nationality Act (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Williams was also convicted of possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). Because there was no reversible Booker error. Which was later traced to the defendant Williams. Who LNM claimed was her daughter. When these pictures were not received. The message was followed by a computer hyperlink. The nude children in the photos were approximately five to fifteen years old. Williams was charged with one count of promoting. Or that is intended to cause another to believe. Williams was also charged with one count of possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). Williams filed a motion to dismiss the pandering charge on the grounds that 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. While the motion was pending before the trial court. There are two types of child pornography. Child pornography images of both types are typically circulated through the Internet.
|
|
GALEN MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. V. U.S., ET AL.
The United States. With him on the brief were Peter D. PLLC. With him on the brief was Stephanie M. 2003). We conclude Galen has failed to establish that the award of the contract to Downing was arbitrary. Price. The solicitation was a best value procurement and noted that technical capability was weighted slightly higher than past performance. However. Technical capability was assigned ninety and past performance was assigned only ten. In the final evaluation of the proposals. Technical capability and past performance were combined into a single technical score worth a maximum of 100 points. The score for bid price made up the remaining 100 points. Three companies submitted proposals for the project: Galen.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The companies are referred to as local exchange carriers or LECs. Is also a LEC to the extent that it supplies local telephone service in many Iowa communities. Qwest is not a member of INS. No longer was the local market to be viewed as a natural monopoly with only one authorized provider of local telephone service. Which was previously operated as a monopoly overseen by the several states. The state commissions in regulating local telephone markets and the competing providers of telephone services in those markets is at the heart of this case. There are two types of charges which one carrier can extract from another for the provision of telecommunication services. One of the primary purposes of the 1996 Act was to promote competition in the local telephone service market. The amount an ILEC can charge for allowing a competitor to use its infrastructure to deliver a local call is to be determined by an interconnection agreement negotiated (or imposed by arbitration) between the ILEC and the interconnecting carrier that has been approved by the state commission.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Which is to propose laws and amendments to the Constitution and enact or reject them at an election independently of the Legislative Assembly.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Of counsel on the brief was Michael P. With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were David J. Concluding that she was not
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
For the following reasons we REVERSE the district court's judgment that the SinglePetition Rule is constitutionally valid and conclude that the Single Petition Rule is severable from the remainder of the statute. We AFFIRM the district court's judgment that the In Person Rule is constitutionally valid and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Two of which are at issue in this case: the Single Petition Rule and the InPerson Rule. Code § 2919.121(B)(1) (2005).1 The statutory amendment permits a minor woman to petition a juvenile court for a judicial bypass of parental consent if
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. The SLRP is part of the Department of Army's Selected Reserve Incentive Program. Was informed that he was not eligible for the program. Sonnenfeld's behalf that was supported by his commander. That request was denied on July 26. The case was transferred to the Court of Federal Claims. The court found that it did have jurisdiction under the Tucker Act over Mr. Sonnenfeld was ineligible for the SLRP at the time of his re enlistment. Sonnenfeld was ineligible for the SLRP because the provision of the Army Regulation 135 7 upon which he relied. Was rescinded before he reenlisted. Sonnenfeld's Fifth Amendment claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fifth Amendment are not money mandating. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). Summary judgment is appropriate if
|
|
00-1086 -- BEERHEIDE V. SUTHERS -- 04/11/2002
Claiming their First Amendment right to free exercise of their religion was violated when they were not provided kosher meals while incarcerated in the Colorado prison system. 1413 (D.Colo. 1998) (Beerheide I). While the case was pending. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was declared unconstitutional in Flores v. Are adopted for purposes of the trial of the following remaining issues in this case: 1) Plaintiff Beerheide's sincerity of belief in Judaism. The district court found the following facts: Plaintiffs are inmates at Fremont Correctional Facility. Whose father is Jewish. Was not raised Jewish and did not practice Judaism before he was incarcerated. Beerheide was sent to prison. Was raised in an Orthodox Jewish family. Until approximately 10 years before he was incarcerated in 1989. Testified that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1292(a)(2) and affirm. The Adcock family water system business was organized into four corporations. Some of which are named as defendants: Alco Water Service (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Beaulieu is a practicing attorney with a law office in the City of Alabaster. Her office building is located in the central business district. Beaulieu was served by the City of Alabaster's code enforcement officer with written notice that she had violated the City's sign ordinance. This is the City's appeal from the district court's judgment in her favor. It was a stand alone. Informing her that the campaign sign was in violation of section 15.2(E)(1) of the City's sign ordinance. Brandenberg was
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge At issue before the Court is the decision of an Administrative Law Judge (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is amended by the opinion filed concurrently with this order. The petition for panel rehearing is DENIED. No further petitions for panel rehearing or petitions for rehearing en banc will be entertained. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1292(a)(2) and affirm. ALISAL WATER CORP. 16325 business was organized into four corporations. Some of which are named as defendants: Alco Water Service (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We conclude that the City has not adduced sufficient evidence to establish that there are
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
It held that the County's denial of VoiceStream's application was supported by substantial evidence and that VoiceStream had failed to demonstrate that the County's decision had the effect of prohibiting personal wireless services. Is a provider of personal communication services (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We conclude that the City has not adduced sufficient evidence to establish that there are
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Filed an amended complaint in federal court in which he alleged:
|
|
SERRAO V. MSPB
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Proctor & Hoar LLP were on brief. With whom Laura Steinberg and Sullivan & Worcester LLP were on brief. Ropes & Gray were on brief. P.C. were on brief. We determine that Cablevision is unlikely. We further conclude that Cablevision is unlikely to prevail on its Chapter 93A claim in this action. I. FACTS The facts are largely taken from the opinion of the district court. These are undisputed. The few points of disagreement are noted. Because key aspects of this case involve changes that have occurred over time and actions that are alleged to have been untimely. The electricity and cable television businesses were once entirely distinct enterprises. Cablevision is equally well established in Boston as a provider of cable television. Although its two franchise agreements with the City have been non exclusive. Both Boston Edison and Cablevision have needed to install conduit under the streets of Boston. Which is the division of the City's Department of Public Works responsible for construction projects involving City streets.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was on the brief. I. The facts before us are drawn from appellant's complaint as well as a government document attached as an exhibit to the complaint entitled Special Inquiry Into the Search and Retrieval of William Clinton's Passport Files. P. 10(c) is considered a part thereof for all purposes (the government does not dispute the contents of the latter document). It will be recalled that President Clinton's involvement with the draft during the Vietnam War was a matter of widespread attention and great confusion. State Department personnel reviewing these doc uments became concerned that Clinton's file may have been tampered with in order to eliminate embarrassing materials. (The matter was referred to the FBI. Appellant was involved in the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
All Medicare eligible costs incurred by a provider hospital were reimbursed on a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Ruling that the County ordinance was constitutional on its face and that the City's enforcement provisions also passed constitutional muster. We note several developments that have affected the issues on appeal and the manner in which we will structure our analysis. The City adopted comprehensive amendments to its noise ordinance that have mooted at least one of the five claims on appeal.3 In count IV of their complaint. Were null and void and to enjoin their use. Since the County noise ordinance is now officially a municipal ordinance. At oral argument on the motions for summary judgment the plaintiffs conceded that the City could cure the constitutional infirmity in its alternate code enforcement provisions if it adopted the County ordinance.4 A change in statute will not always moot a constitutional claim. Stated
|
|
HORTON V. CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE (11/15/2001, NO. 00-16220)
That is closed to automobile traffic. Shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section. Is not limited to acting. Canvas or other similar medium when such art is applied to the medium through the use of brush. Horton's Complaint claimed that Section 22 9 was: (1)
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Ortiz was an inmate at the Fort Dodge Correction Facility (FDCF) in Iowa. Ortiz's native language is Spanish. He is also fluent in English. FDCF's policy permitted written communication in a foreign language if that was the only language in which the inmate could communicate. Allowed Ortiz to write letters to his sister in Mexico City in Spanish because it was the only way he could communicate with her. While his grievance was pending. Ortiz was then allowed to correspond in Spanish with all of his family members. Ortiz brought suit against FDCF and Conley seeking compensatory and punitive damages stemming from the First Amendment violation he maintains occurred during the three months that he was unable to write or receive letters in Spanish. Were called during the bench trial. The district court1 determined that FDCF's former policy of monitoring prison mail was reasonably related to a penological interest. The Supreme Court stated that prison regulations pass constitutional muster if they are
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
HORTON V. CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE (11/15/2001, NO. 00-16220)
That is closed to automobile traffic. Shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section. Is not limited to acting. Canvas or other similar medium when such art is applied to the medium through the use of brush. Horton's Complaint claimed that Section 22 9 was: (1)
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This consolidated class action is brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. We conclude that there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether the defendants breached section 1104(a)'s fiduciary duties and as to whether the defendants are entitled to section 1104(c)'s protection. We will. Vacate the district court's grant of summary judgment in the defendants' favor and will remand the case to the district court for further proceedings. Each plan permitted an employee to contribute a percentage of his or her compensation into an individual account and to direct that it be invested in any one or a number of funds that were comprised of different types of investments. A GIC is a contract under which the issuer is obligated to repay the principal deposit at a designated future date and to pay interest at a specified rate over the duration of the contract. The Sperry Plan and the BEST Plan were consolidated to form the Unisys Savings Plan. Was closed to new contributions. Assets invested in the Fixed Income Fund were reinvested in the new Insurance Contract Fund.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was Arthur B. With her on the briefs were Roscoe C. Finding that the sidewalk is a public forum and that no part of the ban is narrowly tailored to further a significant governmental pur pose. We conclude that the officers named in Appellant's Bivens claim are entitled to qualified immunity. Delimiting areas in which such activity is entirely barred (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
That is closed to automobile traffic. Shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section. Is not limited to acting. Canvas or other similar medium when such art is applied to the medium through the use of brush. Horton's Complaint claimed that Section 22 9 was: (1)
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief for appellant. This case presents constitutional issues of first impression in this circuit: whether the CPPA's definition of child pornography is so overbroad as to contravene the First Amendment or so vague as to violate due process. The court was troubled by a perceived difficulty in determining whether a depicted person appeared to be under 18 years old and by its belief that the statute impermissibly criminalizes possession of adult pornography. It neither impinges substantially on protected expression nor is so vague as to offend due process. We must carefully consider fundamental constitutional norms in light of recent technological advances to determine whether Congress's objectives and the statutory scheme it has established are in accord with our constitutional design. Lawmakers wished to improve law enforcement tools to keep pace with technological improvements that have made it possible for child pornographers to use computers to
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. In 1993 South Dakota enacted a law providing that no abortion can be performed without the patient's voluntary and informed consent unless it is impossible to obtain such consent due to a medical emergency. The patient's consent will be informed only if certain information has been given to her at least 24 hours before an abortion procedure. The information required by the 1993 law includes the name of the physician who will perform the abortion. The probable gestational age of the embryo or fetus she is carrying. The patient must also have been told that medical assistance benefits may be available. All of whom were granted leave to intervene after this appeal was filed. 22 1 fetuses at various gestational ages. A provider's failure to comply with the state's informed consent requirements is a class 2 misdemeanor. In 2005 South Dakota enacted House Bill 1166 (the Act) which is the subject of this action. The disclosures required under the new law are contained in § 7 of the Act. The doctor's written statement provided 2 hours before an abortion must inform the patient: (b) That the abortion will terminate the life of a whole.
|
|
99-4203 -- MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORP. V. U.S. WEST COMMUNICATIONS INC. -- 06/20/2000
Telephone service as a whole was viewed as a natural monopoly which needed to be regulated for the benefit of all users.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
TAPLEY V. COLLINS (5/5/2000, NO. 99-10813)
Holding that qualified immunity is not a defense to Federal Wiretap Act claims. The district court did not decide whether they would be entitled to qualified immunity if it is an available defense to such claims. Arguing that the district court erred in determining that the defense of qualified immunity is not available to public officials faced with Federal Wiretap Act claims.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Jr.\ (former Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of\ Environmental Protection) have been substituted with Deval Patrick\ and Arleen O\'Donnell (Acting Commissioner of the Massachusetts\ Department of Environmental Protection) in both No. 06 2361 and No.\ 06 2362.
|
|
GULF POWER CO. V. FED. COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N (4/11/2000, NO. 98-6222)
If the power and telephone companies will not accept the rent the providers offer to pay. The FCC also ruled (in the Report and Order ) that the 1996 Act precluded utilities (power and telephone) from receiving rent for wires that were
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Adele L. With him on the brief was W. At issue here is a standard governing escapeways from mines: Every mine shall have two or more separate. Properly maintained escapeways to the surface from the lowest levels which are so positioned that damage to one shall not lessen the effectiveness of the others. A method of refuge shall be provided while a second opening to the surface is being developed. A second escapeway is rec ommended. The Commission took the view now espoused by the Secretary as well that the regulation unambiguously required every mine to have at least two escapeways operable at all times that miners (other than ones involved in escapeway repair or maintenance) were in the mine. Which pur chased the Cleveland Mine during the litigation but will henceforth be disregarded). The regulation does not have the supposedly unambiguous meaning assigned it by the Commission (and before us by the Secretary as well).
|
|
GULF POWER CO. V. FED. COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N (4/11/2000, NO. 98-6222)
If the power and telephone companies will not accept the rent the providers offer to pay. The FCC also ruled (in the Report and Order ) that the 1996 Act precluded utilities (power and telephone) from receiving rent for wires that were
|
|
TAPLEY V. COLLINS (5/5/2000, NO. 99-10813)
Holding that qualified immunity is not a defense to Federal Wiretap Act claims. The district court did not decide whether they would be entitled to qualified immunity if it is an available defense to such claims. Arguing that the district court erred in determining that the defense of qualified immunity is not available to public officials faced with Federal Wiretap Act claims.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Published opinion filed 2/19/99 is vacated. The County has refused to issue Warren a permit to erect her displays because she is not within the class of speakers identified in the County's regulation. The issue before this court is whether the County's regulation violates Warren's rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Finding that the County's regulation is viewpoint neutral and reasonable. Who is a devout Christian but is not a member of an organized religion. Warren is not a resident of Fairfax County. Is a resident of Fairfax City.1 The Complex comprises three buildings in which over 2. The largest of the buildings is the Government Center building. Which is the site of county government offices. Is a separate and distinct jurisdiction from Fairfax County. The Memorandum declares that the County's policy is to encourage
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The facts giving rise to this case are not in dispute. Pagan is a resident of the Village of Glendale. He was given a blue 1970 Mercury Cougar as partial payment for his work on a case and hoped to sell it for its $3. A Village police officer noted the sign and informed Pagan that it was illegal pursuant to Village ordinance § 76.06 (hereinafter
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Were on the brief. I Garrison Johnson is an African American prisoner in the California Department of Corrections (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We hold the Amendment was a constitutional exercise of Congress' power to legislate under the Commerce Clause. Was enacted by Congress in 1895. Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation that was engaged in the business of taking orders for. Pic A State's operations were designed to avoid the longstanding prohibition on the interstate traffic in lottery tickets by keeping the tickets themselves in the state of origin and transferring only a computer generated
|
|
99-1211 -- FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION V. COLORADO REPUBLICAN FEDERAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE -- 05/05/2000
Are subject to FECA's contribution limits. Buckley. The Act sets the following contribution limits: A
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Plaintiffs are employees of the City of Altus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. Approximately 29 City employees are Hispanic. All Plaintiffs are Hispanic and bilingual. Received a complaint that because Street Department employees were speaking Spanish. Other employees could not understand what was being said on
the City radio. Sanchez was particularly concerned that his subordinates. The letter informed Nettles that employees had not been given proper notice if this was a new administrative policy and questioned whether Willis and the City had followed proper procedures in implementing the new policy. Sanchez reported that Willis had told him that the reason Hispanics speak Spanish
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Newman was on brief for appellant. Pollart were on brief for appellees. D.H.L. has never been successful in this endeavor because Matthew's is not located within the area of Tyngsborough zoned to allow adult entertainment. Is located about 40 miles from Boston near the Massachusetts/New Hampshire border. The Tyngsborough board of selectmen acts as the town's executive branch and is authorized to act as the licensing authority for alcoholic beverage and entertainment licenses. Town residents voting at meetings constitute the legislative branch of the town's government and as such are responsible for enacting the zoning ordinances at issue here. Was authorized. Did not actually contain any parcels of land and was. D.H.L. applied for and was issued both an all alcoholic beverage license and a live entertainment license for its restaurant called
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: At issue in this appeal is a Kentucky statute imposing reporting requirements upon broadcast media that sell advertising time to Kentucky gubernatorial candidates. We are presented with the question of whether the Kentucky reporting requirements may be applied to the West Virginia Broadcasters within the constraints of the Due Process Clause of the Four2 teenth Amendment and the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Kentucky will match two dollars for every one dollar in private donations raised by a qualifying slate of candidates. Are required to report all expenditures and contributions to the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance (the
|
|
99-1045 -- THOMPSON V. STATE OF COLORADO -- 08/07/2001
Colorado argued that Plaintiffs' claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Because Colorado is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. The special license plates are supplied to the disabled at the same cost as standard license plates. See id.
|
|
99-1045A -- THOMPSON V. STATE OF COLORADO -- 08/07/2001
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This telecommunications appeal involves a question about how the prevailing regulatory regime rooted as it is in legacy technology applies to products and services far from contemplation at the time the regime developed. The current appeal is a direct fallout from the move toward deregulation. Global Local exchange carriers are companies that provide local telephone service. 253 (2006). 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 contends that the Board erred in concluding that Board determined local calling areas2 would continue to control whether a call is a toll call or a local call and in prohibiting Global from offering virtual NXX service.3 The district court affirmed these rulings. I. BACKGROUND An elementary knowledge of telecommunications law and terminology is helpful toward understanding what is at stake in this appeal. Local calling areas are not defined as such in the Code of Federal Regulations or the U.S. A local calling area is a region of service for a particular telephone service plan. Refers to telephone numbers assigned to a customer in a local calling area different from the one where the customer is physically located in circumstances where the telephone company assigning the number is not using facilities of its own to transport the call from the calling area associated with the telephone number to the area where the customer is actually located.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Informing him that he was banned from all public parks under the City's jurisdiction. Children were the victims. Doe was arrested for peeping into the windows of an apartment in West Lafayette. Doe was arrested for public intoxication and resisting law enforcement following a report that he was tapping on the rear window of a female's house. Which was finalized in 1991. Doe was placed on house arrest from January of 1992 to January of 1996. He then was on probation until early January of 2000. They were underage. They were behind the there's a dropoff. They were down in that area. Q. What was your purpose in going to Murdock Park that Saturday evening? As I was going home that night. I was at Columbian Park. I guess I was. I was in the mood of cruising. Q. Were you having those urges that night? What were you thinking about? ... My thoughts were thoughts I had before when I see children. Those thoughts were there. They were just thoughts. Was aware of Mr. Chief Reed explained that he gave this advice
|
|
97-8087 -- MONCRIEF V. WILLISTON BASIN INTERSTATE PIPELINE CO. -- 04/20/1999
Circuit Judge.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
It is ORDERED. Are no longer protected from public disclosure by Rule 6(e). It is further ORDERED. It is further ORDERED. Were on the briefs. Sexton were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Was on the brief. The principal question is whether an attorney in the Office of the President. To state the question is to suggest the answer. For the Office of the President is a part of the federal government. The Supreme Court and this court have held that even the constitutionally based executive privilege for presi dential communications fundamental to the operation of the government can be overcome upon a proper showing of need for the evidence in criminal trials and in grand jury proceed ings. There is no basis for treating legal advice different ly from any other advice the Office of the President receives in performing its constitutional functions. The extent to which the communications of White House Counsel are privileged against disclosure to a federal grand jury depends. The main focus of Independent Counsel Starr's inqui ry had been on financial transactions involving President Clinton when he was Governor of Arkansas.
|
|
00-9529 -- ST. ANTHONY HOSPITAL V. U.S. DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICE -- 08/28/2002
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. EMS is not part of the County's fire or police departments but a separate and independent subdivision of the County's Public Safety Division. Six of those substations are housed with the area's fire department. The individual substations are manned at all times by a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We will reverse. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988). Our review of these issues of standing and statutory construction is plenary. 1530 n.19 (3d Cir. 1993) (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Both sides moved for summary judgment. 2 No. 03 3956 The district court ruled that (1) the plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief is moot. (3) questions of fact remained for trial as to whether plaintiffs had suffered retaliation for exercising their First Amendment rights and (4) the Inspector General is not entitled to qualified immunity as to either claim. Claiming that he is entitled to qualified immunity. The underlying facts are not disputed.1 The plaintiffs served as Internal Security Investigators II (ISI 2s) in the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in the Illinois Department of Human Services (DHS) at all times relevant to this suit.2 The OIG is responsible for investigating reports of abuse and neglect of the mentally ill and developmentally disabled persons who receive DHS services. Completes investigations by preparing 1 The facts in ths section are taken primarily from the district court's opinion below. Jenny Wernsing was hired as an ISI II in 1998. Charles Bingaman was hired in 1997.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We will affirm the orders of the district court. Is the founder and majority shareholder of two small capitalization medical services businesses EquiMed. The average market price was computed by taking the average of the stock's closing prices for the five days immediately prior to the exchange request. The structure of the second note (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The basic law underlying Dia's substantive claims is clear. He is unable or unwilling to return to his home country
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
District Judge.** Opinion by Judge Fisher *Debra Bowen is substituted for her predecessor. Circuit Judge: The 2000 presidential election was one of the closest in our nation's history. Their importance was magnified by the closeness of the election. Even if his share of the vote is less than an outright majority. It was in this highly charged political atmosphere that Appellants created two websites. Was to improve Gore's odds of winning the Democratic pledged electors in the swing state without reducing Nader's share of the national popular vote (which needed to exceed five percent in order to qualify his party for federal funding in future elections). The owners of voteswap2000.com were threatened with criminal prosecution by then California Secretary of State. Because the letter does not assure that California will not threaten to prosecute vote swapping websites in the future. We conclude that this appeal is not moot. The websites' vote swapping mechanisms as well as the communication and vote swaps they enabled were constitutionally protected.
|
|
00-4058 -- UTAH LICENSED BEVERAGE ASSOCIATION V. LEAVITT -- 07/24/2001
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The production of the Waiver Documents was pursuant to subpoena and pursuant to written confidentiality agreements between Qwest and each agency.(1) In relevant part. Except to the extent that (1) At oral argument Qwest disclaimed any argument that its production of the Waiver Documents to the agencies was involuntary. We take it as settled that Qwest's production of the Waiver Documents was voluntary. Which allows us to focus on material issues rather than extraneous matters.
the Staff determines that disclosure is otherwise required by law or would be in furtherance of the Commission's discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The placard is valid for five years and is renewable. That are required to provide that individual or group with the nondiscriminatory treatment required by the Act or this part. Appellants are persons with disabilities who paid a five dollar fee to the DMV to receive a placard. Appellants sought a declaration that the fee was unlawful and an injunction against its continued imposition. Neither party argued that the regulation was ultra vires. The court held that the ADA impermissibly mandated that disabled individuals were entitled to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court stated that the ADA was not remedial legislation at all. The Supreme Court recognized that the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Tribune is in violation of the FCC's newspaper/broadcast cross ownership rule. After the last temporary waiver had expired and while Tribune's application for the permanent waiver was pending. Although we are sympathetic to Ellis's frustration in the face of agency inaction. That the same entity may own or control two television stations in the same market so long as: (i) at the time the application is filed. At least one of the stations is not ranked among the top four stations in audience rankings in the DMA. (Transferor) & Tribune Television Co. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 November 16 application sought a waiver of the television duopoly rule.2 While Tribune's application was pending. Although WTXX is not ranked among the top four stations in the Hartford New Haven DMA. Eight independently owned and operated television stations would not have remained in this DMA after Tribune's proposed acquisition. Operates or controls a daily newspaper and the grant of such license will result in: . . . (3) The Grade A contour of a TV station.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
ORDER Rio Tinto's petition for rehearing and for rehearing en banc is granted in part. Are hereby withdrawn. A superseding opinion and dissent will be filed concurrently with this order. Plaintiffs are current or former residents of Bougainville. Who allege that they or their family members were the victims of numerous violations of international law as a result of defendant mining corporation Rio Tinto. Which provides that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Plaintiffs are current or former residents of Bougainville. Who allege that they or their family members were the victims of numerous violations of international law as a result of defendant mining corporation Rio Tinto. Which provides that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Profession or trade
|
|
WISE ENTERPRISES V. UNIFIED GOV'T OF ATHENS-CLARKE COUNTY (7/13/2000, NO. 99-8265)
BACKGROUND
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We find that none of the factors relied on by the district court is sufficient to warrant a finding of state action by Memphis in May under the nexus test. We hold that the district4 court erred in finding that Memphis in May was a state actor. Because the plaintiff is no longer the prevailing party. There is no basis for assessing attorney's fees against the defendant. The district court's order to the contrary is hereby VACATED. The case is REMANDED to the district court for further orders. If this were all that was required to find state action. It is the best evidence the record provides to show that Memphis in May and the city were operating as independent decisionmakers during the festival. The letter is quite emphatic in communicating to city police officers the clear boundary between public forums controlled by the city. In which officers were directed to permit protected expressive activity. They are permitted to engage in protected expressive activities.
|
|
WISE ENTERPRISES V. UNIFIED GOV'T OF ATHENS-CLARKE COUNTY (7/13/2000, NO. 99-8265)
BACKGROUND
|
|
01-2324 -- GILBERTSON V. ALLIED SIGNAL INC. -- 05/06/2003
Circuit Judge.
|
|
ISKCON MIAMI, INC. V. METRO. DADE COUNTY (7/27/1998, NO. 97-5304)
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. BACKGROUND 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 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. Id. at 678.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Which was not diagnosed until 1995. Doctors determined that the cause was lumbar spinal stenosis.1 His doctors agree that his Spinal stenosis is a narrowing of the lumbar or cervical spinal canal that causes compression of nerve roots and resulting back pain. 1 6 JEBIAN v. HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY stenosis is congenital rather than the result of injury. Jebian was diagnosed with lumbar degenerative disc disease. Jebian was a participant in an employee benefit plan (
|
|
CHAMBER CMERC US V. OSHA
With him on the briefs were William J. Argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Joseph M. Issued a
|
|
ISKCON MIAMI, INC. V. METRO. DADE COUNTY (7/27/1998, NO. 97-5304)
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. BACKGROUND 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 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. Id. at 678.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were William J. With him on the brief were Joseph M. Issued a
|
|
DANIEL V. VIOLATES THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION IS THE ISSUE PRESENTED IN THIS APPEAL. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 50(A). I. THE PROPERTY AT ISSUE IS GOVERNMENT OWNED AND DEDICATED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE BY ELIGIBLE LOW INCOME FAMILIES. THE HOUSING AUTHORITY'S MISSION IS TO PROVIDE "A SAFE AND HEALTHY PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT FOR ELIGIBLE LOW INCOME CITIZENS."[1] TO THIS END. BECAUSE HOUSING AUTHORITY PROPERTY IS OFTEN USED BY NON RESIDENTS AS A PLACE TO SELL AND USE DRUGS. [2] ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY IS LIMITED TO RESIDENTS. THOSE CONDUCTING OFFICIAL BUSINESS.[3] ENFORCEMENT OF THIS LIMITED ACCESS POLICY IS ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH ENFORCEMENT OF FLORIDA'S TRESPASS AFTER WARNING STATUTE. WILLFULLY ENTERS UPON OR REMAINS IN ANY PROPERTY OTHER THAN A STRUCTURE OR CONVEYANCE AS TO WHICH NOTICE AGAINST ENTERING OR REMAINING IS GIVEN ... BY ACTUAL COMMUNICATION TO THE DEFENDANT ... COMMITS THE OFFENSE OF TRESPASS ON PROPERTY OTHER THAN A STRUCTURE OR CONVEYANCE. (2)(B) IF THE OFFENDER DEFIES AN ORDER TO LEAVE."> DANIEL V. CITY OF TAMPA
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 >
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Reaffirming our earlier treatment of the appropriate standard of review in ERISA cases where benefits are
|
|
DANIEL V. VIOLATES THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION IS THE ISSUE PRESENTED IN THIS APPEAL. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 50(A). I. THE PROPERTY AT ISSUE IS GOVERNMENT OWNED AND DEDICATED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE BY ELIGIBLE LOW INCOME FAMILIES. THE HOUSING AUTHORITY'S MISSION IS TO PROVIDE "A SAFE AND HEALTHY PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT FOR ELIGIBLE LOW INCOME CITIZENS."[1] TO THIS END. BECAUSE HOUSING AUTHORITY PROPERTY IS OFTEN USED BY NON RESIDENTS AS A PLACE TO SELL AND USE DRUGS. [2] ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY IS LIMITED TO RESIDENTS. THOSE CONDUCTING OFFICIAL BUSINESS.[3] ENFORCEMENT OF THIS LIMITED ACCESS POLICY IS ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH ENFORCEMENT OF FLORIDA'S TRESPASS AFTER WARNING STATUTE. WILLFULLY ENTERS UPON OR REMAINS IN ANY PROPERTY OTHER THAN A STRUCTURE OR CONVEYANCE AS TO WHICH NOTICE AGAINST ENTERING OR REMAINING IS GIVEN ... BY ACTUAL COMMUNICATION TO THE DEFENDANT ... COMMITS THE OFFENSE OF TRESPASS ON PROPERTY OTHER THAN A STRUCTURE OR CONVEYANCE. (2)(B) IF THE OFFENDER DEFIES AN ORDER TO LEAVE."> DANIEL V. CITY OF TAMPA
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 >
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Appellants argue that the district court erred in holding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. There was a grocery store on one corner.
|
|
FREEMAN ENG ASSOC V. FCC
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
(2) whether the district court properly determined that the ordinance was adopted to combat the secondary effects of adult entertainment businesses. Whose counsel explained at oral argument that the name of his client is
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This opinion limns the basis for our ruling.
|
|
HORTON V. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This is a constitutional challenge to the provisions of the Export Administration Regulations. The district court found that encryption source code is not sufficiently expressive to be protected by the First Amendment. That the Export Administration Regulations are permissible content neutral restrictions. That the Regulations are not subject to a facial challenge as a prior restraint on speech. These things identified by the Court are not traditional speech. Is the preferred method of communication among computer programers. Because computer source code is an expressive means for the exchange of information and ideas about computer programming. We hold that it is protected by the First Amendment. The regulation of speech is valid. The government
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Defendant Appellee is the Board of Education of Hamilton County. Hamilton County Board of Education Page 2 appropriate public education
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
On appeal we consider three questions: (1) whether Reschini's appeal is moot. (3) if jurisdiction in the district court is not precluded. Whether dismissal of this suit was nevertheless required on the ground that the complaint failed to state a cognizable cause of action. Depositors in a federally chartered mutual savings association are. [fn1] notwithstanding that the proprietary interest of a depositor member in a mutual savings association is a chimera. It is ownership in name only. A special meeting of Association members was held. The conversion plan was approved by the members. The proposed conversion was pending before the OTS but had not yet been approved. Or set aside the order of the OTS Director approving the proposed conversion.[fn3] We are. At pains to point out that the petition for review ¾ an invocation of this court's appellate authority with respect to certain decisions of the OTS Director ¾ has not yet been briefed and argued and is not the subject of this opinion. We address the contention of the Association and France that this appeal is moot because the special meeting that Reschini sought to enjoin has already occurred and the Association has already converted to a Pennsylvania chartered savings bank.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is either a mascot or a symbol of the university. Southern Illinois (Salukis) have nicknames that would make any list of ones that are pretty cool. Small schools in this circuit are no slouches in the cool nickname department. One would have a hard time beating the Hustlin' Quakers of Earlham College (Richmond. Most schools have mundane nicknames. How can one feel unique when your school's nickname is Tigers (43 different colleges or universities). Are pretty generic and pretty boring. There are a few princes. The Judges (we are particularly partial to this one) of Brandeis University. Or the Vixens (will this nickname be changed if the school goes coed?) of Sweet Briar College in Virginia? As wonderful as all these are. One thing is fairly clear although most are not at all controversial. Some are. Even the Banana Slug was born out of controversy. For many 2 3 What in the world is a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Arguing that after the Federal Communications Commission (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The primary issue in this case is whether Benton County. Violated the First Amendment by enacting an ordinance prohibiting live nude dancing entertainment when there was evidence presented to the County Commissioners suggesting that existing adult entertainment establishments had not adversely affected nearby property values or crime rates. The issue is surprisingly complex because it lies at the intersection of two related but distinct lines of Supreme Court First Amendment decisions. Commits public indecency and is guilty of a misdemeanor under Minnesota law and upon conviction thereof. The district court held that the Ordinance is constitutional. Non obscene erotic and sexually explicit speech are entitled to some First Amendment protection. Businesses that market sexually explicit speech and expressive conduct may be regulated to the extent their activities are perceived as having adverse social and economic effects on society. A law prohibiting the sale of sexually oriented materials to minors was upheld against a First Amendment challenge in Ginsberg v.
|
|
INTERNATIONAL CAUCUS OF LABOR COMM. V. CITY OF MONTGOMERY
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > International Caucus of Labor Comm. v. Were distributing literature from a card table placed on the sidewalk when police told them to leave or submit to arrest. The district court found that The International Caucus is an organization devoted to altering the contemporary political landscape. One of its preferred ways is to place tables in public areas in an effort to attract people to take its literature from these tables. The letter stated in relevant part:<p> Your actions do not violate the laws of this city unless you impede the orderly flow of traffic in the streets and at the street corners.<p> <p> Your organization will not be allowed to set up tables or booths on the sidewalks of this city. These tables or booths would create a partial blockage of pedestrian traffic and therefore will not be allowed on the sidewalks. Your organization may set up tables or booths on private property where you have the permission of the property owner.<p> <p> The City maintains that its policy is a complete ban of any tables on all sidewalks.<p> Plaintiffs sued the City of Montgomery.
</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/011242.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Dep't of Veterans Affairs is corrected to begin
</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/200313177.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Off duty conduct available for pay per view on the Internet is entitled to First Amendment protection. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs appellants Ronald Thaeter and Timothy Moran were deputy sheriffs with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office (
</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/1998/08/97-6109.htm">97-6109 -- LE BAUD V. FRISCHIE -- 08/20/1998<BR></A><BR>
Is an orthopedic surgeon who held medical staff privileges at Defendant Appellee Comanche County Memorial Hospital [Memorial] in Lawton. After Plaintiff's staff privileges were revoked by Memorial. Fahey were the only two orthopedic surgeons practicing in Lawton. Who was then Memorial's Chief of Medical Staff. Curry determined that further review was necessary. <p> Two orthopedic surgeons from Baltimore. LeBaud was inadequate in all cases reviewed. This was harmful to the patients who suffered significant articular cartilage damage. <p> There was a significant problem noted in judgement of surgical indications . . . where patients were subjected to unnecessary anesthesia and procedures. <p> There was a major problem in selecting and carrying out the proper surgical procedure with disastrous results for the patients. . . . <p> . . . . <p> This doctor appears willing to undertake complex procedures with which he has no or little experience. All of whom were cross examined by Plaintiff's counsel. The bylaws provide that if appellate review is not requested within ten days of notice of the recommendation.
</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/03/12/031350P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nenniger was convicted of two federal misdemeanors: using and occupying National Forest System land as part of a group of seventy five or more persons without special use authorization and constructing a water line on National Forest System land without special use authorization. He was fined fifty dollars for each conviction. Nenninger's conviction was affirmed on appeal by the District Court. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the logistics for the gathering. Annual gatherings have occurred in different National Forests on and around July 4 since 1972. The Rainbow Family's annual gatherings have been described 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://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1997/97a1576p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The question before us is whether such requirements are lawful. We conclude that they are. Thus will affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Appellees. While this appeal was pending. The Rule now states that no person shall practice law in this State unless that person is an attorney. Is in good standing. Maintains a bona fide office for the practice of law in this State regardless of where the attorney is domiciled. A summer home that is unattended during a substantial portion of the year. An answering service unrelated to a place where business is conducted. It is a place where clients are met. Files are kept. The telephone is answered. Mail is received and the attorney or a responsible person acting on the attorney's behalf can be reached in person and by telephone during normal business hours to answer questions posed by the courts. The bona fide office requirement is the successor to New Jersey's more stringent residency requirement for members of the New Jersey bar.
</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/06a0366p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are asked to review the district court's order dismissing a putative class action challenge brought under § 551 (Protection of Subscriber Privacy) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (the Cable Act). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) was predicated upon the district court's determination that the plaintiff. Page 2 We conclude that the complaint was properly subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). The plain language of § 551(b) indicates that its prohibition against 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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/08/032911P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Park Service's decision was made pursuant to a Park Service regulation that opened certain areas of the Park to snowmobiling (including the eleven frozen bays at issue in this case). Was created by a 1971 act of Congress. Voyageurs is home to some of Minnesota's most endangered wildlife. Two of these Park Service regulations36 C.F.R. §§ 1.5 and 7.33are implicated in this appeal. § 1.5 is a general regulation applicable to all units of the National Park System while the second. Is a more narrow regulation that specifically governs snowmobiling at Voyageurs. We held that neither the Park Service's regulations permitting snowmobiling nor the ultimate decision to open areas of Voyageurs to snowmobiling were arbitrary or capricious. The Park Service was again sued. This time the suit was brought by a group of snowmobilers. The suit alleged that the bay closures were improper and legally defective. We determined that the Park Service's actions were neither arbitrary nor capricious. We also noted that the closures were only temporary and.
</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.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1997/97a1727p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will reverse and remand for further proceedings. . The property is located within 600 feet of a structure that. It is also within 1500 feet of the Brick High School. Which is frequented by young customers. Not far away is the only branch of the Ocean County Public Library in Brick. . Among others that are not challenged before us: <br wp=
</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.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1997/97a1727p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will reverse and remand for further proceedings. The property is located within 600 feet of a structure that. It is also within 1500 feet of the Brick High School. Which is frequented by young customers. Not far away is the only branch of the Ocean County Public Library in Brick. Among others that are not challenged before us: There shall be no private viewing of movies within an enclosed area anywhere upon the premises or within the structure. Obstructions or privacy provided the movies are not rated R. Ann. 2C:34 6 (West Supp. 1997)). 3 sale of such materials can only take place in an area of the premises that is separated. Separately walled through which admission can only be gained by a separate door which shall have a sign affixed to it stating that admission is only to those persons over eighteen years of age. Sound acknowledged that this was a
</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/04-3257.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Because the charge against Vitatoe was supported by substantial evidence. I. BACKGROUND Vitatoe was employed as an Information Technology Representative. Vitatoe was serving as a Technical Representative on task MC17123T2. Vitatoe was assigned to review the three submitted proposals and to evaluate each contractor's past performance. Stating that Brandon was the appropriate person to give such information. The 04 3257 2 Administrative Judge sustained the Agency's charge of misconduct and determined that removal was fully warranted. The Administrative Judge also noted that although the Agency's deciding official did not believe Vitatoe's actions were malicious or for personal gain. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). A court will not overturn an agency decision if it is supported by `such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'
</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/Dec2001/001865.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Functions of the court have been merged by steps into a unified state court system. We hold that suit is not barred. Because we conclude that there are genuine issues of material fact. We will reverse the granting of summary judgment by the District Court and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Was stopped by officers of the Princeton Police Department. The 3 bench warrant was issued in 1990 because Chisolm failed to attend an intoxicated driver resource program. The program was required as part of his sentence following a 1987 guilty plea to driving under the influence. He was taken to the Mercer County Detention Center (MCDC) to await extradition to Bucks County. He was admitted to MCDC at 3:40 p.m on Saturday afternoon. Was a maximum security. It housed detainees who were awaiting extradition to other states or were awaiting trial on indictable charges. They were generally processed within a few hours. Newly arrived detainees were
</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/F7D505D580225D0F88256AA80080E609/$file/9935453.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended to include as an appendix Lakewood Municipal Code §§ 5.16.00 5.16.120. Clark claims the Ordinance violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the free speech provisions of the Washington Constitution and was passed in violation of the Washington Open Public Meetings Act (
</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/200007/99-3125a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We re verse: the understanding of the federal elections laws sup porting application of the crime fraud exception is erroneous. * * * Because this case is under seal we endeavor to provide no more information than is necessary to our disposition. Ultimately defer to a civil enforcement recommendation issued by the Feder al Elections 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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EBB395FAAD69EF7F88256AA000550EAA/$file/9935453.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Clark claims the Ordinance violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the free speech provisions of the Washington Constitution and was passed in violation of the Washington Open Public Meetings Act (
</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/200003/99-5217a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the briefs was Robert A. With him on the brief were David W. Jacobs contends that the district court misper ceived the relevant inquiry under EAJA and that as a matter of law the government was not substantially justified in its position that Jacobs obtain its advance approval before shar ing information with his attorney in the course of obtaining legal advice about a potential lawsuit against his employing agency. Received when he re ported his
</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/04a0232p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Such agreements were made possible by the 1996 Act. Incumbent [local exchange carriers] are subject to a host of duties intended to facilitate market entry. Foremost among these duties is the [Local Exchange Carrier's (LEC's)] obligation under 47 U.S.C. § 251(c) (1994 ed. Local telephone service was mostly provided by state regulated monopolies. SBC is the incumbent provider for telephone service in Northeast Ohio. These arrangements were necessary to minimize the barriers to market entry erected during the period in which the incumbent provider functioned as a monopoly. The incumbent provider is required to negotiate an agreement. Or is inconsistent with the public interest. The 1996 Act requires providers to enter into
</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/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTQ3MDgtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-4708-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sitting by designation. 1 * The judgment of the District Court is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for entry of judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and for the determination of appropriate relief. Deegan alleged that his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when he was prevented. Ithaca Commons is a two block. Which is also the site of numerous community events. Deegan was approached by an Ithaca police officer who was responding to a noise complaint lodged by an employee of a nearby business. While the officer was away. Deegan heard a singing group 200 feet from his location and heard people talking who were more than 25 feet from him. They were left undisturbed and there is nothing in the record regarding complaints about other people. Never to return to preach because his subsequent request for permission to speak in a voice that is audible at a distance of more than 25 feet was denied by Defendants. 4 Section 240 4 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code provides in relevant part: § 240 4.
</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=04-1901_041.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Facts The facts of this case are. F&G was a direct mail marketing company engaged in the marketing of gifts. A leveraged purchase of a large number of F&G shares by the ESOP was proposed. F&G had been enjoying record profitability for several years and was forecasted to continue this trend into the future. F&G's largest subsidiary was Michigan Bulb Company (
</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/july96/94-6699.opa.html">INTERNATIONAL CAUCUS OF LABOR COMM. V. CITY OF MONTGOMERY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>International Caucus of Labor Comm. v. Were distributing literature from a card table placed on the sidewalk when police told them to leave or submit to arrest. The district court found that The International Caucus is an organization devoted to altering the contemporary political landscape. One of its preferred ways is to place tables in public areas in an effort to attract people to take its literature from these tables. The letter stated in relevant part:<p> Your actions do not violate the laws of this city unless you impede the orderly flow of traffic in the streets and at the street corners.<p> <p> Your organization will not be allowed to set up tables or booths on the sidewalks of this city. These tables or booths would create a partial blockage of pedestrian traffic and therefore will not be allowed on the sidewalks. Your organization may set up tables or booths on private property where you have the permission of the property owner.<p> <p> The City maintains that its policy is a complete ban of any tables on all sidewalks.<p> Plaintiffs sued the City of Montgomery.
</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/98346F5C0C3C501988256C2B004FF363/$file/0135300.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Opinion by Judge Thompson *Valdez was well represented in this appeal by Mr. Juan Valdez alleges that his constitutional rights were violated during his pretrial detention in the Alaska Cook Inlet Pretrial Facility (
</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/05a0058p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which is located in Fort Thomas. Seventh and eighth grades and is part of the Fort Thomas Public School District. The Council has responsibility for setting school policy that is consistent with the school board's policies and that is designed 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://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/90331D3BF2ED3AE588256DDD0000110B/$file/0235731.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
OPINION PER CURIAM: Joseph and Judy Pauly are farmers who entered into a tenyear agreement with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) whereby the USDA agreed to restructure the Paulys' debt in exchange for a portion of the appreciation in the value of their farm during the term of the agreement. The Paulys argue that the Government or its agents are liable for tort damages arising from fraud in the inducement. The district court affirmed the USDA's determination that appreciation was due under the agreement and granted in part the USDA's motion for summary judgment. The district court was correct in enforcing the agreement according to its terms and in conformity with the statute governing the USDA's loan program. Held a portfolio that was severely threatened by the declining net worth of U.S. farmers. The vast majority of FmHA's outstanding farm debt was delinquent. Which allowed farmers who were delinquent in payments to restructure their debts. Joseph and Judy Pauly are farmers who were delinquent in their loans from the USDA.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8F43ABB9F94F77EF88256E5A00707C24/$file/9935453.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Clark claims the Ordinance violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the free speech provisions of the Washington Constitution and was passed in violation of the Washington Open Public Meetings Act (
</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/199804/96-1392a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Reid were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Were on the brief. Whatley were on the brief in No. 96 1392 for intervenors American Automobile Manufacturers Association and Association of International Automobile Man ufacturers. Reid were on the briefs. Whatley were on the brief. Petitioners are a number of associa tions that represent businesses that manufacture. Sell car parts in what is known as the automobile
</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/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc2NjUgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/03-7665%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plaintiffs allege that certain billing practices of the defendant home mortgage providers with respect to their provision of real estate settlement services to the plaintiffs were contrary to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. Concluding that the practices in question were not prohibited by RESPA. Robert Schill are homeowners who obtained settlement services from the defendants while financing their purchases of homes in Brooklyn. Are wholly owned subsidiaries of the defendant Wells Fargo & Company. Which is in turn a wholly owned subsidiary of WFC Holdings Corporation.1 Defendants' corporate disclosure statement. Is a subsidiary of Wells Fargo Bank. Which is a subsidiary of WFC Holdings Corporation. Which is a subsidiary of Wells Fargo & Company. The parties' differing accounts of defendants' ownership structure are not material to our resolution of the questions presented in this appeal. 3 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 The complaint further alleges that between February and April 2002.
</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/5B26A37F6D541F7288257130007730F3/$file/0335877.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Oja avers that he
</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=96-1623.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Individually and as They Are Members of the Lexington School Committee. Smith were on brief for appellant. LLP were on brief for appellees. The advertisement promoted sexual abstinence and was proffered by a parent. Superintendent and school officials was terminated on defendants' motion for summary judgment. Holding that summary judgment should be entered for Yeo on his claims that there was state action. That each student publication was a public forum. That the decisions not to publish were impermissible view point discrimination. 1997 WL 292173 (1st Cir. The Yearbook was operated entirely by a staff of about sixty students. Staffing decisions were made by students. This staff was headed by two co editors in chief. Yankee Press Education Network. 4 was the Yearbook faculty advisor. Mechem was paid a stipend of less than $2. The Yearbook is financially independent from the school and is funded entirely through the sale of the books to students and advertising. This advertisement section was largely comprised of congratulatory or commemorative ads purchased by students and their families.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/10B30B019A9B51118825711E00825DE2/$file/0435402.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The interest organizations have in not being compelled to communicate messages not of their choosing. Plaintiff Edward Gathright is an evangelical Christian who preaches outdoors to the general public. Gathright himself has observed that it is
</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/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc2NjVfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7665_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plaintiffs allege that certain billing practices of the defendant home mortgage providers with respect to their provision of real estate settlement services to the plaintiffs were contrary to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. Concluding that the practices in question were not prohibited by RESPA. Robert Schill are homeowners who obtained settlement services from the defendants while financing their purchases of homes in Brooklyn. Are wholly owned subsidiaries of the defendant Wells Fargo & Company. Which is in turn a wholly owned subsidiary of WFC Holdings Corporation.1 Defendants' corporate disclosure statement. Is a subsidiary of Wells Fargo Bank. Which is a subsidiary of WFC Holdings Corporation. Which is a subsidiary of Wells Fargo & 3 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 The complaint further alleges that between February and April 2002. Was required by the defendants to purchase certain
</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/3ED6CFFC1F3FA45A88256DCE00767293/$file/0171566.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/206F28925B84F6D488256E5A00707C53/$file/9935453.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended to include as an appendix Lakewood Municipal Code §§ 5.16.00 5.16.120. Clark claims the Ordinance violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the free speech provisions of the Washington Constitution and was passed in violation of the Washington Open Public Meetings Act (
</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/96opinions/96-1392a.html">MTR EQUIP MFTR ASSN V. NICHOLS MARY D.<BR></A><BR>
Mezines</i> and <i>Michael T. <p> Reid</i> were on the briefs. <i>Louis R. Were on <p> the brief. <i>Karen L. Were on the brief.<p> <p> <i>John H. Whatley</i> were on the brief in No. <p> 96 1392 for intervenors American Automobile Manufacturers <p> Association and Association of International Automobile Man <p> ufacturers. Reid</i> <p> were on the briefs. <i>Louis R. Whatley</i> were on the brief.<p> <p> Before: Edwards. Petitioners are a number of associa <p> tions that represent businesses that manufacture. <p> sell car parts in what is known as the automobile
</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/jan96/94-6335.html">EAGON V. CITY OF ELK CITY<BR></A><BR>
Plaintiffs cross appeal from an order of the district court holding that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from damages. While injunctive and declaratory relief was granted (No. 94 6336). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291. I Ackley Park is a public park in Elk City. Clubs have been allowed to erect displays. In December 1992 plaintiff Mayberry was instructed to take down his display for the Beckham County Teenage Republican Club by Nelda Burch because his sign
</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/op/02/02-2667.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Alleging that AT&T overcharged its customers for contributions to the federal * This opinion was originally released in typescript. 2 No. 02 2667 Universal Services Fund. Boomer argued that the arbitration clause was unconscionable under Illinois law and he sought a declaratory judgment accordingly. Arguing that Boomer's state law challenge to the terms and conditions of the CSA is preempted by the Federal Communications Act of 1934. Boomer is therefore bound by the CSA's arbitration clause.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec97/96-9336.man.html">UNITED STATES V. GILBERT<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Life is one long legal battle these days. Which is located in the Russell Building along with several federal agencies. One might describe it as a veritable
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1138.html">TRANSCOM, INC., V. US<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="397"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F4309DA3C849926C88257258000C6073/$file/0570672.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The IJ concluded that Morales was removable both because she was an alien present in the United States without admission or parole and because she had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude communication with a minor for immoral purposes under section 9.68A.090 of the Revised Code of Washington. The IJ further found Morales would have been eligible for asylum but for her conviction. Which the IJ determined was a particularly serious crime. Holding that Morales had not shown it was more likely than not she would be tortured if she were returned to Mexico. We conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review the IJ's finding that Morales was removable because Morales had been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude. We have jurisdiction to review the denial of Morales's applications for asylum. The IJ determined that Morales's conviction was for a particularly serious crime. I. BACKGROUND Nancy Arabillas Morales was born Juan Manuel Arabillas Morales on June 24. She began using the name Nancy when she was fourteen years old because she always felt that she was more of a female than a male.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4022.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He was indicted and convicted of securities fraud under Section 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933. For failing to inform readers of The Next SuperStock newsletter that he was selling his shares in the companies he had been recommending they buy. He was convicted under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. (2) Section 17(b) is unconstitutionally vague. (3) his convictions were against the weight of the evidence presented at trial. Wenger and the SEC entered into a consent decree that stipulated he would disclose the full value of any consideration he was receiving from any issuer about which Penny Stock News was giving advice. According to which Wenger would first state on the air that he was a paid consultant to some of the companies mentioned. The letter then stated that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/35F164B4290E14D588256EEB00782A8E/$file/0273473.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude that because the legal issue presented was not squarely controlled by existing BIA or federal court precedent. He was taken into custody by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1094a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were </P> <P> . Argued the cause for respondents. </P> <P>With him on the brief were Daniel M. Mikula were on the brief for intervenors </P> <P>Minority Media and Telecommunications Council. Campbell was on the brief for intervenor Nation </P> <P>al Organization for Women. Hunnicutt were on the </P> <P>brief for amici curiae Radio One. Whitehouse were on the </P> <P>brief for amici curiae The Leadership Conference on Civil </P> <P>Rights and National Council of the Churches of Christ. </P> <P>Andrew J. Curran and Eduardo Pena were on the </P> <P>brief for amicus curiae Congressional Black Caucus.</P> <P> . </P> <P> We hold first that the Broadcasters fail to substantiate </P> <P>their claim that the rule is arbitrary and capricious. Thus creating a </P> <P>race based classification that is not narrowly tailored to sup </P> <P>port a compelling governmental interest and is therefore </P> <P>unconstitutional. Because we find that the unconstitutional </P> <P>portion of the rule is not severable.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F822E1DE5540855A8825708B0081F154/$file/0389037o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Dissent by Judge Winmill ORDER A misconduct complaint was filed against a district judge of this circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 372(c) (now 28 U.S.C. § 351(a)) in February 2003. The claim asserted in the complaint is that the judge
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1998/98a1947p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appellant Mumia Abu Jamal was convicted of murdering a Philadelphia police officer and is currently on death row at the State Correctional Institute at Greene. Jamal alleges that this rule is unconstitutional and that the Department used this rule as a pretext to retaliate against him for the content of his writings. Jamal was serving a prison disciplinary sentence for engaging in the profession of journalism at S.C.I. The court held that the disciplinary proceedings and the Department's decision to open Jamal's mail were not motivated by retaliation for Jamal's writings. The district court found that the Department's justifications for denying media access to Jamal were not credible. Concluded that this action was clearly retaliatory. This order is not challenged on appeal. 3 We conclude that Jamal has a reasonable probability of demonstrating that the Department's actions violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. That Jamal has demonstrated that he will be subject to irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011890.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Linda Freilich is a physician. Freilich's complaint is an attempt to have a federal court supervise what amounts to little more than a physician hospital dispute over hospital policies and the expenditure of hospital resources. Linda Freilich is a Board Certified Internist and Nephrologist who maintained unrestricted hospital privileges at defendant Harford Memorial Hospital (HMH). HMH Medical Staff Bylaws provide that HMH will consider in the reappointment process
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept99/97-2090.opn.html">EAGLEVIEW TECHNOLOGIES V. MDS ASSOCIATES (9/23/1999, NO. 97-2090)<BR></A><BR>
Eagleview asserts that district court based the decision upon its erroneous conclusion that MDS was not a common carrier within the meaning of the Act's provisions. Anderson was realigned as a plaintiff in the case. Two of which are the subject of this appeal by Eagleview. </P> <P> <STRONG>I.</STRONG> <STRONG>Communications Act Claim</STRONG></P> <P> A brief review of the facts is sufficient to understand the basis for our decision on this appeal. The license was subject to the condition that the licensee
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept99/97-2090.opn.html">EAGLEVIEW TECHNOLOGIES V. MDS ASSOCIATES (9/23/1999, NO. 97-2090)<BR></A><BR>
Eagleview asserts that district court based the decision upon its erroneous conclusion that MDS was not a common carrier within the meaning of the Act's provisions. Anderson was realigned as a plaintiff in the case. Two of which are the subject of this appeal by Eagleview. </P> <P> <STRONG>I.</STRONG> <STRONG>Communications Act Claim</STRONG></P> <P> A brief review of the facts is sufficient to understand the basis for our decision on this appeal. The license was subject to the condition that the licensee
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200101/00-1094a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Richard R. With him on the brief were Daniel M. Mikula were on the brief for intervenors Minority Media and Telecommunications Council. Campbell was on the brief for intervenor Nation al Organization for Women. Hunnicutt were on the brief for amici curiae Radio One. Whitehouse were on the brief for amici curiae The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and National Council of the Churches of Christ. Curran and Eduardo Pena were on the brief for amicus curiae Congressional Black Caucus. We hold first that the Broadcasters fail to substantiate their claim that the rule is arbitrary and capricious. Thus creating a race based classification that is not narrowly tailored to sup port a compelling governmental interest and is therefore unconstitutional. Because we find that the unconstitutional portion of the rule is not severable. Necessity will be served by the granting of such application.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2003/023018p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The officer suspected that Pollard was not a U.S. citizen and escorted her to a room for further questioning. Pollard confessed that she was not a U.S. 3 citizen and was subsequently arrested. We will reverse the order dismissing the charges against Pollard and remand to the District Court. Government to monitor the movement of aliens over and within its borders is undoubtedly great. The legislative and executive branches have historically been given great leeway in developing and carrying them out. We will provide a legal and factual overview before detailing the particular facts of this case. Most pertinent to our inquiry is subsection 212(d)(7). Who is denied admission to the United States. If it appears to the examining immigration officer that any person in the United States being examined under this section is prima facie removable from the United States. When the foregoing inspection procedure is applied to any aircraft. Or kept at the airport separate and apart from the general public until they are permitted to board the aircraft.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/03/954158P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Howard and Holden argue that the district court erred in concluding that the statutes were unconstitutional under the First Amendment overbreadth doctrine and as applied to Jacobsen. They contend that we should uphold the South Dakota statutes because they are not facially overbroad. Are reasonable regulations by the state. Are only incidental regulations of speech not directed to the suppression of speech. the overbreadth question. Because we conclude that the statutes are unconstitutional as applied to Jacobsen. Seeking to enjoin the South Dakota officials from enforcing the state statutes under which the vending machine was removed and declaring the statutes unconstitutional. Other articles as the State highway department determines are appropriate and desirable. The State shall give priority to vending machines which are operated through the State licensing agency designated pursuant to section 2(a)(5) of the Act of June 20. (Emphasis added). 3 The South Dakota statutes are: 31 8 16. A violation of this section is a Class 2 misdemeanor.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec97/96-9336.man.html">UNITED STATES V. GILBERT<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Life is one long legal battle these days. Which is located in the Russell Building along with several federal agencies. One might describe it as a veritable
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-1616a.html">ATL TELE NTWRK INC V. FCC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-3017a.html">USA V. POPA ION CORNEL<BR></A><BR>
With her on the briefs was <i></p> <p>A. With him on the brief were <i>Wilma A. </p> <p>Lewis</i>. Arguing that the statute </p> <p>is unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to his </p> <p>conduct. We reverse his conviction on that </p> <p>ground and therefore need not resolve his claim that the </p> <p>statute is unconstitutionally overbroad.</p> <p>I. Background </p> <p>Popa is a political refugee from Romania. In the two calls that were recorded </p> <p>Popa refers to Mr. Popa says:</p> <p>Eric Holder is a negro. Is a negro. Which is a criminal. </p> <p>He make a violent crime against me. Criminal.</p> <p>Popa was charged with violating 47 U.S.C. 223(a)(1)(C). This type of speech directed at a public official ... is entitled </p> <p>to First Amendment protection.". He argued that his deroga </p> <p>tory references to Holder are not punishable as ". The court held that the statute is constitu </p> <p>tional on its face because it ". The court did not respond to Popa's </p> <p>claim that the statute is unconstitutional as applied to his </p> <p>conduct.</p> <p>Popa.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul26/03-30227-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(Torch) is a service provider that installs and maintains underwater oil and natural gas pipelines and related infrastructure on the Gulf of Mexico's Continental Shelf. The IPO was conducted pursuant to a registration statement and prospectus dated June 7. The specific disclosures made in the prospectus are addressed more fully in the discussion section below. 2 1 had increased by approximately 133% from February 1999 through June 6. That information was not Though it did discuss the volatile nature of oil and natural gas prices. 15 U.S.C. §§ 77k and 77o. complaint was filed June 12. Mere conclusory allegations will not suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss. Taking issue with disclosures that were and were not made in the prospectus. They argue that the statement in the prospectus revealing that natural gas prices
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5085.html">TUTHILL RANCH, INC. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Scott W. <span class=SpellE>Horngren</span></u>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text align:justify'><span style='font size:12.0pt. Font family:Arial'><span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>On the brief were <u>Thomas L. <span class=SpellE>Sansonetti</span></u>. Attorneys.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Sonya L. Was therefore not liable for a physical taking.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Based upon this finding. Seventy six by 2025.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>It is therefore undisputed that the BPA installed more capacity than it requires for its current needs but that the BPA may need this capacity to meet its projected future needs.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>It is also undisputed that the BPA now leases some of this excess capacity to unrelated third parties.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The BPA currently needs only a fraction of the thirty six fibers crossing <span class=SpellE>Tuthill s</span> property to maintain the pow
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3F2524EF5D60EA40882572ED0001E1CC/$file/0535441.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: We are called upon to decide whether the University of Montana may impose a dollar limit on what a student may spend on his campaign for student office. That is. When Aaron Flint was a student at the University of Montana. Flint was denied a seat as ASUM Senator. The precise question before us is this: Does the Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibit a public university from imposing a $100 expenditure limit on candidates running for a position in student government? The University of Montana is a public university under the Montana Constitution. It is administered through a Board of Regents. ASUM is the student government at the University of Montana. ASUM is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/741EA59F4E0538668825716100571373/$file/0415566.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was violating his rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We also hold that the public employer was not required to further accommodate Mr. Berry that its policy was that employees in his position were not allowed to talk about religion with clients and the agencies the employees contacted. He initially thought that he was prohibited from talking about religion from the moment he arrived at work until the moment he left. Berry testified that one day his daughter called him on the phone when she was sick at home and he felt that he was prohibited from praying with his daughter. Was uncomfortable with the restriction and requested to be relieved from it. DEP'T OF SOCIAL SERVICES 4883 a counseling memorandum instructing him to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug10/03-30227-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(Torch) is a service provider that installs and maintains underwater oil and natural gas pipelines and related infrastructure on the Gulf of Mexico's Continental Shelf. The IPO was conducted pursuant to a registration statement and prospectus dated June 7. The specific disclosures made in the prospectus are addressed more fully in the discussion section below. 2 1 The prospectus asserted. That information was not Though it did discuss the volatile nature of oil and natural gas prices. 15 U.S.C. §§ 77k and 77o. complaint was filed June 12. Mere conclusory allegations will not suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss. Taking issue with disclosures that were and were not made in the prospectus. They argue that the statement in the prospectus revealing that natural gas prices
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2011.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. The plaintiffs (appellants here) are 108 persons who own a total of 67 residential properties in Salinas. These homes are situated in two housing developments that have undergone repeated flooding. Such an order is appropriate only when the facts alleged in the complaint. The principal difficulty is that the government sited the housing developments along the Nigua River basin. That area has endured flooding both before and after the developments were built. These conditions have taken their toll: the plaintiffs say that their dwellings are now in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA2LTA3MDgtY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/06-0708-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Their claims were not ripe. Their claims were not ripe. It
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199909/98-3017a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the briefs was A. With him on the brief were Wilma A. Arguing that the statute is unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to his conduct. We reverse his conviction on that ground and therefore need not resolve his claim that the statute is unconstitutionally overbroad. I. Background Popa is a political refugee from Romania. In the two calls that were recorded Popa refers to Mr. Popa says: Eric Holder is a negro. Is a negro. Which is a criminal. Popa was charged with violating 47 U.S.C. s 223(a)(1)(C). Popa moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA2LTA3MDgtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/06-0708-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Their claims were not ripe. Their claims were not ripe. It
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A771388D86A2FF1F882572CD0059DD37/$file/0515266.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Whose efforts have collided with the City of San Francisco's prerogative under its noise ordinance and permitting scheme to ensure that its citizens are not subject to unreasonably loud speech and music. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Appellants claim that city officials implemented a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/021047p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The gravamen of Cochran's complaint is that while an inmate at two penal institutions of the State. The Court was very specific in limiting its holding to cases implicating the fundamental right of access to the courts. Indicating that an individual analysis would have to be performed for subsequent The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 because Cochran brought a claim under the ADA. We are persuaded that a different scenario is present here. To determine when Eleventh Amendment Immunity will permit suits for money damages against state agencies. Lane is not applicable to these facts. We will affirm the judgment of the district court. Is a legally blind inmate currently incarcerated in South Woods in Bridgeton. Cochran is serving a life sentence for murder and robbery. Cochran was transferred from the Florida prison system to the custody of the New Jersey DOC. He was suffering from end stage glaucoma and was legally blind. Cochran was incarcerated at East Jersey State Prison (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=01-1657_018.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jogi is an Indian citizen who was charged with aggravated battery with a firearm in Champaign County. He was removed from the United States and returned to India. Nor is there any hint that the Champaign County law enforcement officials ever contacted the Indian consulate on their own initiative on Jogi's behalf. At some point after Jogi was in prison. The only one that is pertinent for our purposes is his present case. It concluded that Jogi's allegations were insufficient to trigger subject matter jurisdiction under the ATS. Which was not available at the time the district court ruled. He was charged in Champaign County. Jogi's mother were present. That Jogi was Indian. He was released after serving six years. At no time was Jogi ever informed of his right to contact the Indian consulate. He attached an affidavit asserting that he 4 No. 01 1657 was unaware of his Vienna Convention rights and that he would have contacted the Indian consulate to avail himself of its assistance with the Champaign County prosecution had he been informed of his right to do so.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4010.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of showing that two provisions of the ordinance requiring solicitors to provide their fingerprints and post a $1. Inc. is a distributor of Kirby vacuum cleaners. Seven of those who were arrested (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199807/98-3060b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on the briefs. Sexton were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Was on the brief. The principal question is whether an attorney in the Office of the President. To state the question is to suggest the answer. For the Office of the President is a part of the federal government. The Supreme Court and this court have held that even the constitutionally based executive privilege for presidential communications fundamental to the operation of the government can be overcome upon a proper showing of need for the evidence in criminal trials and in grand jury proceedings. There is no basis for treating legal advice differently from any other advice the Office of the President receives in performing its constitutional functions. The extent to which the communications of White House Counsel are privileged against disclosure to a federal grand jury depends. The main focus of Independent Counsel Starr's inquiry had been on financial transactions involving President Clinton when he was Governor of Arkansas. That the privilege is qualified in the grand jury context and may be overcome upon a sufficient showing of need for the subpoenaed communications and unavailability from other sources. [[ ]]. [[ ]] the Office of the President [[ ]] appealed the order granting the motion to compel Lindsey's testimony.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199807/98-3060c.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on the briefs. Sexton were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Was on the brief. The principal question is whether an attorney in the Office of the President. To state the question is to suggest the answer. For the Office of the President is a part of the federal government. The Supreme Court and this court have held that even the constitutionally based executive privilege for presi dential communications fundamental to the operation of the government can be overcome upon a proper showing of need for the evidence in criminal trials and in grand jury proceed ings. There is no basis for treating legal advice different ly from any other advice the Office of the President receives in performing its constitutional functions. The extent to which the communications of White House Counsel are privileged against disclosure to a federal grand jury depends. The main focus of Independent Counsel Starr's inqui ry had been on financial transactions involving President Clinton when he was Governor of Arkansas. That the privilege is qualified in the grand jury context and may be overcome upon a sufficient showing of need for the subpoenaed communications and unavailability from other sources. [[ ]]. [[ ]] the Office of the President [[ ]] appealed the order granting the motion to compel Lindsey's testimony.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1995.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Were on brief. Ropes & Gray were on brief. Thacher & Bartlett were on brief. Both complaints assert that there were misleading statements and nondisclosures in the registration statement and prospectus prepared in connection with a public offering of stock. Background Digital Equipment Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/September2004/032707p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will reverse as to the First Amendment retaliation. Have been embroiled in a contentious zoning d ispute with Appellees. That officials are also liable under Pennsylvania state law for damages. 2 David. Which was part of a twenty seven lot subdivision of single family residences approved by the Allegheny County Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors of the Township in 1940 (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-2107.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Even though the text of this law is materially identical to one held constitutional in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. [by] the physician who is to perform the abortion. The district court concluded that the higher cost will reduce by 10% to 13% the number of abortions performed in Indiana. Some of these women will travel to states that do not require two trips. Others will forego an abortion. Some who do have an abortion in Indiana will delay that procedure until the second trimester. The judge also thought that experience in Indiana showing that the demand for abortion did not decline when information was provided on paper or over the telephone implies that the reduction in the number of abortions is attributable to higher cost (a bad reason) rather than to the statutory information (a valid reason). No. 01 2107 Indiana's statute reads as follows: 3 An abortion shall not be performed except with the voluntary and informed consent of the pregnant woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0252p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
His
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1428.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude that the record supports the Town's claim that the ordinances are 2 No. 03 1428 not an attempt to regulate the expressive content of nude dancing. That the Town had a reasonable basis for believing that the ordinances will reduce the undesirable
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0392p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court rejected Justice's claim that she had been terminated from her grants department position in retaliation for her political affiliation because her position was of a type allowing political discrimination. No. 01 6156 Justice was a certified teacher in the Pike County school system under the Kentucky Teacher's Tenure Act. Was as follows: JOB GOAL: The Grants Department Director is responsible for seeing that the goals and objectives of the Grants Department are achieved. Train and work with teachers at each school who are part of the Pike County grant team. 4. Johns resigned as superintendent and Brenda Gooslin was appointed interim superintendent. Claiming that the grants department was not an efficient use of resources. Justice would have continued to draw the same per diem salary. Because as a classroom teacher she was only expected to work 185 days a year. This would have involved a significant reduction in annual salary. About the same time she was promoted to grants director. Most of which was sedentary.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200506/04-1292a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was W. With him on the brief were Karen L. That the proposed penalty assessment was not issued within a reasonable time. Because we disagree with the Commission and hold that the proposed penalty assessment was issued within a reasonable time. Among its three hundred miners was Kyle Webb. The rock coal mix was transported away from pure coal extract to prevent accidental commingling. A chute was designed to facilitate the process. Was placed in a vertical shaft twelve feet in diameter. The rock coal mix was dumped into the chute from a conveyer belt. This particular chute was a new addition to the mine at the time of the accident. Differed from pre existing chutes in that it was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200706/06-5134a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the briefs were David H. With her on the brief were Jeffrey A. Arguing he did not waive the psychotherapistpatient privilege and therefore his communications with his therapist are privileged and not discoverable. Aron was served with the subpoena for information about Koch's psychotherapy. The judge added that Koch's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2003/012220pc.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
PA 19107 Attorney for Appellee OPINION PER CURIAM: This is an appeal from a District Court order denying a request for a preliminary injunction against the Pennsylvania Liquor Code's ban on
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200101/99-7206a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lynch was on brief. McGhie was on brief. I. The material facts are not in dispute. The first worker told Marlin he would not be permitted to vote in the general election if he was wearing
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200606/05-1404a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Maureen E. With him on the brief were Samuel L. Were on the brief for respondent United States. Halama were on the brief for intervenors Verizon and Verizon Wireless in support of respondents. The Commission ruled that providers of broadband Internet access and voice over Internet protocol (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200113864.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He claimed that his rights under the First Amendment's Speech Clause were violated when Allred and Harland punished him for silently raising his fist during the daily flag salute instead of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance with the rest of his class. He further claims that his Establishment Clause rights were violated by Allred's daily
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-7206a.html">DAVID H. MARLIN V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND ETHICS<BR></A><BR>
Lynch was on brief. McGhie was on brief.</p> <p> . Accordingly we affirm the </p> <p>district court's summary judgment.</p> <p>I.</p> <p>The material facts are not in dispute. The first worker told </p> <p>Marlin he would not be permitted to vote in the general </p> <p>election if he was wearing ". He would be </p> <p> </p> <p>1 The Board is authorized by statute to promulgate regulations </p> <p>governing conduct of elections. Marlin contends </p> <p>the Board's enforcement of these regulations to prevent him </p> <p>from wearing a political sticker when voting inside the polling </p> <p>place is an unjustified restriction of his right to free expres </p> <p>sion under the First Amendment.2 The district court held </p> <p>that the political activity ban is a reasonable viewpoint </p> <p>neutral regulation of a non public forum and therefore does </p> <p>not violate the First Amendment. That is. The </p> <p>Board's counsel assured the district court that its policy is to </p> <p>enforce the ban only ".
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-2431_048.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which requires 2 No. 03 2431 district judges to screen prisoner suits for merit as soon as they are filed. The joinder of the Bureau of Prisons was indeed frivolous. Who is in prison because he was convicted in 1999 of selling a defaced firearm. Was sentenced to 130 months in prison. Is the lawful owner of some stocks that he wanted to instruct his broker to sell if their prices fell below specified levels. The prison offers them an opportunity to have their numbers removed from the list. 28 C.F.R. § 540.101(a)(2). Apparently the procedure was not followed in this case. King was allowed to make one call to his stockbroker and then issued a disciplinary citation for misusing his telephone privileges. The government argues that calling a stockbroker is improper because a prisoner is not allowed to conduct a No. 03 2431 3 business. Indeed he is not. This is a permissible restriction on prisoners' residual freedom. Unless one is engaged in a financial business. Contingent on a price change) is no more the conduct of a business than asking a real estate broker to sell one's house is.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200202/00-1222a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With them on the joint briefs were Bruce D. With him on the brief were Jane E. With him on the brief was Jack N. Leanza were on the brief for intervenors/amici curiae Con sumer Federation of America and United Church of Christ. Is the Rule irrational? 16 2. Chief Judge: Before the court are five consoli dated petitions to review the Federal Communications Com mission's 1998 decision not to repeal or to modify the national television station ownership rule. (UCC) have intervened and filed briefs in support of the Commission's decision to retain the national television station ownership rule. We conclude that the Commission's decision to retain the rules was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law. We vacate the cable/broadcast cross ownership rule because we think it un likely the Commission will be able on remand to justify retaining it. To review each of the Commission's ownership rules every two years: The Commission shall review its rules adopted pursuant to this section and all of its ownership rules biennially as part of its regulatory reform review under section 11 of the Communications Act of 1934 and shall determine whether any of such rules are necessary in the public interest as the result of competition.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216886.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The plaintiffs in this case are an organization called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19958870.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The issue in this case is whether the City of Cumming's ordinance banning parades on Saturday mornings is a reasonable time. A prior panel of this court determined that the ordinance was content neutral but remanded the case to the district court for further evidentiary proceedings. The court held that remand was necessary because the City had not been given an opportunity to show
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200202/00-1222b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With them on the joint briefs were Bruce D. With him on the brief were Jane E. With him on the brief was Jack N. Leanza were on the brief for intervenors/amici curiae Con sumer Federation of America and United Church of Christ. Is the Rule irrational? 16 2. Chief Judge: Before the court are five consoli dated petitions to review and one appeal from the Federal Communications Com mission's 1998 decision not to repeal or to modify the national television station ownership rule. (UCC) have intervened and filed briefs in support of the Commission's decision to retain the national television station ownership rule. We conclude that the Commission's decision to retain the rules was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law. We vacate the cable/broadcast cross ownership rule because we think it un likely the Commission will be able on remand to justify retaining it. To review each of the Commission's ownership rules every two years: The Commission shall review its rules adopted pursuant to this section and all of its ownership rules biennially as part of its regulatory reform review under section 11 of the Communications Act of 1934 and shall determine whether any of such rules are necessary in the public interest as the result of competition.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011242R1.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 5 the extra
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=01-1657_042.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case presents the question whether a foreign national who is not informed of his right to consular notification under Article 36 of the OE Defendants also filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc. Which was submitted to all judges in regular active service for a vote. Thus that petition is denied. Concluded that the answer was yes. Jogi I also held that the Vienna Convention is a self executing treaty. Since Jogi I was decided. The Court's reference to § 1983 prompted us to request supplemental memoranda in Jogi's case addressing two questions: (1) whether it is necessary to rely on § 1350 for subject matter jurisdiction in a Vienna Convention case. The No. 01 1657 3 parties have submitted their memoranda. We also have the benefit of an amicus curiae submission from the United States. In the interest of avoiding a decision on grounds broader than are necessary to resolve the case. We are persuaded that it is best not to rest subject matter jurisdiction on the ATS. Since it is unclear whether the treaty violation Jogi has alleged amounts to a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/96-2134.htm">96-2134 -- GOWAN V. U.S DEPT. OF THE AIR FORCE -- 07/17/1998<BR></A><BR>
We affirm. <p align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1222a.html">FOX TELEVISION STATIONS V. FCC<BR></A><BR>
Cappuccio argued the cause for petitioners.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1222b.html">FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC., V. FCC<BR></A><BR>
Cappuccio argued the cause for petitioners.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200205/01-1059a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Karen Brinkmann and Richard R. Zesiger were on the brief for amicus curiae Independent Telephone and Telecommunica tions Alliance in support of petitioner. With him on the brief were Laurel R. With him on the brief were Tina M. It argues that even if the Commission were right on that issue.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3D2A01480999EAFD88256F46005B2669/$file/0330474.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Barry Adams was convicted of using and occupying National Forest System 15762 UNITED STATES v. ADAMS land as part of a group of seventy five or more persons without special use authorization when such authorization is required. His misdemeanor conviction was affirmed by the district court. I. Adams is a participant in the Rainbow Family. Adams informed Fox that he was organizing the 2000 gathering. Fox told Adams that Adams would need a noncommercial
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/11/98-2254.htm">98-2254 -- MESA V. WHITE -- 11/23/1999<BR></A><BR>
The de novo standard is appropriate . . . for the further reason that . . Mesa is a former county commissioner of Grant County. While he was a commissioner. Mesa voted for and was strongly in favor of Cardoza's termination. Who was no longer a commissioner. He was placed on the meeting agenda. They discussed whether Mesa's request to speak was too broad and vague under County Resolution No. 93 11 18. Amland concluded that Mesa's request was too vague and broad. He also concluded that the subject Mesa wished to discuss could potentially fall under the categories of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200304/02-5080a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/98-1329.htm">98-1329 -- CAMPBELL V. BUCKLEY -- 02/10/2000<BR></A><BR>
To reject by referendum laws passed by the general assembly.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200307/02-1055a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1368.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Charset=utf 8
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2124.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
<U>National Voting Rights Institute</U> were on brief. Were on brief. Suit was brought in anticipation of the debates to be staged by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) before the November 2000 Presidential Election. That we have Article III jurisdiction and. Concluding that Nader and the Green Party had standing to challenge the FEC's debate regulations<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032707p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will reverse as to the First Amendment retaliation. Have been embroiled in a contentious zoning d ispute with Appellees. That officials are also liable under Pennsylvania state law for damages. 2 David. Which was part of a twenty seven lot subdivision of single family residences approved by the Allegheny County Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors of the Township in 1940 (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0023n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who are also white. Robb mentioned that there was also a black cat that had disappeared. He told Campbell that the black cat was his
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0432p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Denko argues that it was an abuse of discretion for the IJ not to reopen removal proceedings when Denko introduced evidence that her failure to attend her second master calendar hearing resulted from her attorney's ineffective assistance of counsel and not from any decision on Denko's part to abandon her request for asylum. Violates established administrative law because it is inconsistent with other provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011845.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Section 6 the status line is corrected to begin
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1141a.html">TRANS UNION V. FTC<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief was Stephen L. Argued the cause for respondent.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9924.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude that Maryland has not satisfied the opt in requirements and that Baker is not entitled to habeas relief. Warden of the Maryland Correctional Adjustment Center where Baker is incarcerated. We refer to Respondents as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-3012.html">STONE MILTON V. FDIC<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were David M. Stone was employed as a GS 12 bank examiner in the FDIC's Division of Supervision. He admitted that he signed these forms with the names of doctors who were purportedly excusing the absences that he requested. <p> The FDIC decided to begin removal proceedings against Mr. Stone was alleged to have forged four leave slips. The letter also stated that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2000/99-2138.opn.html">MASON V. FLORIDA BAR (4/6/2000, NO. 99-2138)<BR></A><BR>
Which prohibits statements made by lawyers in advertisements or written communications that are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200007/99-1383a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Eric R. With her on the brief were David W. NRDC argues that the Commission's regulation is inconsistent with the text and legislative history of the statute. It further contends that the regulation is improper because it fails to provide procedural safeguards necessary to facilitate effective relief in the event that a meeting is improperly closed to the public. We are unable to accept NRDC's first argument because the Commission has done nothing more than adopt. We are unable to accept the second argu ment because it conflicts with the Court's injunction against imposing non statutory procedural requirements on agency decisionmaking. That
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200104/00-1141a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Stephen L. With him on the brief were Debra A. The Federal Trade Commission determined that these lists were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200307/02-1308a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2000/99-2138.opn.html">MASON V. FLORIDA BAR (4/6/2000, NO. 99-2138)<BR></A><BR>
Which prohibits statements made by lawyers in advertisements or written communications that are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200612/05-1248a.pdf">O:\2006-2007 TERM\09-12-06 SITTING\05-1248 NUVIO V. FCC\OPINION\NUVIO V FCC FINAL.WPD<BR></A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Richard M. With him on the 2 brief were Peter D. Phillips were on the brief for intervenors AT&T Corporation and Verizon Telephone Companies. Challenge an order of the Federal Communications Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/04/01-5066.htm">01-5066 -- SENECA-CAYUGA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA V. NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION -- 04/17/2003<BR></A><BR>
Appellants are the federal agencies and officials who threatened to prosecute three Native American tribes for use of a device called the Magical Irish Instant Bingo Dispenser System. Which we will call
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/09/99-7078.htm">99-7078 -- U.S. V. PRICE -- 09/11/2001<BR></A><BR>
The Muskogee Police Department were involved in a Task Force which investigated cocaine trafficking in the Muskogee. Defendant was identified as a suspect in cocaine trafficking. Lurks was going through a divorce. Apparently angry that Lurks was awarded custody of their children. Lurks was murdered. <p> The police suspected that Defendant was involved in the murder. Obtained a search warrant for the residence at which Defendant was believed to be staying. DNA testing indicated a very high probability that the blood on Price's tennis shoe was from Lurks. <p> Defendant was indicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma for one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine. The prosecution filed a motion to admit the out of court statements made by Lurks to FBI agents before Lurks was murdered. Defendant was sentenced to the following terms of imprisonment: life for his conviction on one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine. All the sentences were to run concurrently. Which included the blood stained tennis shoe and the gun which was the basis of one of Defendant's firearms convictions.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jul2001/993019.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is HIV positive. He was informed by the medical staff at the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh (SCIP) that his medical condition would be kept confidential. Doe's condition was not kept confidential. Because this right was not clearly established at the time of defendants' conduct. We will affirm the dismissal of Doe's complaint. Doe was informed by the medical staff that he was HIV positive. He was told that his medical condition would be kept confidential and that medical r ecords relating to his illness would be maintained separately from his general prison file. Doe's condition was not kept confidential. When Doe was taken for sick call appointments. Doe claimed his constitutional right to privacy was violated by the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/07/98-2053.htm">98-2053 -- U.S. WEST INC. V. TRISTANI -- 07/08/1999<BR></A><BR>
Are independent wholly owned subsidiaries of U S West. U S West sought a declaration that any imputation was unconstitutional under the First. Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and that New Mexico law was unconstitutional and void insofar as it authorizes such imputations. U S West contends that the Johnson Act does not bar subject matter jurisdiction in this case and imputing U S West Dex's Yellow Pages revenue to U S West Communication is unconstitutional.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2001/005263.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The principal issue on appeal is whether the investigator's dismissal violated his First Amendment rights. We will reverse in part. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. This court must make an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-3133.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Peter D. Fields was employed by the agency as a Supervisory Criminal Investigator in Key Largo. While proceedings involving the removal of Haebe were pending before the Board. The agency issued a new decision finding again that the penalty of removal was appropriate. The case was assigned to a new administrative judge who held a hearing in January 2000 and reversed the penalty determination for lack of due process. Fields and others were asked to provide a factual chronology of events leading up to these arrests. Which was prepared jointly by Fields and a fellow employee. None of which was found by the administrative judge to set a forth nonfrivolous allegation supporting Board jurisdiction. Fields contended that these two disclosures were protected by the WPA. The administrative judge concluded that these disclosures were made as part of Fields's § 2302(b)(9) activities and that he had failed to show that he made a disclosure protected under § 2302(b)(8). Which set forth a chronology of events related to a smuggling organization in Colombia that was molding cocaine and heroin into various household items for distribution outside the country.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2002a/021091.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will reverse and remand because we find that the hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert by the administrative law judge did not incorporate all of Burns' limitations. He is fifty one years old and has not acquired any transferable vocational skills. Burns alleged that he was unable to work due to a heart condition.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2003/022194p2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This matter is before us on a Petition for Rehearing filed by the Easttown Township Zoning Board (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9E57C1EF6508BFE988256EAD005AF18C/$file/0310001.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude that § 2422(b) is not facially unconstitutional as overbroad and vague. We are also unpersuaded by Dhingra's multiple evidentiary and sentencing challenges. Although Dhingra and the victim's computers were both located in California. The conversations were sent through America Online's computer server in Virginia and therefore traveled across state boundaries via a means of interstate commerce. 2 America Online Instant Messenger is an Internet service that enables users to chat in real time dialogue
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/472E17A9EC1E2D1488256E1A00006CDF/$file/0235194.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I Afshin Bahrampour is an inmate at the Snake River Correctional Institution in Ontario. Bahrampour after the bulk mail regulation at issue was declared unconstitutional. ODC's actions were upheld. Although the restriction on the receipt of sexually explicit materials is quite detailed. Roleplaying and similar fantasy games are neither defined nor described in the regulations. When this action was initiated. Or periodicals mail
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0927EAED1DB2BE5B88256ED90068E11A/$file/0310001.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: on slip opinion page 7447. The factual difference between the two acts is that. The factual difference between the two acts is that. The Petition for Rehearing is DENIED. We conclude that § 2422(b) is not facially unconstitutional as overbroad and vague. We are also unpersuaded by Dhingra's multiple evidentiary and sentencing challenges. The victim stated that she
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-2061.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Tucker & Ciandella were on brief for appellant. Will and Devine. P.C. were on brief for appellee. This is an appeal by the Town of Amherst. The background events are generally undisputed. Omnipoint is a major provider of wireless telephone service to the public. The town meeting legislates for the town and the Selectmen are the principal executive body. Amherst is divided into 13 districts. Although those prohibitions may be overcome if a variance is obtained. Towers are allowed only through the grant of a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/01/972261P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Arguing that such ex parte contacts were barred by Missouri Supreme Court Rule 4 4.2. Unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized by law to do so.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/08/963519P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Before us are the petitions of the California Public Utilities Commission and various providers of local telecommunications services seeking review of certain rules issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996.1 The petitioners and the intervenors supporting them (collectively
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/08/953098P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case is before us for a second time. The plaintiffs are pro life activists who sometimes express their objection to abortion by picketing near the residences of individuals who provide abortion services. Holding that a preliminary injunction was in order because the ordinance was probably unconstitutional. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/09/033153P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
She informed the bank that she was participating in a Consumer Credit Counseling Service (CCCS) payment plan. As the homes Davis was interested in required more financing. That 28(j) letters are to be used only to call our attention to significant authorities unknown to the parties preargument. This letter is not to be construed as a commitment letter but a credit preapproval based on an in file credit report. After Cendant had become aware that the application was for a conventional loan instead of an FHA loan. Stating that Davis was ineligible because of her involvement in CCCS. He told Davis that his bank was trying to process an FHA loan but needed to address the seller's concerns about such loans. Davis declined the Home Advantage offer because it was a market rate loan and would require a higher monthly payment. A notice of adverse action was sent from Cendant on behalf of U.S. Indicating that the loan was not granted on the terms requested. Which was mailed to her former address. Which was removed to federal court.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200410720.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We reverse the district court's judgment and hold that the long distance telephone services at issue are not subject to taxation under § 4252(b)(1)1 or § 4252(b)(2)2. The term
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200411150.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because the statute is a content based restriction which chills speech that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/01/984065P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He also contends that he is not subject to the requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 4042(b) (1994 and Supp. The language of section 3621(e)(2)(B) is permissive.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200512598.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. The undisputed facts of this case are these. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2745_015.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The letter stated in pertinent part: YOU ARE EITHER HONEST OR DISHONEST YOU CANNOT BE BOTH Your creditor believed you to be honest when credit was extended. Is a debt collection agency. This is an attempt to collect a debt and any information will be used for that purpose. Or misleading representation[s] or means
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042550p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Citizens allege that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="372"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053387np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ignacia Veras de los Santos was convicted by a jury of conspiracy. Claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions. That her trial should have been severed from those of her codefendants. We will affirm. Was manifested in two distinct schemes. She was held criminally responsible for both. 2 1. Veras referred is an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="356"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-2104.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Eisenstein with whom Brann & Isaacson was on consolidated brief for petitioners. Were on consolidated brief for respondent. The central issue in both years is the status of certain facilities under 26 U.S.C. 38. The underlying facts are generally undisputed many of them stipulated although how tax code definitions should be applied to those facts is very much at issue. Bean is a well known supplier of apparel and sporting goods based in Freeport. Bean is entitled to a substantial investment tax credit for qualifying investment. The parties stipulated as to the tax consequences that would follow from a finding that components were or were not section 38 property. The rub is that section 38 property is restricted to certain categories of property that Congress meant to favor. Bean is that of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="356"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/11/96-4191.htm">96-4191 -- SUMMUM V. CALLAGHAN -- 11/28/1997<BR></A><BR>
We reverse and remand for further proceedings. <p align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="356"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-1188a.html">AT&T CORPORATION V. FCC<BR></A><BR>
T Cor poration.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the briefs were David W. Argued the cause for respondents.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>On the brief were John Rogovin. Jacoby were on the brief for intervenor AT&. Blau was on the brief for intervenors Atlas Telephone Company. T is liable to Atlas for reasonable access charges.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The Commission then dismissed AT&. T does not have standing to seek review of the Order. Inc. is the ILEC in Big Cabin. Total completed the call to Audiobridge.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>(Total provided no local exchange or originating access service.) <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Atlas and Total have a close relationship to say the least.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span> The President of Atlas is the Chairman of Total's Board of Directors. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Total's only office is in an Atlas building. Atlas was subject to ". Which was effective immediately.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="356"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/12/012312P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Several retailers who sell tobacco products in Iowa filed this action contending that § 142A.6(6) is preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA). The Control Act seeks to reduce tobacco use
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="356"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/07-3012.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were David W. On the brief were John Rogovin. Jacoby were on the brief for intervenor AT&T Corporation. Blau was on the brief for intervenors Atlas Telephone Company. AT&T is liable to Atlas for reasonable access charges. We reject the Commission's argument that AT&T does not have standing to seek review of the Order. Inc. is the ILEC in Big Cabin. Atlas and Total have a close relationship to say the least. The President of Atlas is the Chairman of Total's Board of Directors. Total's only office is in an Atlas building. Atlas was subject to
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Concluding that the letter was not a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
John Larkin Trotter was charged with intentionally causing damage to a protected computer without authorization. Trotter argues § 1030(a)(5)(A)(i) is unconstitutional as applied to his conduct: an attack on a not for profit organization's computer network that was connected to the Internet and used to communicate with out of state computers. Trotter was fired from his job at the Midland Division of the Salvation Army in St. Numerous files were deleted from the network. A computer operated phone system was shut down. A folder containing several files was completely erased. A number of Salvation Army employees received pop up messages on their computers reading
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We have juris UNITED STATES v. Berger was Craig Electronics' President. Richardson was the Chief Financial Officer of Craig Electronics until May 31. Defendant Bonnie Metz was at various times a Vice President in Craig Electronics' Hong Kong and Cerritos. Metz is not a party to this appeal. Not to exceed $1 million. (3) Craig Electronics was prohibited from borrowing against goods that had been returned to Craig Electronics but not yet inspected. Or goods that were defective. Craig Electronics was required to provide Bankers Trust with a Borrowing Base Certificate (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were George P. With him on the brief were Eileen J. Computervision Corporation (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
After the moratorium was lifted. (2) the district court erred when it held that the City was not required to apply the zoning ordinances in effect at the time Wireless filed its applications for building permits. Because we conclude that a § 1983 remedy is available for violations of the TCA. At the time each application was filed. 2002.2 The purpose of the moratorium was
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: The plaintiffs are self described
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Holding that the plaintiffs' proposed use of the community centers was a not a form of expressive activity protected by the First Amendment. Hold that the plaintiffs' proposed use is afforded First Amendment protection. Is viewpoint neutral and reasonable in light of the purpose of the centers. It is reasonable for the Board to limit use of the community centers to recreational and community enrichment activities. Formal private education is not a use that is consistent with those purposes. The Use Policy states that the purpose of the community centers is to provide a place for: (1) Park and Recreation programs. The Use Policy states that the community centers are available for: (a) recreational uses (birthday parties. (b) any activity that is illegal. Or is in violation of the County's rules and regulations. (c) possession and consumption of alcoholic beverages.2 The four Calvert County community centers are: (1) Northeast Community Center in the town of Chesapeake Beach. (4) Southern Community Center in the town of Lusby. 2 After litigation was commenced in this case.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was convicted of various counts of conspiracy. When these assets were called upon to pay outstanding medical reinsurance claims. The stocks were deemed worthless. Teale's contracts reinsuring these policies were entered on November 16. The Teale Network was organized and controlled by Alan Teale. Neither is a party to these proceedings but both are alleged to be unindicted co conspirators. We will refer to both collectively as
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. BACKGROUND Kohl was employed as a Detached Mail Unit Clerk with the USPS. Lustic concluded that
|
|
DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS V. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
DC argued for petitioner Disabled American Veterans and Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. Of counsel on the brief was Donald E. Argued for petitioner Paralyzed Veterans of America
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was on the briefs. Were on the brief for amicus curiae National Rifle Association of America. I Russell Nordyke and Sallie Nordyke (dba TS Trade Shows) (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is not a prerequisite to conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) (actual or attempted persuasion of a minor to engage in illicit sexual activity) or 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) (traveling for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual activity). 2 We also reject the myriad other attacks Defendant Todd Tykarsky makes on his conviction. Fifth and Eighth Amendment challenges to the statutes under which he was convicted. We will affirm the conviction and remand for resentencing. Tykarsky is a resident of Trenton. In the same chat room was Special Agent Nester. Special Agent Nester sent him a photograph of herself that was taken when she was approximately 14 or 15 years old. Tykarsky wrote that he was
|
|
AMER TRAIN DISPATCH V. ICC
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Whether or not the stock was initially issued to compensate bona fide consulting services. Phan was involved in its subsequent resale to raise capital for the company and thereby violated the registration provision of federal securities law. Phan was chairman. As was true of many other companies venturing into the technology sector in the late 1990s. The Fee Agreement specified that Wu
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Of counsel was Michael K. With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel was Yelena Slepak. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5). The company believed that the cars were
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: This is a consolidated criminal appeal of the convictions and sentences of seven former Miami police officers. Jorge Castello (
|
|
TRANS UNION CORPORATION V. FTC
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
After the moratorium was lifted. (2) the district court erred when it held that the City was not required to apply the zoning ordinances in effect at the time Wireless filed its applications for building permits. At the time each application was filed. 2002.2 The purpose of the moratorium was
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The same is true here: Trans Union's target marketing lists interest only Trans Union and its target marketing customers. Trans Union's lists are not
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
When she was discharged from her position as marketing coordinator in the Allegheny County Department of Development. Azzaro claims that her discharge was in retaliation for her reporting an incident of sexual harassment by an executive assistant to the County Commissioner. We conclude that there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could conclude that there was a causal link between plaintiff's report of sexual harassment and her termination. We also conclude that plaintiff's report of sexual harassment is constitutionally protected speech. We will reverse the district court and remand for a resolution of the remaining factual issues. I. Because we are obligated on summary judgment to view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. We will present Azzaro's version of the events leading up to her discharge. 1991 just over a year before she was discharged when her husband. Who was also employed by the County. Had a verbal confrontation with employees of the County Department of Employee Relations regarding the manner in which the Azzaros' daughters were treated in connection with their applications for jobs as County lifeguards.
|
|
01-1220 -- Z.J. GIFTS D-4 V. CITY OF LITTLETON -- 11/18/2002
Including one in which the circuits are substantially divided: namely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Which is part of the Kent School District.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
At issue in this case are two of the provisions contained in that initiative. The district court's factual findings are adequately supported by the record and are not clearly erroneous. Two sections that were subsequently enacted as Mont. To a candidate are limited as follows: (i) for candidates filed jointly for the office of governor and lieutenant governor. It increased the amount that political parties are permitted to contribute. A candidate for the state house of representatives may receive no more M.C.A. § 13 37 216(3) reads:
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The question presented by this appeal is whether this requirement attaches to recall petitions initiated. When the proponents are required to draft the petitions in a form specified by the State and county. We conclude that § 1973aa 1a(c) does not apply to such recall petitions because they are not
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
At issue in this case are two of the provisions contained in that initiative. The district court's factual findings are adequately supported by the record and are not clearly erroneous. Two sections that were subsequently enacted as Mont. To a candidate are limited as follows: (i) for candidates filed jointly for the office of governor and lieutenant governor. It increased the amount that political parties are permitted to contribute. A candidate for the state house of representatives may receive no more M.C.A. § 13 37 216(3) reads:
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was on the brief for intervenor. With him on the briefs were Giovanni P. Inc. (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Leslie Downer was denied crop subsidy payments for his 1989 crop after the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Contesting the agency decision as arbitrary and We will refer to these entities collectively as
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Which is held along the riverfront in downtown Columbus. Civic Center Drive is the closest road running parallel to the river. Barricades are placed at several intersections of Civic Center Drive and its perpendicular streets to prevent automobiles from traveling down Civic Center Drive. Civic Center Drive is open to pedestrians and vendors who set up along side the road. Block party permits are issued for the non exclusive use of the permitted area. The stated purpose of the Arts Festival is
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
A comparable plate with a pro choice message is not available. (PPSC) and Renee Carter have sued three South Caro PLANNED PARENTHOOD v. Sale of the Choose Life plate is expected to generate additional revenue for the State. The fee for the special plate is seventy dollars every two years in addition to the regular fee. Proceeds from the sale of the Choose Life plate are to be placed in a special account administered by the Department of Social Services (DSS). A marketing plan for its sale that is subject to DPS approval. The plate is available only to certified members of the organization. 4 PLANNED PARENTHOOD v. Are authorized for issuance to any vehicle owner. When a bill to authorize the Choose Life plate was being considered at a subcommittee hearing in the South Carolina House of Representatives. A bill to authorize the Choose Life plate was also introduced in the South Carolina Senate in 2001. Consideration of the bill was blocked by parliamentary objections. A bill authorizing a NASCAR specialty license plate was amended to provide for the Choose Life plate.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Remmel & Zimmerman were on brief for plaintiffs. Were on brief for defendant. Agency or association.1 Violations of the Act are declared to contravene the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act. Is intended to tangibly benefit or is represented to be for the tangible benefit of any law enforcement officer. Chamberlain all of whom are officers of law enforcement associations. Seeking to enjoin the Act and to have it declared unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. While declaring that the provision for injunctive enforcement was an unconstitutional prior restraint. As the Act was originally enacted in 1977. Its sole exception was for solicitations by or on behalf of law enforcement officers campaigning for election to public office an exception still in existence. The Act was amended to allow game wardens to sell historical publications describing state parks.3 Me. Is intended to benefit or is represented to be for the benefit of any law enforcement officer.
|
|
96-4191A -- SUMMUM V. CALLAGHAN -- 11/28/1997
In the first line of the slip opinion there is a typographical error. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
|
|
PREFERRED SITES, L.L.C. V. TROUP COUNTY (7/10/2002, NO. 01-14182)
Appellee alleged the Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. Which typically are used to provide cellular telephone service. Which is located in Troup County. Appellee's application was required by the Troup County Zoning Ordinance. Were submitted to the Board. A set of blank lines to write in an explanation of the proposal for which the petition was being circulated. Only two of the petitions were complete. Indicating both the purpose of the petition was to oppose the tower and the proposal for which the petition was circulated was to object to the construction of the tower. The third petition merely noted the location of the proposed tower and indicated the proposal for which the petition was circulated was to object to the construction of the tower. Appellant claimed Appellee's action was untimely filed and Appellee had failed to meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance. The district court held Appellee's action was filed within the statute of limitations.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With whom
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was present at oral argument but did not take part in the consideration or decision of the case. * 1 No. 04 5230 Benzon. All of whom are investors in Class B shares of Morgan Stanley mutual funds. The Facts Set Forth in the Complaint This case is before us on an appeal from a dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The facts alleged by Plaintiffs in their second amended complaint are set forth below. The shares of which are marketed to U.S. investors. The
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Appellants) moved for summary judgment asserting that the ADA claim was barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity and that the section 1983 claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. I. BACKGROUND ACLEST is an agency of the State of Arkansas which regulates the hiring and certification of law enforcement officers within the State. At the time he was hired by the Maumelle Department. Alsbrook's supervisor certified that Alsbrook met the minimum standards for appointment as a law enforcement officer as prescribed in Section 1002.2 Alsbrook was accepted into the course and successfully completed it in December. He was then employed as a law enforcement officer with the Maumelle Department. Alsbrook was technically functioning as an uncertified law enforcement officer during this time period.3 It appears from the record that Alsbrook's supervisor thought that Dr. It is necessary for the employing agency to request certification by the filing of an Application for Award of Law Enforcement Officer Certificate.
|
|
FLORIDA LEAGUE OF PROF. LOBBYISTS V. MEGGS
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Florida League of Prof. Is unconstitutional so far as it requires extensive disclosure by lobbyists and their principals and bars lobbyists from receiving fees contingent on their success in affecting legislative or executive outcomes. We uphold the ban on contingency fee lobbying despite whatever doubts recent cases may have cast on its constitutionality. Even if more recent cases suggest that the Supreme Court might someday reach a result contrary to the one we reach today.<p> I.<p> <p> Appellant is an organization of professional lobbyists. The only contentions are that the statute is overbroad and. Facially invalid in its disclosure provisions and that the contingency fee ban is unconstitutional in the light of recent Supreme Court precedent. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the state.<p> II.<p> <p> If the League is correct that the greater number of this statute's applications are unconstitutional. Then its members face an unattractive set of options if they are barred from bringing a facial challenge: refrain from engaging in protected First Amendment activity or risk civil sanction for alleged unethical conduct.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200107/00-5050a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Singer were on brief. Todaro were on brief. Unless an approval of an application filed pursuant to (b) or (j) of this section is effective with respect to such drug.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug96/95-8870.opa.html">NATIONALIST MOVEMENT V. CITY OF CUMMING<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Nationalist Movement v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> The issue in this case is whether the City of Cumming's ordinance banning parades on Saturday mornings is a reasonable time. A prior panel of this court determined that the ordinance was content neutral but remanded the case to the district court for further evidentiary proceedings. The court held that remand was necessary because the City had not been given an opportunity to show
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug96/95-8870.opa.html">NATIONALIST MOVEMENT V. CITY OF CUMMING<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Nationalist Movement v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> The issue in this case is whether the City of Cumming's ordinance banning parades on Saturday mornings is a reasonable time. A prior panel of this court determined that the ordinance was content neutral but remanded the case to the district court for further evidentiary proceedings. The court held that remand was necessary because the City had not been given an opportunity to show
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0031p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The relevant facts of this case have not changed from the first time this case was before us. Those facts are as follows: In 1999. The purpose of the ordinance was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2002/01-14182.opn.html">PREFERRED SITES, L.L.C. V. TROUP COUNTY (7/10/2002, NO. 01-14182)<BR></A><BR>
Appellee alleged the Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. Which typically are used to provide cellular telephone service. Which is located in Troup County. Appellee's application was required by the Troup County Zoning Ordinance. Were submitted to the Board. A set of blank lines to write in an explanation of the proposal for which the petition was being circulated. Only two of the petitions were complete. Indicating both the purpose of the petition was to oppose the tower and the proposal for which the petition was circulated was to object to the construction of the tower. The third petition merely noted the location of the proposed tower and indicated the proposal for which the petition was circulated was to object to the construction of the tower. Appellant claimed Appellee's action was untimely filed and Appellee had failed to meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance. The district court held Appellee's action was filed within the statute of limitations.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july96/95-2555.opa.html">FLORIDA LEAGUE OF PROF. LOBBYISTS V. MEGGS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Florida League of Prof. Is unconstitutional so far as it requires extensive disclosure by lobbyists and their principals and bars lobbyists from receiving fees contingent on their success in affecting legislative or executive outcomes. We uphold the ban on contingency fee lobbying despite whatever doubts recent cases may have cast on its constitutionality. Even if more recent cases suggest that the Supreme Court might someday reach a result contrary to the one we reach today.<p> I.<p> <p> Appellant is an organization of professional lobbyists. The only contentions are that the statute is overbroad and. Facially invalid in its disclosure provisions and that the contingency fee ban is unconstitutional in the light of recent Supreme Court precedent. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the state.<p> II.<p> <p> If the League is correct that the greater number of this statute's applications are unconstitutional. Then its members face an unattractive set of options if they are barred from bringing a facial challenge: refrain from engaging in protected First Amendment activity or risk civil sanction for alleged unethical conduct.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1D5C522EC6F6559188256D01005F825E/$file/0117161.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
All local exchange carriers are required to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1038.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom Michael Unger and Rubin & Rudman LLP were on brief. In agreement with the other circuits which have faced this issue. Swirsky and Prudential were parties to a NASD arbitration proceeding (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0164a-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This matter is before the Court on Prime Media. The relevant facts of this case were set forth in the prior appeal as follows: In 1999. The purpose of the ordinance was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0437p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The general question presented by the relatively bizarre factual background of this case is whether or not a core function of municipal government the provision of firefighting services impacts interstate commerce such that an individual can be indicted under a federal anti arson statute for destroying a fire station. Is whether the Henning. Tennessee Fire Station was used in an activity affecting interstate commerce such that the person charged with setting it ablaze can be indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 844(i). We hold that this particular fire station was used in an activity affecting interstate commerce and accordingly REVERSE the judgment of the district court dismissing the indictment and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURE Prometheus may have thought twice before handing down the gift of fire to humans had he imagined that those whom the mere mortals chose to steward the precious flame would use it to decimate the very mechanisms employed to control 1 No. 02 5185 United States v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A16D6CDAAE67DB0788256DF70004F0B5/$file/0235374.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We must decide whether the district court correctly concluded that the university officials were entitled to qualified immunity. We conclude there was no error and affirm. 17310 DESYLLAS v. We have jurisdiction to review the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the university officials pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Among the records were approximately 25 files on PSU students from 1978 to 1991. Who was a uniformed campus police officer. Where other students were present. He said that the records were not in the newspaper office and that the records were not in a place where he could be taken to retrieve them. He told Fowler and Diman that he realized the records were university property and that he ultimately intended to return the records. Two police officers on bicycles were visible through a window of the student government office. Where they were met by Diman and Fowler. Fowler replied that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-1255a.html">ELEC ENG CO V. FCC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5339a.html">CHAMBER CMERC US V. FEC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2003/013720p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court found that the Copyright Office's rulemaking 4 with respect to the Internet
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-1156a.html">BRHD RWY CARMEN V. DOT<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/aug1999/981273.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Or manic depression as it is sometimes called. The District Court held that even if Taylor did have a disability. Was not possible. She was not an otherwise qualified individual with a disability. We held its petition until the Supreme Court announced its decisions in two 2 then pending cases addressing whether disabilities under the ADA are judged with or without regard to mitigating measures. We have granted panel rehearing and vacated our prior opinion. Which was reported at 174 F.3d 142. We conclude that there are genuine factual disputes requiring a trial on whether Taylor's bipolar disorder substantially limits a major life activity while she is taking lithium. Our previous discussion of the interactive process is unaffected. We have incorporated it unchanged in this opinion. I Before she was terminated on October 28. When formal evaluations were instituted in the 1991 92 school year. While Taylor was at work during that week. Menzel and Ferrara were so disturbed by Taylor's behavior that they doubted her capacity to leave on a train by herself and had someone at the school district contact her son.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/01/033326P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Antonio Reyes Vasquez petitions for review of the determination of the Immigration Judge (IJ) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that he is not entitled to cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). The BIA's affirmance without opinion procedure is unconstitutional under separation of powers principles. Was arrested by the United States Border Patrol. He testified that the Border Patrol locked him in a cell for several hours and then put him
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-3326.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. The grievance was the subject of a teleconference. Uliano [were] present by phone.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-7303.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were. Of counsel on the brief were David J. The principal question in this appeal is whether this notice requirement applies when a veteran files an appeal to the Board of Veterans Appeals (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/11BCC17FDB29A7298825711C0077B073/$file/0435285.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: We are called upon to decide whether Oregon Ballot Measure 26's prohibition of payment to electoral petition signature gatherers on a piece work or per signature basis unconstitutionally burdens core political speech. The plaintiffs have failed to prove that the prohibition violates the First Amendment. Nothing herein prohibits payment for signature gathering which is not based. The rule states in part Measure 26: bans the practice of paying circulators or others involved in an initiative or referendum effort if the basis for payment is the number of signatures obtained. Employment relationships that do not base payment on the number of signatures collected are allowed. Provided no payments are made on a per signature basis. A violation of Measure 26 will result in civil penalties of a minimum of $100 for each individual signature sheet containing signatures collected in violation of Measure 26.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/01869D985FA0790588257353005142B7/$file/0556023.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I This action was filed by linkLine Communications. Who are Internet Service Providers (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3035_014.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The rates charged were based upon a wholly different method of calculation. Dreamscape attached to its complaint invoice examples of TCU based billing that resulted in charges equal to more than twice what the perminute charges would have been. It was subject to regulation by the Federal Communications Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/03/011869P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Coates is a town of 182 people located fifteen miles southeast of St. Nude dancing is expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. It is now well established that this type of regulation is permissible under the First Amendment provided the ordinance is justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech. Is designed to promote a substantial government interest. We have applied this test in numerous cases in which various adult entertainment businesses challenged local zoning and licensing ordinances. This type of delayed prohibition is known as an amortization provision because it justifies the removal of a nonconforming use by giving the owner a period of time to recoup (amortize) its investment before it must relocate. Jake's present location did not comply with the 1994 ordinance because it is not in an agricultural zone and is less than 750 feet from a residence. Kyle's opinion further stated: [I]f Coates' requirement for land dedication for subdivision were altered either to allow some non discretionary alternative (equivalent fee in lieu of the land dedication) or to limit the land dedication requirement to certain types of subdivision (i.e.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-5233a.html">USA V. FERRARA VIRGINIA L.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/07/002324P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a facial challenge to the constitutionality of section 4 99 201 of the Arkansas Code by the National Federation of the Blind of Arkansas and Larry Wayland. We will refer to plaintiffs collectively as the NFBA. Sitting by designation. * call to an Arkansas resident to solicit a charitable contribution or to offer any commercial product or service must identify the caller and the organization on whose behalf the call is being made. That provision is not at issue. The challenge is to the following subsection: (2) If the person receiving the telephone call indicates that he or she does not want to hear about the charity. A violation of subsection (a)(2) is a Class A misdemeanor and an unfair and deceptive act or practice for purposes of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The NFBA plaintiffs are an Arkansas charity that solicits contributions and a blind individual who wishes to be solicited without government interference. Concluding that the statute is constitutional on its face. The State argues that the NFBA's First Amendment claims were properly dismissed because subsection (a)(2)
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2001/001586.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P. 23(f) is whether plaintiffs' securities fraud claims satisfy the requirements for class certification under Fed. We will affirm. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. P. 23 to provide for interlocutory appeal by permission of the court of appeals.1 Recognizing that denying or granting class certification is often the defining moment in class actions (for it may sound the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031534.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Worldwide organization composed of born again believers whose purpose is to evangelize boys and girls with the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and to establish (disciple) them in the local church for Christian living.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/01-4022.htm">01-4022 -- SUMMUM V. CITY OF OGDEN -- 07/19/2002<BR></A><BR>
The Ten Commandments Monument is just under five feet tall and three feet wide. The Monument bears an inscription of a version of the Ten Commandments: <p> I AM the LORD thy God. <p> Thou shalt have no other gods before me. <p> Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven images. <p> Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. <p> Remember the Sabbath day. Nor anything that is thy neighbor's. <p> Aples' App. at 87. By Utah State Aerie Fraternal Order of Eagles 1966.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/04/02-2244.htm">02-2244 -- HOMANS V. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE -- 04/27/2004<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5050a.html">ANDRX PHARMACEUTICALS V. BIOVAIL CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL<BR></A><BR>
Singer were on brief. <span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/09/02-1114.htm">02-1114 -- SORRENTINO V. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE -- 09/14/2004<BR></A><BR>
The taxpayer's timely filing of such claim with the IRS is a jurisdictional prerequisite to maintaining a . Rebuttable presumption the communication was . The Sorrentinos are . Is supported by the March 1 signature date on the photocopied return the IRS . Statements of proper mailing in a deposition and affidavit were uncorroborated. Holding
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="346"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/49768F4A0D67D84188256D56007458B3/$file/0115958.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Plaintiffs appeal the district court's determination that the mall is a nonpublic forum. Its ruling that City ordinances restricting soliciting and tabling were constitutional. The City of Las Vegas cross appeals the district court's determination that City ordinances limiting leafleting and vending were unconstitutional. We reverse the district court's conclusion that it is a nonpublic forum. We hold that the Fremont Street Experience is a public forum. We affirm the district court's conclusion that they are unconstitutional. Downtown Las Vegas was suffering from an economic downturn. The area was seen as sleazy and unsafe. Downtown casinos were unable to compete with the glitzy Las Vegas Strip. Key economic factors showed that the area was in decline. Were closed off to automotive traffic. The street and sidewalk were torn up. Various underground infrastructure elements were installed. The street was decoratively repaved as one large promenade. As the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="338"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/071C6D0AC0CFD45C8825704400737CAC/$file/0316878.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on the brief. Is hereby amended as follows: Slip Op. at 6334. The Supreme Court clarified that the Rooker Feldman doctrine is only operative where a federal suit is initiated after state court pro MOTHERSHED v. JUSTICES 8527 ceedings have ended. 125 S. 25 (1st Cir. 2005) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="338"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2000/98-2718.ma3.html">DENNO V. SCH. BD. OF VOLUSIA COUNTY (7/20/2000, NO. 98-2718)<BR></A><BR>
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="338"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/10/97-5186.htm">97-5186 -- BANCOKLAHOMA MORTGAGE CORP. V. CAPITAL TITLE CO. INC. -- 10/18/1999<BR></A><BR>
District Judge. <p> <center> </center> <p> <strong><center>Background</center> </strong> <p> Bancoklahoma Mortgage Corp. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="338"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1995/94a0947p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plaintiffs in these cases were injured by several policy decisions made by the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="338"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/09/98-3292.htm">98-3292 -- LILE V. MCKUNE -- 09/05/2000<BR></A><BR>
Plaintiff is a prisoner at the Lansing Correctional Facility in Lansing. He was convicted in Kansas state court of aggravated kidnaping. Plaintiff was required to disclose his sexual history. Including the crime of which he was convicted and any uncharged sexual offenses. He also complained that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the intrusive nature of the plethysmograph examination. <p> Ruling on cross motions for summary judgment. Summary judgment is properly granted where.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="338"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199912/99-1116a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were John Broadley. With him on the brief were Nancy E. Edelman was on the brief for intervenor. The FRA conducted a study and found that from 1989 to 1993 twenty two roadway workers were struck and killed by trains or on track equipment. At issue in this case is the Rule's procedure for demarcating portions of track where railroad employees are working and on track accidents gener ally occur. The precise method of establishing working limits depends on whether the work is being performed on track that is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="338"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec95/98-2718.op2.html">LINDA DENNO V. SCH. BD. OF VOLUSIA COUNTY (7/20/2000, NO. 98-2718)<BR></A><BR>
Was vacated and withdrawn and panel rehearing was ordered. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="338"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/58807F3D4237981088256C4B007B3701/$file/9915614.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The petitions for rehearing en banc were circulated to the full court and no judge requested a vote on the petitions. Lodi's motion for judicial notice in support of its petition for rehearing is GRANTED. The petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc are DENIED. 2002 and reported at 2002 WL 1792612 is hereby amended as follows: At page *17. That MERLO's provisions dealing with cleanup procedures are preempted by CERCLA only to the extent that they permit Lodi to order use of procedures more stringent than the NCP
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="338"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200307/02-1098a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="338"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2000/98-2718.ma3.html">DENNO V. SCH. BD. OF VOLUSIA COUNTY (7/20/2000, NO. 98-2718)<BR></A><BR>
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="338"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-2104.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.A.</U> was on brief for plaintiffs.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="338"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/06D97F07AF20A33288256C0C007D9461/$file/9915614.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Insurers allege that MERLO is preempted by the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response. Health & Safety (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="338"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-1652a.html">AMER SCHLST TV PGRM V. FCC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="338"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5364a.html">JIM J. TOZZI V. US DEPT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES<BR></A><BR>
Quill was on the brief for amici curiae Public Health Scientists in support of appellants. <br clear=all style='page break before: always'> <span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="338"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F4B4CBAF2AFF5EA088256E97007D0AEA/$file/0272759.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Background Singh is a Sikh and a native and citizen of India. Singh was interrogated and beaten repeatedly during each of these detentions. He was repeatedly assured that the appeals process was lengthy and that he should be patient. The BIA's discussion was devoted to Singh's failure to file a brief. The BIA wrote: The appeal is dismissed. Block 6 is immediately followed by a clear warning that the appeal may be subject to summary dismissal if the appellant indicates that such a brief or statement will be filed and. The appellant was granted the SINGH v. We are not persuaded that the Immigration Judge's ultimate resolution of this case was in error. We find that summary dismissal is appropriate pursuant to the provisions of 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)(2)(i)(D). We have jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b). A. Discussion Recharacterization of Singh's Motion [1] We have recently held that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="338"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2AF28B8F52162BD8882570BC0077FE4C/$file/0372552.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
His voluntary departure period is automatically tolled while he is awaiting a decision from the BIA on his motion. GONZALES for a determination of whether Barroso was denied his statutory right to counsel of his choice.1 I. BACKGROUND Barroso is a native of Mexico who entered the United States in 1985. Although Cabrera told Barroso that he was an attorney. He was not. He was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="338"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug96/95-5006.wpd.html">CARDTOONS, L.C. V. MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYERS ASSOC.<BR></A><BR>
Arguing that (1) the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment and (2) Cardtoons does not have a First Amendment right to market its trading cards. Have caricatures of active major league baseball players on the front and humorous commentary about their careers on the back. The balance of the set is comprised of 20
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="338"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CC33BE4A5002E911882570180078E92D/$file/0316878.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on the brief. An attorney who was MOTHERSHED v. A default judgment was entered against him. Mothershed alleged that the Arizona disciplinary proceedings were invalid because he had not been served with a summons. He contended that the Oklahoma proceedings were likewise defective because his hearing did not occur between thirty and sixty days after appointment of the trial panel. The court later dismissed the claims against the Arizona defendants on the ground that Mothershed was improperly seeking review of the Arizona bar disciplinary proceedings in a lower Responsibility Tribunal shall notify the respondent and the General Counsel of the appointment and membership of the Trial Panel and of the time and place for hearing. JUSTICES 6331 federal court and that subject matter jurisdiction was therefore absent under the Rooker Feldman doctrine. The Supreme Court recently reiterated that its applicability
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="338"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0107p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Page 2 BACKGROUND This Tennessee breach of contract suit was previously before this Court. The overall goal of the TRICARE program is to improve the quality. One aspect of the new TRICARE program was the establishment of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="338"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1819954AA8E290CA8825701A004C6819/$file/0356135.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The banners are located so that they are visible to customers of businesses that deal with certain contractors who do not have union contracts. While the banners are displayed. Local Union Number 1506 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="338"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-7089.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel were Kathryn A. Of counsel on the brief were Richard J. MacPhee was hospitalized in a VA medical center due to excessive drinking and anxiety. The psychologist opined that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="338"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec95/98-2718.op2.html">LINDA DENNO V. SCH. BD. OF VOLUSIA COUNTY (7/20/2000, NO. 98-2718)<BR></A><BR>
Was vacated and withdrawn and panel rehearing was ordered. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="338"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2002/013556.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The District Court concluded that Buskirk could not recover under his
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="338"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2003/024256p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court held that since the contracts at issue in this controversy were not filed with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Worldcom is precluded from recovering anything for services or equipment provided to Graphnet. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Worldcom is a global telecommunications company providing a variety of diverse communications services in local. The complaint was thereafter amended on August 28. Neither contract was filed with the FCC. The extent to which Graphnet disputes these allegations is unclear since Graphnet never filed a responsive pleading admitting or denying these allegations. Claiming that Worldcom's actions were barred both by the applicable statute of limitations and by an earlier settlement agreement. Graphnet argued for the first time that Worldcom's claims were precluded by the so called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="338"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/07/983598P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
His will created the Grover M. The primary beneficiary of the trust was Mr. Bryan a general power of appointment by will. This transfer is subject to a special enactment known as the Generation Skipping Transfer tax (GST). Unless it is entitled to the benefit of an effective date provision under which transfers under a trust which was irrevocable on September 25. Are not subject to the GST tax. There is no sufficient reason not to apply the plain language of the statute. ¶ A of the will of Grover M. That is. In her will. She thus had a general power of appointment by will. Upon her death the remaining corpus of the trust was included in her estate for purposes of the federal estate tax. Bryan made her will in 1982. The will became effective upon Mrs. It is unnecessary to describe the details of the GST tax. It is sufficient for present purposes to know that the transfer was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="338"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1164.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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.</U> were on brief. That the Board's decision was not supported by
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="338"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200310223.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Onabanjo and his wife were married on April 19. Their daughter was born on February 4. The summary judgment record reveals that Onabanjo and his wife were living apart during some of the relevant time period. That he and his wife and child have continued to be a family unit. That he and his wife have never viewed themselves as not married or as married but estranged.1 The relevant statutory and regulatory framework is as follows. The government has a duty
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="338"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1159.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Prevett</SPAN> and the <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="338"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-2222_018.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Concluding that Keane was not disabled under the ADA. Having found genuine issues of material fact as to whether Keane was disabled. Changed the standard for determining whether an employee is disabled. That no reasonable jury could find that Keane was disabled. Keane's immediate supervisor was Jacqueline Klisiak. When Klisiak Nos. 04 2222 & 04 2493 3 was absent. Keane explained to Klisiak the difficulty she was having with her leg and asked if she could eat lunch in the intimate apparel stockroom. Keane explained: I didn't know if I was going to make it out of the store all right. It was very. Keane was diagnosed with neuropathy. Because Klisiak was not in. This is my department.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="338"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200111/00-5364a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Quill was on the brief for amici curiae Public Health Scientists in support of appellants. With him on the brief were Kenneth L. Acted without sufficient epidemiological evidence that dioxin is a known human carcinogen. Although we reject the Secre tary's arguments that the manufacturer lacks standing and that the upgrade decision is unreviewable. The list is * Senior Circuit Judge Williams was in regular active service at the time of oral argument. prepared biennially by the Department's National Toxicology Program (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="320"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1470.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Smith & Moscardelli were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. His appeal is primarily based on multiple constitutional arguments. Sometime after the transaction was completed. By this time it was approximately 2:00 a.m. on the morning of July 15. They were spotted walking along Humboldt Avenue by 2 2 four officers of the Boston Police's Youth Violence Strike Force who were patrolling the area in an unmarked police car. Noticed that Cardoza and Ragsdale were acting indecisively about whether to continue walking up Humboldt. Who was sitting in the back seat on the driver's side. Whose window was rolled down. What are you doing out this time of night?
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="320"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/221D359AF804939888257053004CD75B/$file/0335695.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Insurance companies are required to send adverse action notices to consumers whenever they increase the rates for insurance on the basis of information contained in consumer credit reports. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681a(k)(1)(B)(i). 1681m(a).1 The principal quesSection 1681m(a) provides that any person who
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="320"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1803.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
PSC</U> were on brief. Guez</U> was on brief. <U>Chief Judge</U>.</STRONG></FONT><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="320"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4EB13638CA503C5688256FCC0083CC0C/$file/0315706.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Plan argues that the district court committed three errors in holding that LaMantia's complaint was timely. We agree with the district court that LaMantia's complaint was timely. We reverse and remand for reconsideration of whether LaMantia was improperly denied disability benefits. HEWLETT PACKARD CO. 3511 FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW LaMantia was employed at Hewlett Packard for fourteen years and was a member of the Plan. Makes the determination whether a claimant is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="320"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/58E2731CF3F0F316882570A40055B5A1/$file/0335695.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is hereby amended as follows: 1. Replace
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="320"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5FEE10A29E8C4423882571000082FBEF/$file/0335695.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is withdrawn. Insurance companies are required to send adverse action notices to consumers whenever they increase the rates for insurance on the REYNOLDS v. 1681m(a).1 The principal question before us is straightforward: Does FCRA's adverse action notice requirement apply to the rate first charged in an initial policy of insurance? We hold that the answer is yes: The Act requires that an insurance company send the consumer an adverse action notice whenever a higher rate is charged because of credit information it obtains. Regardless of whether the rate is contained in an initial policy or an extension or renewal of a policy and regardless of whether the company has previously charged the consumer a lower rate. We hold that FCRA's adverse action notice requirement applies whenever a consumer would have received a lower rate for insurance had his credit information been more favorable. Regardless of whether his credit rating is above or below average. The requirement covers those whose credit information is disregarded and replaced for purposes of a rate computation by an average or neutral credit figure.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="320"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8F8E605B87E1FD1E88256E7B00830DE0/$file/0315006.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Alleges in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action that his First Amendment rights were violated by Pelican Bay's enforcement of its policy prohibiting inmates from receiving mail containing material downloaded from the internet. After reviewing staffing levels and security issues internet mail will not be allowed. The policy prohibits only mail containing material that has been downloaded from the internet but is not violated if information from the internet is retyped or copied into a document generated in a word processor program. TERHUNE At least eight other California prisons have adopted similar policies. Prisoners are not allowed to access the internet directly. So Clement asserts that the policies effectively prevent inmates from accessing information that is available only on the internet. Or is prohibitively expensive and timeconsuming to obtain through other methods. There is record evidence that several non profit groups. That many legal materials are readily accessible only on the internet. Agents and those in privity with them are enjoined from enforcing any policy prohibiting California inmates from receiving mail because it contains Internet generated information.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="320"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/96E54490BA2552C08825708F00540CE4/$file/0335695.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is withdrawn. Insurance companies are required to send adverse action notices to consumers whenever they increase the rates for insurance on the basis of information contained in consumer credit reports. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681a(k)(1)(B)(i). 1681m(a).1 The principal question before us is straightforward: Does FCRA's adverse action notice requirement apply to the rate first charged in an initial policy of insurance? We hold that the answer is yes: The Act requires that an insurance company send the consumer an adverse action notice whenever a higher rate is charged because of credit information it obtains. Regardless of whether the rate is contained in an initial policy or an extension or renewal of a policy and regardless of whether the company has previously charged the consumer a lower rate. We hold that FCRA's adverse action notice requirement applies whenever a consumer would have received a lower rate for insurance had his credit information been more favorable. Regardless of whether his credit rating is above or below average.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="320"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C65B8D8A645F754188256EB5004E4AD7/$file/0256487.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The controlling question in this case is whether Appellant the City of Los Angeles (the City) may revoke a building permit issued to Appellee Congregation Etz Chaim (the Congregation) authorizing renovations to a home owned by the Congregation and used as a place of worship. Because we agree with the district court that Congregation was entitled to rely on issuance of the building permit by the City. BACKGROUND There is a long history of litigation between the City and the Congregation. Most of the Congregation's claims were dismissed. After the Agreement was signed and the Congregation's action was dismissed. The City described the permit as having been issued
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="320"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2003/022206.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Where it is engaged in the manufacture of complex cardiology. Which are traded on NASDAQ. Shaev alleges that this option was worth $1. The complaint alleges that Saper's annual lifetime retirement payments are worth approximately $1. The payments were contingent on attainment of various corporate goals and some subjective criteria.1 The December 7. The MIP is described as a Supplemental Incentive Plan. Which is not in the record nor described in the disputed proxy. It is difficult to evaluate the relevance and effect of the 1997 incentive Plan and its interaction with the 1999 supplement and the 2000 amendment to the supplement. The 1999 supplement is part of the record. Although neither it nor its material terms were included in the proxy statement. 3 supplement provides
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="320"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-7101.html">ZEVALKINK V. BROWN<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="320"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/05/97-6004.htm">97-6004 -- OKLAND OIL CO. V. CONOCO INC. -- 05/19/1998<BR></A><BR>
When the price of gas was deregulated. Were for production related costs (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="320"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200313765.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court held that UNUM's long term disability plan was governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="320"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1995/95a1098p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Those officials had violated his constitutional rights.[fn1] Holding that defendants enjoyed qualified immunity because the law in this area was unsettled in our circuit. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1291. Plaintiff Polyns Bieregu is incarcerated at the federal prison in Fairton. The federal regulatory framework for handling prisoner mail is straightforward. Incoming special mail must be marked
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="320"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0752n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
His asking price was below the face value of the tickets. The two purchasers were undercover Lexington police officers. Peddling is recognized as an occupation under The Council of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Governm ent am ended § 15 1.1(2) of the Code of Ordinances. Alleging that he was not a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="320"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200702/05-1392a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Lynn E. Bryant Rogers were on the brief for amici Indian Tribes and Tribal Organizations in support of petitioner and reversal of the NLRB's judgment. With him on the brief were Ronald E. Were on the brief for intervenor State of Connecticut. The Casino is about an hour's drive from Los Angeles. Of the casino's patrons are nonmembers who come from outside the reservation.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="320"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug97/94-1576.wpd.html">AM. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW FOUND. V. MEYER<BR></A><BR>
A referendum is unavailable with respect to laws
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="320"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0225n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because there is substantial evidence to support the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that the company failed to adequately communicate its safety rules to its employees and. Was not entitled to the affirmative defense of unpreventable employee misconduct. Commissioner Complete General Construction Co. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="320"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2204A.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Requires that political advertising that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="320"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2000/99-2022.man.html">CANNABIS ACTION NETWORK V. CITY OF GAINESVILLE (10/24/2000, NO. 99-2022)<BR></A><BR>
Plaintiff Cannabis Action Network's (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="320"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2002/00-15158.opn.html">WEAVER V. BONNER (10/18/2002, NO. 00-15158)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="320"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept99/98-2403.man.html">GULF POWER CO. V. UNITED STATES (9/9/1999, NO. 98-2403)<BR></A><BR>
Florida Power Corp. are electric utility companies who brought suit against the United States and the Federal Communications Commission seeking a declaration that the 1996 amendment to the Pole Attachment Act. Is facially unconstitutional because it effects a taking of their property without an adequate process for securing just compensation. Rights of way which are used to supply electricity to consumers. Power lines are strung across public and private lands and millions of poles support those lines.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="320"></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-3.gif" ALT="320"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3081.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The question before us in this appeal is a narrow procedural one: can this court review the district court's decision to remand the case to the state court in which it was originally filed? We conclude that the best way to interpret the district court's order is as one finding that it had no subject matter jurisdiction over the claims that were 2 Nos. 01 3081 & 01 3418 remanded. Even if we are wrong and the order was simply a decision to remand all supplemental state claims to the state court. We would exercise our jurisdiction to find that there was no abuse of discretion in that decision. Was filed in Illinois state court by injured passengers and the estates of those killed as a result of the collision. The additional defendants were the manufacturers. Two from that group are relevant to this appeal: Illinois Central. GE claimed that any lawsuit these plaintiffs were bringing was inevitably and necessarily based on a federal question. Thus removal was available under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and (b).). Which is a federal instrumentality.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="320"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200001/98-1280a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were James A. With him on the brief were Jay L. Pierre F. de Ravel d'Esclapon was on the brief for interve nor H.Q. Energy
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="320"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2000/99-2022.man.html">CANNABIS ACTION NETWORK V. CITY OF GAINESVILLE (10/24/2000, NO. 99-2022)<BR></A><BR>
Plaintiff Cannabis Action Network's (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="320"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991089.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Goldstein alleges that he was suspended and later terminated from Chestnut Ridge based on the substance of his speech. We must first determine whether Chestnut Ridge's decisions to suspend and to terminate him were under color of law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Is a state actor. We do so because Chestnut Ridge is: (1) carrying out functions. Chestnut Ridge is a state actor whose actions must comport with the First Amendment.1 However. Which is protected speech. Goldstein cannot establish that his protected speech was a substantial factor in Chestnut Ridge's decisions to take adverse employment actions against him. Goldstein was suspended from the company on March 15. His suspension was upheld by a vote of the Executive Committee. Goldstein was terminated from the company. Holding that Chestnut Ridge is a state actor for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.2 See Goldstein v. Summary judgment is appropriate only
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="320"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2002/00-15158.opn.html">WEAVER V. BONNER (10/18/2002, NO. 00-15158)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="320"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept99/98-2403.man.html">GULF POWER CO. V. UNITED STATES (9/9/1999, NO. 98-2403)<BR></A><BR>
Florida Power Corp. are electric utility companies who brought suit against the United States and the Federal Communications Commission seeking a declaration that the 1996 amendment to the Pole Attachment Act. Is facially unconstitutional because it effects a taking of their property without an adequate process for securing just compensation. Rights of way which are used to supply electricity to consumers. Power lines are strung across public and private lands and millions of poles support those lines.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="320"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1292a.html">HIGH PLAINS WIRELESS, L.P., V. FCC<BR></A><BR>
Argued the cause for appellee.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="320"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-3215a.html">USA V. CINCA ROBERT<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="320"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1115_019.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Country Singles are a few of the magazines Harlan L. He is convinced that the regulations. I Jacobsen is no stranger to the federal courts. As we will explain shortly. No. 04 1115 3 Although we do not have an adequate record before us.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="320"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1544r.html">EAGLE COMTRONICS V. ARROW<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff cross appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="320"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-7143a.html">DIAL A CAR INC V. TRANS INC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="320"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0295p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs brought suit in federal court after they were dismissed from their high school football team. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' dismissal was permissible under the rule governing student speech set forth in Tinker v. Dillon Spurlock (hereinafter
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="320"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2011.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We also hold that the defendants have established that the district court plainly erred when sentencing these defendants. Which we have consolidated for disposition. Kendall Lipscomb was a correctional officer who only had <hr> approximately six months of experience at the time of the incident. Duran was ordered to leave the dining hall. Where they were joined by Lieutenants Fuller and Serrata. The camera either malfunctioned during the incident or was never turned on. So there is no tape of the event. Convinced that he was about to be beaten. Said that he would not allow his other hand <hr> to be cuffed until the video camera was turned on. Duran was lying on the ground face first with both hands behind his back. Who were standing on opposite sides of Mr. The defendants' version of the story is considerably different. Officers Fuller and Butler were on either side of Mr. Duran continued to defy the officers' orders when the dogs were brought out. Duran was. Fighting with the officers to an extent that use of force on the part of the officers was reasonable and necessary.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="320"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/063098p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was indicted on January 20. Claiming they are unsupported and politically motivated. His trial was scheduled to begin in October 2006. We have stayed it pending disposition of three applications that are before us: (1) Wecht's challenge of Local Rule 83.1 of the U.S. Wecht was indicted on January 20. This feud was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="320"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0425p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were prohibited from establishing themselves within 1. This site was within 1. Other periodicals which are distinguished or characterized by their emphasis on matter depicting. It concluded that Velvet Touch was not within the definition of an adult bookstore and therefore did not require a variance to conduct business at its chosen location. He claimed that 1) Velvet Touch was an adult bookstore. Agreeing with Vredevoogd that Velvet Touch was an adult bookstore as defined in the ordinance. The court determined that it was premature to rule on the remaining issues as Executive Arts was entitled to a ruling by the ZBA on the original variance request. The court also noted that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="320"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1421.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were correctly applied to a high school student before his suspension. The district court granted judgment as a matter of law for the school committee members and found that the process given appellant was adequate. Were treated to insulting comments about their appearance or social conduct. More than sixty seniors were characterized by epithets that were not merely insulting as to appearance. The sequence of events leading to appellant's suspension is the following. Some fifteen students were gathered in the home of one of them when the list was created by someone still unknown. They were delivered to the school soon after. After it was discovered by a faculty member the next day. Principal Ritchie announced to the school that the list was harmful and degrading. Since the photocopying was outside of school premises. They were not subject to school discipline. Principal Ritchie met with other students and compiled a list of fifteen students who were said to be present at the creation of 3 the list. A letter was sent to the fifteen.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="320"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0B402089CD8F6694882572B2007D7B0D/$file/0435131.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He argues that the district court erred when it determined that he was not entitled to a trial by jury of just compensation for his claims. I. BACKGROUND In 1986 Martinek was devised eleven unpatented goldmining claims comprising 191.07 acres within what is now Denali Park. The injunction was lifted in 1991 after the Park Service issued the EIS. Asserting that the effective date of taking was June 1. Alleging that the mining claims were subjected to a regulatory taking on June 1. The parties were to litigate when the taking occurred. 2000 Martinek and the government stipulated
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="320"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0C41EB999E94C39488256C3D0059B504/$file/9916247.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
West Communications (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="320"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1071.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Law Offices were on brief for appellant Borras. Nadal & Rivera were on brief for appellant Asociacion Hospital Del Maestro. Vincente with whom Vicente & Cuebas were on brief for appellee. P. 50(b) because the evidence at trial was legally insufficient to prove the prima facie elements of negligence. His wife and their conjugal partnership were also named as defendants. Was also found liable but is not a party to this appeal. 2 2 445 (1st Cir. 1989). Romero was suffering from back pain and searching for solutions. Romero was still not subjected to standard conservative treatment. Borras concluded that a second operation was necessary to remedy the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="317"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2001/004313.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The effect on the record of the District Court's addition to it after a notice of appeal is filed. Because we hold that we have jurisdiction over an appealable collateral oral order. That it was error to issue the gag order. It will be reversed. The order was to last until the Court received the motion and decided it. The article stated that the device
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="317"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2000/995021.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
N.R. was born on September 7. Was classified as preschool handicapped in 1994. N.R.'s parents rejected this proposal and informed the Board that they planned to have N.R. spend the next year at the Rainbow Rascals Learning Center (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="317"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2004/031438p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Injunctive relief and a declaration that they were entitled to a retroac tive reimbursement. The District Court denied all relief and dismissed the workers' complaint. 1 We conclude that the workers are entitled to an order: (1) declaring that Pennsylvania's waiver policy violated the Trade Act. Circuit Judge: The individual plaintiffs in this case are industrial workers who reside and worked in western Pennsylvania. Allowances and other benefits to workers who have lost their jobs as a result of competition from imports. Michele Aikens and John Whitcomb (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="317"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/54A7C3290D812FA088256C140059D875/$file/0115474.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argues that Bothell is an exempt
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="317"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2001/001823.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This evidence suggested that Appellee was a member of a terrorist organization. Was involved in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and had made threats against Attorney General Janet Reno. Were not 3 substantially justified. The EAJA provides that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="317"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1186.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs are former teachers of the Academy. Background The Academy is a K 8 charter school in Longmont. It is chartered by. Dorothy Marlatt was the principal of the Academy <hr> when Plaintiffs were employed there as teachers. Plaintiffs were employed as teachers pursuant to written contracts with the Academy. The Plaintiffs allege that they were told the Academy
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="317"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2004/031725p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Holding that the law
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="317"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B06D66ECFDD6901E88256E5A00707D03/$file/9935934.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: 14311 1) On slip opinion page 10812. As follows:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="317"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/11/964132P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. NationsMart was formed in 1992 with the goal of applying the low price. The Prospectus also cautioned that NationsMart's financial model reflected
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="317"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/95/12/952608P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were declared constitutional by the district court. We conclude that section 130.100 is unconstitutional and reverse the judgment of the district court. Will have an aggregate value in excess of the limits stated in section 1. They are not irreconcilably inconsistent.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="317"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043716p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At the center of this securities fraud action is Suprema Specialties. Those individuals have admitted that a number of Suprema's public statements regarding its finances and the nature of its business were untrue. The plaintiffs appellants here are two institutional investors. Several investment firms that served as underwriters in two public stock offerings through which plaintiffs claim to have acquired Suprema stock. Among the important issues presented on appeal is whether the District Court properly applied the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="317"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/447EE9A0AF42375988256E5A00707C4F/$file/9935934.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Background Christopher Duvall is completely deaf in his left ear and has a severe hearing impairment in his right ear. Duvall's primary mode of receiving communication is through the written word. He wears custom fitted hearing aids and is able to communicate effectively in one onone conversation in spoken English with the aid of visual cues and lip reading. To follow a conversation in which he is not a participant. He is unable to focus on a single speaker to study his facial expressions. Nor is he able to control the pace of the conversation. Is a computer aided transcription device that converts typing from the court reporter's stenographic machine into English language text displayed on a computer screen. 10792 In 1994 and 1995 Duvall was a party to a family law case in the superior court of Kitsap County. He states that he was initially able to participate meaningfully in several pre trial hearings because the hearings were short. There was no oral testimony. Department of Justice and was advised that he should request videotext display from the ADA Coordinator for Kitsap County.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="317"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8981CDC2903311A888256D8A007E23DC/$file/0256339.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Is there a private right of action to recover damages for violating regulations promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) pursuant to § 276 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that require interexchange carriers to compensate payphone service providers for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="317"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0291p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court held that: (1) even if the privately owned Complex were treated as if it The Honorab le Marianne O. No. 01 3434 were owned by the state. (2) the restrictions on UCC's access were reasonable. The Complex is owned by a private entity. ANALYSIS The district court declined to decide whether Gateway was a state actor. Holding that even if it were. There are three types of fora: (1) the traditional public forum. UCC argues that the Gateway Sidewalk is a traditional public forum. That the Commons are designated public fora. 1. Because the Supreme Court has explained that from
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="317"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0302p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court agreed with the ECAB that the District failed to provide Jason Hunt with a free appropriate public education (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="317"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1171.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1993 is corrected as follows: On page 24. Medeiros was on brief. Sachse & Endreson was on brief for Common Cause and Common Cause of R.I. With whom Licht & Semonoff was on brief. Cutler & Pickering were on brief. The entity charged with primary responsibility for implementing these laws is the Rhode Island Board of Elections. The reports are to include the name. The 4 Board of Elections is empowered to halt PACs from using names which are misleading or which do not accurately identify a committee's membership and contributor base. Does not apply in the same way to PACs sponsored by labor unions or those which are funded through payroll checkoff plans. 3 the state will match money raised from private 2From and after January 1. Candidates for certain other statewide offices are also eligible to receive public funding. We limit our discussion to gubernatorial candidates. 3The eligibility criteria are set forth in R.I. The election and pledge are irrevocable. Persons seeking state elective office must file formal declarations of candidacy in June of the year in which the election is to be held.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="317"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-4052.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
INTRODUCTION The current action is one of a number of pending judicial and administrative actions raising the question whether incumbent local exchange carriers (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="317"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3239_032.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The benefits of recognition are several. If an organization is officially recognized by the law school. The upside is even more benefits. Groups that register with the No. 05 3239 3 university also get university money (it is not clear how much) and access to meeting space at the SIU student center. CLS is a nationwide association of legal professionals and law students who share (broadly speaking) a common faith Christianity. Members are expected to subscribe to a statement of faith and agree to live by certain moral principles. Is that sexual activity outside of a traditional (one man. One woman) marriage is forbidden. It explained that while
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="317"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1025.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Wendy Faustin is an abortion protester. Denver points to what it asserts is its unwritten. The policy is broader and unconstitutionally bans all expression on all overpasses. Both sides originally filed motions for summary judgment below and argue summary judgment is the proper vehicle for deciding this case. This is the second appeal in this case. Before us now are Faustin's facial challenges to the city's policy as overly broad and vague. This factual dispute is not material and so will not preclude summary judgment. Even giving the policy the broadest interpretation the record will allow. Is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. As they were stated in our prior panel decision. The police officers were unable to cite a specific law proscribing Faustin's display. A Denver police officer did inform Faustin she could not display the banner because to do so was a violation of a Denver posting ordinance. Faustin was cited by Sergeant W.P. This charge was dismissed in open court when the Denver city prosecutor realized that.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="317"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200306/02-1129a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="317"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/733B21FA0EEF5EE788256AE20059A0F9/$file/9935934.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: 14311 1) On slip opinion page 10812. As follows:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="317"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/06/02-4174.htm">02-4174 -- UTAH ANIMAL RIGHTS COALITION V. SALT LAKE CITY CORP. -- 06/16/2004<BR></A><BR>
One of those groups was Appellant. Are Salt Lake City and certain officials who had the responsibility of determining when and where various groups would be permitted to demonstrate. The question is whether the slow pace of the permit process violated the First Amendment. <p> Almost a year before the Olympics
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="317"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200607/04-1413a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Martin William Bercovici were on brief. Will be segregated from licensees who operate Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR) systems. Pursuant to the plan's restrictions licensees required to move to parts of the band set aside for SMR use will be unable to use that spectrum to operate ESMR services. In addition MRA claims that the Commission was obligated to compensate it for its customer loss resulting from the migration. Arguing the Commission's orders are lawful. At that time technology did not allow for contiguous spectrum use by a single user so a large part of the 800 MHz band was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="317"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=05&date=01&year=04">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="317"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033027np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
She was not awarded any benefits. We affirm because the ALJ's findings were supported by substantial evidence.1 I. The Notice of Claim instructed Beltrami to notify OWCP within 30 days of 1 We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 921(c). We are not undertaking an explanation of the administrative apparatus which awards benefits to miners and survivors of miners. 2 2 receipt of the Notice of Claim whether Beltrami accepted liability as the responsible operator. The OWCP issued a Notice of Initial Finding (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="317"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/06/01-1121.htm">01-1121 -- CHANDLERS V. CITY OF ARVADA -- 06/11/2002<BR></A><BR>
John are Arvada residents and qualified Arvada electors. Is not qualified to vote in Arvada because he is not an Arvada resident. Is a resident of unincorporated Jefferson County. Colorado.<sup></sup> These Plaintiffs have participated in Arvada's petition process to curb the City's growth. They plan to promote ordinances which limit the City's development and to use nonresident circulators to secure the number of signatures necessary to place a measure on the ballot. <p> Arvada is a home rule municipality under Article XX. The affidavit shall affirmatively state that the circulator is a resident of the City of Arvada. Further the circulator shall provide evidence verifying such residency in a form which is acceptable to the city clerk.</li> <li> The circulator actually circulated the petition.</li> <li> Each signature on the petition was affixed in the circulator's presence.</li> <li> To the best of the circulator's knowledge and belief. Each person signing the petition was at the time of the signing a registered elector.</li> <li> The date the circulator signed the affidavit.</li> <li> The circulator has not and will not in the future pay directly or indirectly any money or other thing of value to any signer for the purpose of inducing or causing such a signer to affix a signature to the petition.</li> <li> To the best of the circulator's knowledge and belief.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="317"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200413575.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
They are not entitled to such immunity in this case because Weissman's complaint relates to private commercial conduct not mandated by the Act. Weissman's motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction was granted in part by prior order dated October 13. Over which we have jurisdiction. If Appellants' immunity claim is meritorious. They will necessarily be insulated from pre trial discovery. 2 1 * BACKGROUND Between December 2000 and June 2002. Weissman's complaint was initially dismissed for failure to allege diversity of citizenship. 2 emphasizing that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="317"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0452E7A0BAF1DA2D88256AA7007D2E20/$file/9935934.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Background Christopher Duvall is completely deaf in his left ear and has a severe hearing impairment in his right ear. Duvall's primary mode of receiving communication is through the written word. He wears custom fitted hearing aids and is able to communicate effectively in one onone conversation in spoken English with the aid of visual cues and lip reading. To follow a conversation in which he is not a participant. He is unable to focus on a single speaker to study his facial expressions. Nor is he able to control the pace of the conversation. Is a computer aided transcription device that converts typing from the court reporter's stenographic machine into English language text displayed on a computer screen. 10792 In 1994 and 1995 Duvall was a party to a family law case in the superior court of Kitsap County. He states that he was initially able to participate meaningfully in several pre trial hearings because the hearings were short. There was no oral testimony. Department of Justice and was advised that he should request videotext display from the ADA Coordinator for Kitsap County.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="317"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/03/00-2318.htm">00-2318 -- U.S. V. WHITE -- 03/27/2001<BR></A><BR>
Robert Emerson White was sentenced to six months in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons followed by a two year term of supervised release. Contending not one is reasonably related to protecting the public or achieving his rehabilitation. White selected the mode of delivery and was assured the seller was not involved in a sting operation. White was again discovered drinking alcohol. White to six months in custody followed by two years of supervised release with five special conditions.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="317"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/03/98-1003.htm">98-1003 -- HAWKINS V. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER -- 03/10/1999<BR></A><BR>
The Galleria is an open air. Which was formerly a public street. Is bounded on one side by two large theaters. Which have a combined seating capacity of approximately 9. When patrons are arriving or departing from DPAC events. Particularly when multiple events are scheduled. Such as a fire. <p> Although the DPAC's primary function is to showcase artistic performances. The record shows that at least one of these establishments opens only in conjunction with performances because it is not profitable in the absence of DPAC patron traffic. We will now recount the facts giving rise to this appeal. The Colorado Ballet was. Determined that the Galleria was not a public forum and that Denver's restrictions were reasonable. An examination of plaintiffs' complaint demonstrates that plaintiffs' claim is more appropriately characterized as an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-7061.html">LEDFORD V. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-7045.html">BARRERA V. GOBER<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-7009.html">ROBERSON V. PRINCIPI<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were <u>David M. Assistant Director.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-5430b.html">ERIC ELDRED, ET AL. V. JANET RENO<BR></A><BR>
With </P> <P>him on the briefs were Charles R. Jaffe was on the brief of amicus curiae Eagle </P> <P>Forum Education &. Were on the brief of amici </P> <P>curiae Laura N. With him on the brief were David W. </P> <P>Ogden. Schweitzer were on the brief of amici curiae The Sher </P> <P>wood Anderson Literary Estate Trust. 17 U.S.C. s 302(a). (2) </P> <P>For a work created in 1978 or later that is anonymous. Or is made for hire. The term is extended from </P> <P>75 to 95 years from the year of publication or from 100 to 120 </P> <P>years from the year of creation. For which the </P> <P>initial term of copyright was 28 years. The renewal term is </P> <P>extended from 47 to 67 years. (L 290) 9.</P> <BR WP=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-5430a.html">ERIC ELDRED, ET AL V. JANET RENO<BR></A><BR>
With </P> <P>him on the briefs were Charles R. Jaffe was on the brief of amicus curiae Eagle </P> <P>Forum Education &. Were on the brief of amici </P> <P>curiae Laura N. With him on the brief were David W. </P> <P>Ogden. Schweitzer were on the brief of amici curiae The Sher </P> <P>wood Anderson Literary Estate Trust. 17 U.S.C. s 302(a). (2) </P> <P>For a work created in 1978 or later that is anonymous. Or is made for hire. The term is extended from </P> <P>75 to 95 years from the year of publication or from 100 to 120 </P> <P>years from the year of creation. For which the </P> <P>initial term of copyright was 28 years. The renewal term is </P> <P>extended from 47 to 67 years. (L 290) 9.</P> <P> The CTEA is but the latest in a series of congressional </P> <P>extensions of the copyright term. </P> <P>term of a copyright is computed so as to conform with the </P> <P>Berne Convention and with international practice. Where there was no </P> <P>identifiable author. The </P> <P>CTEA amends this scheme by adding 20 years to the term of </P> <P>every copyright.</P> <P> The plaintiffs filed this suit against the Attorney General of </P> <P>the United States to obtain a declaration that the CTEA is </P> <P>unconstitutional.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5351a.html">NATL MINING ASSN V. URAM ROBERT C.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-1439a.html">PRESS BCAST CO V. FCC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june95/94-8638.opa.html">ETHREDGE V. HAIL<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Ethredge v. Because access to the base is highly restricted. As Robins Air Force Base (AFB) is a military installation. Bumper stickers or other similar paraphernalia which embarrass or disparage the Commander in Chief are inappropriate as they have a negative impact on the good order and discipline of the service members stationed at Robins AFB....<p> <p> 2. You are hereby ordered. You have 12 hours to accomplish this order. Failure to comply with this lawful order will result in administrative action.<p> <p> Instead of removing the stickers. The court held that the order was viewpoint neutral and reasonable. Former President Bush is no longer in office. It does not appear that Ethredge is being precluded from displaying his anti Bush stickers notwithstanding the order's inapplicability to them. The district court granted summary judgment for the appellee
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2000/99-13117.man.html">INT'L AIRCRAFT RECOVERY V. UNIDENTIFIED, WRECKED, AND ABANDONED AIRCRAFT (7/17/2000, NO. 99-13117)<BR></A><BR>
The plane flew
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june95/94-8638.opa.html">ETHREDGE V. HAIL<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Ethredge v. Because access to the base is highly restricted. As Robins Air Force Base (AFB) is a military installation. Bumper stickers or other similar paraphernalia which embarrass or disparage the Commander in Chief are inappropriate as they have a negative impact on the good order and discipline of the service members stationed at Robins AFB....<p> <p> 2. You are hereby ordered. You have 12 hours to accomplish this order. Failure to comply with this lawful order will result in administrative action.<p> <p> Instead of removing the stickers. The court held that the order was viewpoint neutral and reasonable. Former President Bush is no longer in office. It does not appear that Ethredge is being precluded from displaying his anti Bush stickers notwithstanding the order's inapplicability to them. The district court granted summary judgment for the appellee
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2000/99-13117.man.html">INT'L AIRCRAFT RECOVERY V. UNIDENTIFIED, WRECKED, AND ABANDONED AIRCRAFT (7/17/2000, NO. 99-13117)<BR></A><BR>
The plane flew
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug96/95-3131.opa.html">BIDDULPH V. MORTHAM<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Biddulph v. Introduction<p> <p> Appellant Dave Biddulph is a proponent of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/01-4176.htm">01-4176 -- AXSON-FLYNN V. JOHNSON -- 02/03/2004<BR></A><BR>
Who is Mormon. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants on both claims and found that they were also entitled to qualified immunity. Sandy Shotwell asked Axson Flynn if there was anything she would feel uncomfortable doing or saying as an actor. Although the record is unclear as to whether Axson Flynn explained at the time why she had those objections. The district court summarized her reasons as follows: <p> [H]er refusal to use the words
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/10/02-3410.htm">02-3410 -- CHAFFIN V. KANSAS STATE FAIR BOARD -- 10/28/2003<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/04/00-1271.htm">00-1271 -- ESSENCE INC. V. CITY OF FEDERAL HEIGHTS -- 04/08/2002<BR></A><BR>
Plaintiffs are Essence. Inc. because they were younger than twenty one at the time they sought employment. Federal Heights sought to regulate the location and operation of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/01/98-1375.htm">98-1375 -- MED SAFE NORTHWEST INC. V. KOCKOS -- 01/05/2001<BR></A><BR>
Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/06/97-1398.htm">97-1398 -- JACKSON V. CONTINENTAL CARGO, DENVER -- 06/24/1999<BR></A><BR>
Summary judgment is appropriate
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/10/96-4087.htm">96-4087 -- SNYDER V. MURRAY CITY CORP. -- 10/27/1998<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/05/97-3125.htm">97-3125 -- O'TOOLE V. OLATHE DISTRICT SCHOOLS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 233 -- 05/19/1998<BR></A><BR>
We affirm. <p align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-3284.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1158.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Terence P. Of counsel were Lane S. With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel was Ada E. GmbH (collectively
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FB8DEECEDDA7C5B7882573220075807A/$file/0550410.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: At slip op. page 8075. The mirror port was installed at PacBell's connection facility in San Diego. Circuit Judge: Defendants appellants Mark Stephen Forrester and Dennis Louis Alba were charged with various offenses relating to the operation of a large Ecstasy manufacturing laboratory. Were convicted on all counts following a jury trial. The omission and the misstatement compel us to hold that Forrester's waiver of his right to counsel was not knowing and intelligent and that the Sixth Amendment was violated when he was allowed to proceed pro se. We conclude that this surveillance was analogous to the use of a pen register that the Supreme Court held in Smith v. Alba is not entitled to the suppression of the evidence obtained through the surveillance because there is no statutory or other authority for such a remedy.1 I. Forrester and Alba were indicted on October 26. Forrester was charged with one count of conspiracy to manufacture and distribute 3. Alba was also charged with that Alba's remaining arguments are addressed in a concurrently filed memorandum disposition.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F136AD631730FA3288256F89005DC35F/$file/0235547.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: Insert footnote 9 to Section II slip op. at 15673. How harmless error review is to be conducted is therefore squarely presented. I believe I should address the issue so that future panels confronted with it will have an expression of each of our views on this question. I cannot agree with Judge Clifton's analysis because he relies on the ALJ's and the district court's findings that the placement made by the procedurally defective IEP team was. Harmless because it was the best placement for M.L. This approach rewards procedural non compliance and is at odds with the Supreme Court's holding that the IDEA seeks to achieve its substantive ends largely through procedural means: [T]he importance Congress attached to [the Act's] procedural safeguards cannot be gainsaid. . . . He appears to have jumped to the substantive second step to resolve the procedural first step. It is my view that loss of an educational opportunity cannot be determined by considering the merits of the placement identified in the IEP.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F0E09BB37A97D51A88257310004D1DAC/$file/0550410.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Defendants appellants Mark Stephen Forrester and Dennis Louis Alba were charged with various offenses relating to the operation of a large Ecstasy manufacturing laboratory. Were convicted on all counts following a jury trial. The omission and the misstatement compel us to hold that Forrester's waiver of his right to counsel was not knowing and intelligent and that the Sixth Amendment was violated when he was allowed to proceed pro se. We conclude that this surveillance was analogous to the use of a pen register that the Supreme Court held in Smith v. Alba is not entitled to the suppression of the evidence 8074 UNITED STATES v. FORRESTER obtained through the surveillance because there is no statutory or other authority for such a remedy.1 I. Forrester and Alba were indicted on October 26. Forrester was charged with one count of conspiracy to manufacture and distribute 3. Alba was also charged with that offense. Forrester is represented by counsel on appeal. He also had legal representation from the time his indictment was filed until October 23.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EA5AD717FB38DA5888256C3600527E73/$file/0135261.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are called upon to decide two central issues.1 First. Which have little merit and are briefly addressed later. 1 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION v. HENRY BOSMA DAIRY 14005 the discharges were of a type which would not be allowed even with a NPDES permit. It is unlawful to discharge any pollutant into the United State's waters except those discharges made in compliance with the CWA. The dairies are adjacent to one another and consist of four large parcels of property.2 The dairies stable or confine approximately 2500 and 3000 dairy cattle. The dairies are supposed to be set up so that waste produced by the dairies is contained and stored in a lagoon. The dairies' total waste capacity is 3 months at 4. One hundred fifty acres are used for wastewater field application. CAFOs are animal feeding operations where animals are stabled or confined for a total of 45 days or more in any 12 month period in an area where neither crops. Vegetation or crop residue is sustained. 40 C.F.R. § 122.23(a)(3). Bosma is subject to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E25209903C0AB77E88256F43005CD04A/$file/0235547.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This critical structural defect in the constitution of the IEP team precludes us from considering whether the IEP developed without the inclusion of at least one regular education teacher was reasonably calculated to enable M.L. to receive a free and appropriate public education (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A7FC5F0B39BF868A88256FCB007B1F15/$file/0356129.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This escrow order directed to Gemstar was predicated upon the district court's conclusion under the statute that these payments. Which were to be made during the course of a lawful investigation by the SEC of Gemstar involving possible violations of federal securities laws. Were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9EE48B25DAA0402A88257116000ACBF6/$file/0455036.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on the briefs. 1674 SOSA v. The central question before us is whether DIRECTV is immune from liability under RICO. The signals broadcast from the satellites are electronically scrambled. DIRECTV obtained no information on the uses to which these individuals were putting this equipment. Nor does its satellite technology permit it to determine whether any particular individual is receiving its signal. DIRECTV is prepared to release its claims in return for your agreement to: (1) surrender all illegally modified Access Cards or other satellite signal theft devices in your possession. (2) execute a written statement to the effect that you will not purchase or use illegal signal theft devices to obtain satellite programming in the future. Nor will you have any involvement in the unauthorized reception and use of DIRECTV's satellite television programming. Please be advised that DIRECTV will 1676 SOSA v. Copies of the letters received by the named plaintiffs were lodged with the district court prior to the hearing on DIRECTV's motion to dismiss.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/626A5E633B8887E388256E5C006D2DEC/$file/0255418.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Richard Ceballos filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 contending that he was subjected to adverse employ 3448 CEBALLOS v. Qualified immunity was not available to the individual defendants because the law was clearly established that Ceballos's speech addressed a matter of public concern and that his interest in the speech outweighed the public employer's interest in avoiding inefficiency and disruption. Is entitled to such immunity depends on whether he was performing a state or a county function when he took the alleged actions with respect to Ceballos. We hold that in most respects he was acting in the latter capacity. He is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Neither is the County. In 1997 or 1998 he was assigned to the District Attorney's CEBALLOS v. GARCETTI 3449 Office's Pomona Branch and about a year later was promoted to calendar deputy. Told Ceballos that he believed that one of the arresting deputy sheriffs may have lied in a search warrant affidavit. Ceballos was supervising the deputy district attorney assigned to the case.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/417DF987C40DCF6888256B810000BC8A/$file/9935088.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Vacate the district court's determination that the lottery itself is illegal under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). We conclude that AT&T was not the proper party to challenge the legality of the lottery. An off Reservation winner receives a credit to his or her account that is redeemable in person or through the mail. This aspect of the Lottery is subject to litigation in the Eighth Circuit and the Missouri state courts. The Eighth Circuit has remanded to the district court to determine whether the Lottery is a gaming activity on Indian lands subject to IGRA. The parties have returned to the Missouri state court. From which the case was originally removed. 2 The only relevant compact provision states:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2E1F799C53A4857688256F97005A7959/$file/0316100.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Summary judgment in favor of Philip Morris was granted. B. District Court Proceedings This action was timely and properly removed from state to federal court under diversity jurisdiction. On grounds that (1) the strict product liability claim was preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965. (2) the fraudulent concealment claim was preempted by the same federal statute. Evidence was lacking that the decedent would have acted differently if Philip Morris had disclosed material information concerning the health effects of smoking. (3) the fraud claim was not preempted under federal law but evidence was absent that the decedent saw. (4) the conspiracy claim necessarily failed because it was a derivative of other underlying claims. A grant of summary judgment is appropriate only where the moving party has demonstrated that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Material facts are those which might affect the outcome of the suit. An issue is genuine if a reasonable trier of fact could find in favor of the nonmoving party.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2BB969A64BA53CBD88256BF900583F6E/$file/9935088.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On page 4421 of the slip opinion. Delete the sentence beginning
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/09/973608P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Aaron Westendorp is a severely disabled child who requires a full time paraprofessional to function in a school classroom. I. Aaron is a twelve year old boy who lives in Edina. The cost of a paraprofessional is approximately $10. Is the same whether Aaron attends a public school or a private school. Aaron was able to attend the school from 1991 until 1994. The Westendorps were forced to transfer Aaron to a public school in Edina. Or any other location off the nonpublic school premises which is neither physically nor educationally identified with the functions of the nonpublic school
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/04/961419P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Black Hills Institute of Geological Research (the Institute). success story and The was Institute's the activities of the focused a on the collection. Among the fossils seized were crinoid fossils.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/07/952790P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
As he was required to do under 29 U.S.C. § 626(d)(2) (1994). questionnaire was by law a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/02/951803P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Dinwiddie from further violating FACE and from engaging in a number of other activities whenever she is within 500 feet of a facility that provides reproductive health services. We affirm the District Court's holding that FACE is constitutional and that Mrs. I. Regina Rene Dinwiddie is an opponent of abortion who. A clinic where abortions are performed. Intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been. A physician who is the Medical Director of Planned Parenthood. Gunn [a physician who was killed in 1993 by an opponent of abortion] . . .. He is not in the world anymore . . .. Includes the building or structure in which the facility is located. (2) Interfere with. You have not seen violence yet until you see what we do to you.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-3318_049.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Facts Tamms is the highest security prison in Illinois. All Tamms prisoners are exposed to hardships that are not experienced in segregated confine No. 03 3318 3 1 ment at any other maximum security facility in Illinois. The plaintiffs are organized into two categories. Some of whom are also litigation plaintiffs. Are associated with prison gangs (in IDOC terminology. It appears that several have been released from IDOC's custody or no longer are at Tamms. To the extent that the appellants no longer are in custody or are incarcerated at Tamms. Only three counts of which are now before this court. The district court held that the litigation plaintiffs met the threshold requirements of § 1915A because retaliation for exercising one's right to access to the courts is a cognizable constitutional claim. A more detailed rendition of the district court's rationale is set forth in our discussion of each claim on appeal. The gang plaintiffs challenge IDOC's regulations that allow officials to transfer prisoners who are gang 3 At oral argument.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/02a0170p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bollinger Page 3 appeal the district court's determination that the Law School's consideration of race and ethnicity in its admissions decisions violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.1 The Law School contends that its interest in achieving a diverse student body is compelling under Regents of the University of California v. That its admissions policy is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The Law School is joined by the Intervenors: forty one individuals and three student groups. The policy states that the Law School's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0041p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
File Name: 00a0041p.06 plaintiff does not even allege that in the case at hand the avenues for prompt judicial review were somehow inadequate. Access to the federal courts in this case was immediate. A decision was rendered promptly (the ordinance was enacted on August 11. Is satisfied on these facts because. The broad language of FW/PBS holds only that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034832np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will not restate the facts below. The effect of the preliminary injunction is to allow the plaintiffs to operate The Montauck Theater while they challenge the denial of their application for an 2 entertainment license. The entertainment license was denied because the theater refused to employ an off duty police officer as part of the security team. I. Orders granting or denying a preliminary injunction are reviewed for abuse of discretion. The appropriate constitutional standard is a question of law. Is therefore subject to plenary review. The statute of limitations for any Section 1983 claim is determined by referring to the state statute governing actions for personal injuries. The action was therefore timely under the applicable two year Jersey statute of limitations. This case is legally distinct because it was filed under Section 1983 and specifically asserts violations of the federal Constitution. Although the District Court will address the matter in due course. Therefore the resolution is properly viewed as a regulation directed against the secondary effects of speech.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200612308.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Dismissed counts one through eight of the counterclaim on the basis that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction to entertain them. Ryals argues that summary judgment was improvidently granted because the applicable statute of limitations had expired prior to the Government's suit. Ryals had not shown he had overpaid any tax and was not entitled to exemption from levy. Ryals was liable for deficiencies in income tax and statutory additions for the 1977 and 1978 tax years. Notices of the assessment and demand for payment were issued to Mr. Statutory additions and interest assessed was $526. The first offer in compromise was presented on August 18. The offer in compromise was presented on a form that provided that the statute of limitations on an assessment would be suspended during the period that the offer was pending and for one year thereafter. The offer was finally rejected on January 25. The second offer was finally rejected on March 12. Each offer in compromise was submitted to the IRS on Form 656.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19948638.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because access to the base is highly restricted. As Robins Air Force Base (AFB) is a military installation. Bumper stickers or other similar paraphernalia which embarrass or disparage the Commander in Chief are inappropriate as they have a negative impact on the good order and discipline of the service members stationed at Robins AFB.... 2. You are hereby ordered. You have 12 hours to accomplish this order. Failure to comply with this lawful order will result in administrative action. The court held that the order was and reasonable. Former President Bush is no longer in office. It does not appear that Ethredge is being precluded from displaying his anti Bush stickers notwithstanding the order's inapplicability to them. CONTENTIONS Ethredge contends that the administrative order barring signs that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2240.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Were on brief. The first investor suit was filed. Computervision and the IPO underwriters were sued under Sections 11 and 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1582.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Silva IV were on brief for appellants. This is an appeal by KEETON. As the matter was presented by Defendants Appellants. That predecessors of Defendants Appellants in positions of authority in the institution and the state correctional system had violated and were continuing to violate constitutionally protected rights of the inmates by intercepting and monitoring their telephone calls. We will refer to Plaintiffs Appellees as plaintiffs or by name. One was the Judgment of Dismissal. All of the claims by both plaintiffs in this action are dismissed with prejudice and without costs or attorney's fees to any party. The other was a Permanent Injunction in view of the Settlement Stipulation: 1. Employees and attorneys of the Department of Correction are enjoined permanently. As they have been amended or may be amended and as they have been construed in reported decisions that are binding in this Court or in the state courts of Massachusetts. 2. Were required to be pre approved. Plaintiffs refused to sign the consent forms and were denied telephone access.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1477.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
H. Smith with whom Quinlan & Smith was on brief for appellant. P.C. were on brief for Children's Aid and Family Service of Hampshire County. Sanborn & Williams was on brief for Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and Stephanie Flinker. P.C. was on brief for Denise Gelinas. Richardson and Gelinas were on brief for Edward N. This is an appeal from a grant of summary judgment on immunity grounds for defendants in a civil rights suit. Standard of Review Standard of Review Our review of a grant of summary judgment is plenary. A summary judgment motion will only be granted when
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1549.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
S against the\ State is a harmless oversimplification. Is also a plaintiff and Jeffrey J. Is also a defendant. Because\ their presence is essentially superfluous. S and the State were the only parties.</p>\ </span>' var WPFootnote3 = '<span class=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2721.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Were on brief. All public elementary schools are run by the Commonwealth's Department of Education. 2002 is described below.</P> <P> On August 14. He was twelve years old at the time and did not know how to read.</P> <P> In the summer before Joshua started second grade. Requested a certified sign language interpreter to assist Joshua in the classroom.<STRONG> </STRONG>Joshua's mother is a special education teacher. The administrative judge found that Joshua's need for a certified sign language interpreter was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2385.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellees.</FONT></P> <BR WP=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2322.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Walsh LLP</U> were on brief. P.C.</U> was on brief. The court ruled that the arbitrator's award was unenforceable because it violates
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1999/981762.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an appeal of the District Court's dismissal under Fed. These rulings are now challenged on cross appeal. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court on all issues. The cases were consolidated in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under 28 U.S.C. 000 individual plaintiffs claim to have suffered physical injuries caused by defective orthopedic bone screw devices affixed to the pedicles of their spines during spinal fusion surgery. Which are intended to stabilize the spine and achieve fusion of the vertebrae. Consist of rods or plates that are screwed into the vertical axis of the lumbar spine. Plaintiffs have undergone surgery to have the devices removed. There are two types of omni actions. 7 The Plaintiffs' Legal Committee (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1999/981424.TXT">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. was ordered to pay $60. The key issues raised in this case are whether General Instrument Corporation had standing to bring a suit under the Cable Act (Nu Tek's appeal) and whether statutory civil damages under the Act are limited to $60. The scope of the injunction and the calculation of the amount of attorney's fees are also at issue. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court on all issues. 2 I. The converted boxes were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1996/96a1456p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The government alleged that Stelmokas was born in Moscow. From August 1939 until July 1940 Stelmokas was an officer in the Lithuanian army. The government contended that Stelmokas was a voluntary member and officer of the Schutzmannschaft and advocated. The complaint further alleged that in July 1949 Stelmokas sought a determination from the United States Displaced Persons Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2000/993034.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At issue on this appeal is the requirement under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Inc. in 1997 under the belief that he was entitled to the severance benefits established in 1988 by J.C. Penney under ERISA claiming that the cancellation was void for lack of effective notice of that material change in the program. He also contends that he is entitled to the benefits under an equitable estoppel theory. The following facts are not in dispute. These employee concerns emanated from the company's announced relocation of its home office from New York to Texas and from the vigorous acquisition 2 activity that was occurring at that time in the retail merchandise industry. The program addressed these concerns by providing a lump sum severance payment if an eligible employee was terminated within two years of a change of control.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="294"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200601/05-5032a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Brian B. On the brief were David C. TWS seeks judicial redress to compel the agency to take actions that allegedly have been unlawfully withheld and unreasonably delayed. At issue here are TWS' claims that NPS has failed to comply with certain statutory mandates and deadlines and also failed to adhere to certain management policies. Because they are predicated on unenforceable agency statements of policy. The facts surrounding TWS' allegations are discussed at length in the District Court's Memorandum Opinion. So we will not repeat the full statement of facts here. TWS' suit is based upon § 706(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IM |
