Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to
consider using additional terms to narrow it.
 |
OPINION/ORDER
It is an authority constrained by no less a power than that of the People themselves. The constitution is written.
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
They saw that the car's windshield had been shattered and there was an imprint where a person's head had struck the windshield. The Crystal Police Department did not have a canine unit. Which he thought could have been used as a burglary tool or weapon. Which Baker believed could have been the fruits of a burglary. Baker testified that because officers did not know whether they were looking for a criminal suspect or an innocent injured person.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We conclude that the only appropriate remedy is to enjoin enforcement of the Act and we now affirm the district court's grant of a permanent injunction. Background Post First Trimester Abortion Methods The vast majority of abortions in the United States are performed during the first trimester.1 Approximately ten percent The first trimester lasts until the thirteenth or fourteenth week of pregnancy. GONZALES of abortions are performed during the second trimester. Only about one percent are performed after the twentieth week from the woman's last menstrual period (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Which requires that a minor who decides to have an abortion inform one of her parents twenty four 2 hours prior to performance of the procedure. Only hours before this law was to become effective. Is facially constitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. A contrary holding that the People of Virginia are forbidden by the Constitution of the United States from requiring that the responsible mother and father of a pregnant teenage daughter even be told of the life defining decision their own daughter confronts we are convinced. Of will. The Act was to become effective at 12:01 Tuesday morning. The Act is a parental notice statute. Notice of the anticipated abortion is provided to one of the minor's parents. In circumstances in which either an abortion is immediately necessary to prevent the 3 mother's death or there is insufficient time to permit notification without exposing the minor to serious health risk. Authorization of an abortion without parental notification for a minor who shows that she is mature and capable of giving informed consent.
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
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
|
|
WILLIAMS V. DENVER
We are once again called upon to address the tragic aftermath of a high speed collision caused by a police vehicle. We view the record in the light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment is granted. Officer Farr was responding to a request by another officer to back up the arrest of a car thief. The requesting officer did not ask for an emergency response nor indicate that he was in danger. Which was proceeding into the intersection on the green light at no more than 20 miles per hour. The executive director of the Denver Civil Service Commission strongly recommended that Officer Farr not be hired because of his driving record and felt that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
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
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Concluding that Wessel's claim was barred by the State's sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. Wessel was committed to the custody of the Maryland Division of Corrections. All inmates are awarded a certain number of good conduct credits at the outset of their sentences. Completing a
|
|
SIEGEL V. LEPORE (12/6/2000, NO. 00-15981)
Circuit Judges.
|
|
SIEGEL V. LEPORE (12/6/2000, NO. 00-15981)
Circuit Judges.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
BACKGROUND Ruiz was arrested for importing marijuana from Mexico into the United States. Ruiz's sentencing range was 18 24 months. The range would have been 12 18 months. DISCUSSION Ruiz argues that the Government's refusal to recommend a two level
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
BACKGROUND Ruiz was arrested for importing marijuana from Mexico into the United States. Ruiz's sentencing range was 18 24 months. The range would have been 12 18 months. DISCUSSION Ruiz argues that the Government's refusal to recommend a two level
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The jury was instructed to determine whether the murder with which Valerio was charged
|
|
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
OPINION PER CURIAM: This case was argued before the en banc Court on February 27. (2) holding that the establishment of a magnet schools program was an ultra vires. King and Gregory in the affirmative) attorneys' fees for work done on the unitary status issue are denied. Nominal damages and attorneys' fees in that regard are denied. The injunction is vacated. The imposition of sanctions is affirmed. The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed on the finding of unitary status and the imposition of sanctions. The judgment of the district court vacating and dissolving all prior injunctive orders and decrees is affirmed. The Board is to operate the school system without the strictures of these decrees no later than the 2002 2003 school year. Circuit Judge: This case is hopefully the final chapter in the saga of federal court control over the Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. BACKGROUND Hamilton is incarcerated at the maximum security Potosi The facility provides crossCorrectional Center (Potosi).1 denominational religious facilities inside prison buildings. American Indian inmates at Potosi are allowed to pray. American Indians are also allowed to carry medicine bags containing ceremonial items and have access to a ceremonial pipe and kinnikinnik (a ceremonial
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Defendants had fair notice that New York Penal Law §240.30(1) was unconstitutional when they arrested plaintiff under its dictates on April 6. Based on his contention that his First and Fourth Amendment rights were violated when he was arrested for aggravated harassment pursuant to New York Penal Law § 240.30(1)2 (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Defendants had fair notice that New York Penal Law §240.30(1) was unconstitutional when they arrested plaintiff under its dictates on April 6. Based on his contention that his First and Fourth Amendment rights were violated when he was arrested for aggravated harassment pursuant to New York Penal Law § 240.30(1)2 (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Defendants had fair notice that New York Penal Law §240.30(1) was unconstitutional when they arrested plaintiff under its dictates on April 6. Based on his contention that his First and Fourth Amendment rights were violated when he was arrested for aggravated harassment pursuant to New York Penal Law § 240.30(1)2 (
|
|
COALITION FOR THE ABOLITION OF MARIJUANA PROHIBITION V. CITY OF ATLANTA (7/27/2000, NO. 99-11385)
The appellants appeal the district court's determination that portions of the festival ordinance were constitutional. We AFFIRM the holding of the district court.
|
|
COALITION FOR THE ABOLITION OF MARIJUANA PROHIBITION V. CITY OF ATLANTA (7/27/2000, NO. 99-11385)
The appellants appeal the district court's determination that portions of the festival ordinance were constitutional. We AFFIRM the holding of the district court.
|
|
COALITION FOR THE ABOLITION OF MARIJUANA PROHIBITION V. CITY OF ATLANTA (7/27/2000, NO. 99-11385)
The appellants appeal the district court's determination that portions of the festival ordinance were constitutional. We AFFIRM the holding of the district court.
|
|
COALITION FOR THE ABOLITION OF MARIJUANA PROHIBITION V. CITY OF ATLANTA (7/27/2000, NO. 99-11385)
The appellants appeal the district court's determination that portions of the festival ordinance were constitutional. We AFFIRM the holding of the district court.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
2006 * This case was originally argued on October 25. The coram was reconstituted to include Chief Judge Scirica after the death of Judge Rosenn. An opinion by a majority of the original panel was filed. The bike was owned by Juan Navarro but had been commandeered by his sister. She was holding it. Navarro said:
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
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
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
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
|
 |
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
STEWART 12713 I It is the raw material from which legal fiction is forged: A vicious murder.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Plaintiff's conviction was vacated in 2000 after DNA tests established that the sole physical evidence linking Plaintiff to either of the crime scenes several hairs could not have come from Plaintiff. All charges against Plaintiff were dismissed on August 25. Was awakened by an unknown. Page 3 determined was Vaseline. Police were called to the area. Told Plaintiff that they were investigating an incident unrelated to Mrs. Were allowed to search Plaintiff's apartment. V had seen Plaintiff at the apartment complex and was now sure that he was her assailant. Clark was presumably referring to Mrs. Noted that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Line 11 delete the second
|
|
RICHARDSON V. RENO (12/22/1998, NO. 98-4230)
Although the Ninth Circuit's order granting the rehearing en banc was dated December 2. CONCLUSION 976 This appeal arises from a district court's order granting a writ of habeas corpus to a thirty year permanent resident alien petitioner with a cocaine trafficking conviction who was detained as he attempted to enter the United States after a two day trip to Haiti. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Appellee petitioner Ralph Richardson (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
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
|
|
RICHARDSON V. RENO (12/22/1998, NO. 98-4230)
Although the Ninth Circuit's order granting the rehearing en banc was dated December 2. CONCLUSION 976 This appeal arises from a district court's order granting a writ of habeas corpus to a thirty year permanent resident alien petitioner with a cocaine trafficking conviction who was detained as he attempted to enter the United States after a two day trip to Haiti. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Appellee petitioner Ralph Richardson (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The caseworkers removed eleven year old John Doe Jr. from his fourth grade classroom and interviewed him about corporal punishment that he and other students may have received and certain family matters. Arguing that they were entitled to qualified immunity from the plaintiffs' suit. Although we conclude that some of the actions taken by the defendants during the course of the Bureau's investigation were unconstitutional. Agree with the district court that the caseworkers are entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiffs' suit. The district court's decision is. If the report is screened in. An intake supervisor will assign it an urgency level to determine how quickly an investigation must be initiated. After the file is received by a field office. Who is then required to contact the reporter(s) (of child abuse). If the alleged maltreater is a parent. It was given a 24 hour urgency designation and assigned to John Wichman. That they had advised her 2 When a child is enrolled at Greendale. Parents are given a copy of the school's
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
000 was entered against only one of the defendants Jill Mullineaux. Mullineaux contends that she was entitled to qualified immunity. We conclude that Mullineaux was not entitled to qualified immunity. We find that the award of damages was excessive. Knussman learned that his wife Kimberly was pregnant. Kim's pregnancy was difficult and ultimately resulted in her confinement to bed rest in the latter stages prior to delivery. Knussman was informed by the MSP Director of Flight Operations. That there was
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief. Was on brief. At issue is whether the creation of a private cause of action against a state for money damages under the personal medical leave provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act. Our holding is narrow: the present legislative record does not demonstrate that the personal medical leave provision of the FMLA is an appropriate response necessary to remedy or prevent unconstitutional gender discrimination practiced by the states as employers.
|
|
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
As follows: On page 3 the list of amici curiae is corrected to read
|
|
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.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
All of which are connected to his support of Hizballah. The appeal was argued before a three judge panel. I. Facts The facts underlying Hammoud's convictions and sentence are largely undisputed. A. Hizballah Hizballah is an organization founded by Lebanese Shi'a Muslims in response to the 1982 invasion of Lebanon by Israel. It is also a strong opponent of Western presence in the Middle East. Hizballah is particularly opposed to the existence of Israel and to the activities of the American government in the Middle East. Hizballah's general secretary is Hassan Nasserallah. Its spiritual leader is Sheikh Fadlallah. While the asylum application was pending. Where his brothers and cousins were living. While the North Carolina tax is only 50¢. It is estimated that the conspiracy involved a quantity of cigarettes valued at roughly $7.5 million and that the state of Michigan was deprived of $3 million in tax revenues. These services were often conducted at Hammoud's home. Hammoud who is acquainted with both Nasserallah and Fadlallah.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
In violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.1 Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the displays were unconstitutional. Shortly after the complaint was filed. Some of which were excerpted. Defendants responded to Plaintiffs' motion by arguing that the new displays were not similar to the previous displays. Contended that the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
That Ohio's first attempt to restrict partial birth abortions violated the Fourteenth Amendment because it imposed an
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
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
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Plaintiffs claim their constitutional rights were violated when they were subjected at the Jail to
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Holding that Robinson was entitled to qualified immunity on claims for wrongful arrest and that Leonard could not make out a prima facie case on his claim for First Amendment retaliation in violation of his civil rights. The district court's application of state law to Leonard's conduct overlooked the First Amendment and its evaluation of Leonard's retaliation claim ignored evidence indicating that Robinson did have an improper motive. We hold that 1) no reasonable officer would have found probable cause to arrest Leonard solely for uttering
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY Maryland Declaration of Rights.2 The five officers have appealed the judgment of the district court. The plaintiffs have cross appealed certain pre verdict rulings and the attorneys' fee award made to them. Was murdered as he sat in his police cruiser. Their case was removed to the District of Maryland. Or by the Law of the land. 3 The fourteen plaintiffs are David Randall. The officers sued by Francine Williams were awarded summary judgment. She is not a party to either of these appeals. 2 RANDALL v. Before the case was submitted to the jury. Twenty of the twenty seven defendants were dismissed. The verdict against the Supervisors was based on the indirect liability concepts of
|
|
00-1385 -- PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS SERVICES CORPORATION V. OWENS -- 04/17/2002
Circuit Judge.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. The Question Presented This is a direct criminal appeal by a convicted Tennessee state judge. Section 242 was adopted as a codification of prior law in 1874 during the period of Reconstruction in the aftermath of the Civil War. It criminalizes without any further definition the willful
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Which was authored by Judge Berzon. 16751 D.C. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I. BACKGROUND Hibbs was an employee of the Nevada Department of Human Resources. His request was approved for the full 480 16756 hours (12 weeks) of leave under the FMLA.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Which was authored by Judge Berzon. 16751 D.C. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I. BACKGROUND Hibbs was an employee of the Nevada Department of Human Resources. His request was approved for the full 480 16756 hours (12 weeks) of leave under the FMLA.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This is the question that prompted us to go en banc in Gilbertson v. Both opinions have been vacated. Was a land surveyor whose Oregon license to survey was revoked and not reinstated by the State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying (the Board). We conclude that Younger principles apply to actions at law as well as for injunctive or declaratory relief because a determination that the federal plaintiff's constitutional rights have been violated would have the same practical effect as a 1 Younger v. Federal courts should not dismiss actions where damages are at issue. Damages actions should be stayed until the state proceedings are completed. That direct interference is a threshold requirement. Indicate that Younger principles apply here because the state proceeding was pending at the time Gilbertson filed his federal action. It was in the nature of a judicial proceeding that implicates important state interests. The district court should have deferred to the Oregon proceeding unless that proceeding was conducted in bad faith or some other exception to Younger exists.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Nanda was employed as an assistant professor in the Department of Microbiology at the University's Chicago campus. Nanda's efforts to reverse the decision through the University's grievance process were unsuccessful. The individual defendants and the University moved to dismiss Count II on the ground that the named administrators were not
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Nanda was employed as an assistant professor in the Department of Microbiology at the University's Chicago campus. Nanda's efforts to reverse the decision through the University's grievance process were unsuccessful. The individual defendants and the University moved to dismiss Count II on the ground that the named administrators were not
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The purpose of the Act was to prohibit the practice colloquially referred to as partial birth abortion. A perinate is defined by the Act as
|
|
THOMAS V. ROBERTS (8/15/2001, NO. 00-11361)
Alleging that they were subject to unconstitutional strip searches. The district court found that the strip searches
|
|
THOMAS V. ROBERTS (8/15/2001, NO. 00-11361)
Alleging that they were subject to unconstitutional strip searches. The district court found that the strip searches
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Presiding *Lawrence Wasden is substituted for his predecessor. We conclude that the statute's definition of
|
|
ADLER V. DUVAL COUNTY SCH. BD. (5/11/1999, NO. 98-2709)
Challenge the Duval County school system's policy of permitting graduating students to vote on whether to have unrestricted student led messages at the beginning and closing of graduation ceremonies as facially and as applied violative of the Establishment Clause.
|
|
ADLER V. DUVAL COUNTY SCH. BD. (5/11/1999, NO. 98-2709)
Challenge the Duval County school system's policy of permitting graduating students to vote on whether to have unrestricted student led messages at the beginning and closing of graduation ceremonies as facially and as applied violative of the Establishment Clause.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was on the briefs. Was on the briefs. 14500 VANCE v. Circuit Judge: We are asked to decide constitutional challenges to the administration of inmate trust accounts by state prison authorities. Nevada Department of Prisons (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Shamaeizadeh was indicted for federal drug violations. The charges were dismissed after the district court suppressed the evidence seized from the basement of the residence. Shamaeizadeh argues that he is entitled to damages for the following reasons: (1) the second and third warrantless searches were unconstitutional. (2) there was no probable cause for either Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington. (6) he was maliciously prosecuted. Officer Mark Wiles (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Tanner applied for and was denied a sign permit because Tanner sought to construct signs that did not comply with section 1 43 of the Sign Ordinance. The district court denied injunctive relief on the ground that section 1 43 was constitutional and Tanner lacked standing to challenge the other provisions of the 1998 Sign Ordinance. Because all but one of the challenges by Tanner were rendered moot by the 2005 Sign Ordinance and Tanner lacks standing to challenge the remaining provision. Business or solicitation which is not carried out on the premises upon which the sign is located.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Bush is substituted for his predecessor. Is ordered amended. The Clerk is instructed to file the amended opinion with Judge Fernandez's amended concurrence/dissent. The Clerk is also instructed not to accept for filing any new petitions for rehearing and petitions for rehearing en banc in this case. The petitions for rehearing are DENIED and the petitions for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Concurring in the order: My views as to the merits of this issue are set forth in the amended majority opinion authored by Judge Goodwin. I disagree with the notion that the importance of an issue is a sufficient reason to take a case en banc. The rule begins by stating that a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The plaintiffs are African American and Caucasian voters residing in Hamilton. (2) the use of error prone voting equipment deprives voters of their due process right to have their votes counted accurately. Some commentators have suggested that these types of voting rights challenges are taking us into a brave new world. Others suggest that they are simply variations of old challenges. Code § 3506.15.1 The Secretary has certified two general types of equipment: (1)
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The majority opinion which follows was in final form before the Supreme Court of the United States heard argument in the appeal of Carhart v. Because nothing in that opinion is at odds with this Court's opinion. The District Court found the Act unconstitutional because it: (1) is void for vagueness. We will affirm. Joined what is now a majority of states in enacting a law banning
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
O R D E R: The Court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor of it (Rule 35. Rehearing en banc is DENIED. /s/ J. This Court has left intact our circuit law on Booker plain error as it is laid out by our panel decision in this case. Which was followed in Duncan and Curtis. Establishes that the use of extra verdict enhancements under the pre Booker mandatory guidelines scheme is Sixth Amendment error that is plain. Shelton adds to our circuit law the rule that while pre Booker sentencing free of any extra verdict enhancement is not a violation of the Sixth Amendment. It is statutory error under the remedial part of the Booker decision. The upshot of our four decisions is that the first two prongs of the four prong plain error test are met in all pre Booker sentencing cases.1 To that In United States v. (2) that is plain.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief and at the outset moved for summary judgment on the ground that the statute is plainly unconstitutional. We hold that the district court was in error as to its standing. Ripeness and mootness rulings and that the criminal libel statute is unconstitutional as applicable to statements regarding public officials and public figures.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We reverse this decision and uphold the constitutionality of Regulation 61 12 because (1) the Regulation serves a valid state interest and is little more than a codification of national medical and abortion association recommendations designed to ensure the health and appropriate care of women seeking abortions. Are even yet modest and have not been shown to burden the ability of a woman to make the decision to have an abortion. (4) abortion clinics may rationally be regulated as a class while other clinics or medical practices are not. South Carolina regulated clinics at which secondtrimester abortions were performed. The South Carolina legislature amended its statute to require any
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
An opinion in this case was filed on May 8. The motion for rehearing by the panel is granted. This amended and substituted opinion is filed. Was tracked to a grassy field by two police officers and a police dog. Kuha could not show that the violation was caused by inadequate training or a custom. The state claims were dismissed under Minnesota's immunity doctrine. We hold that Kuha's allegation that the police officers failed to give a verbal warning prior to using a police dog trained to bite and hold is sufficient to state a Fourth Amendment claim. We also disagree with the district court's conclusion that the City is not liable under § 1983 as a matter of law. That the individual officers are shielded from suit by qualified immunity. That the state claims were properly dismissed against all defendants. Who was driving in the opposite direction. Beyond the swamp was a hilly area with high grass and dense brush and foliage. Beyond that were apartment and office buildings. They were accompanied by Officer Anderson's K 9 partner.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
In 1992 he was traveling on the New Jersey Turnpike when he was unlawfully stopped. Gibson alleges that the stop and search were part of a pattern of racially discriminatory law enforcement practices undertaken by the New Jersey State Police. Gibson was released from prison after newly obtained This Opinion represents the Opinion of the Court on all issues except the discussion of the Fourth Amendment claims in Part III.A. The Opinion of the Court on those issues is contained in the Opinion of Judge Fuentes filed herewith (hereinafter referred to as
|
|
KIMEL V. FLORIDA BD. OF REGENTS (4/30/1998, NO. 96-2788)
Circuit Judge:
|
|
CHANDLER V. JAMES (7/13/1999, NO. 97-6898)
Because the states are bound by the First Amendment. We shall affirm the judgment of the district court as to the Governor's appeal.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge:1 Three cases presenting the same or similar issues of Eleventh Amendment immunity were consolidated and are addressed in this appeal. The issues in this appeal are whether Congress abrogated States' Eleventh Amendment immunity for suits under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: 1 1 Judge Edmondson announces the judgment for the Court in this 3 Three cases presenting the same or similar issues of Eleventh Amendment immunity were consolidated and are addressed in this appeal. The issues in this appeal are whether Congress abrogated States' Eleventh Amendment immunity case. We agree with the Northern District of Alabama that suits in by private parties for against ADEA States federal court 6 violations are prohibited by the Eleventh Amendment. The cases were appealed for us to decide whether Congress abrogated sovereign immunity when it enacted the relevant statutes. 3 Because this appeal presents only questions of law. This appeal is properly before this Court under the collateral order doctrine. The facts of each Plaintiff's claim will not be discussed. Discussion A district a court's order to denying dismiss or a granting motion complaint against a State based on the Eleventh Amendment's grant of sovereign immunity is reviewed by this court de novo. 2507 n.7 (1980) (Eleventh Amendment principles are not applicable to suits in state court.). 10 4 Congress pursuant to the Commerce Clause could.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Which made a notable ruling that defendant appellant Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association (
|
|
CHANDLER V. JAMES (7/13/1999, NO. 97-6898)
Because the states are bound by the First Amendment. We shall affirm the judgment of the district court as to the Governor's appeal.
|
|
KIMEL V. FLORIDA BD. OF REGENTS (4/30/1998, NO. 96-2788)
Circuit Judge:
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Thus that our analysis and resolution of Banks's Mills claims was proper. We will endorse the reasoning set forth in the remainder of our prior opinion. I. George Banks was sentenced to death for the murder of thirteen people in Wilkes Barre. His conviction and sentence were upheld by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on direct appeal. Which was denied in August of 1999. Finding meritorious Banks's argument that his death sentence was unconstitutional. The United States Supreme Court reversed a death sentence where there was a substantial probability that a reasonable jury could have understood the sentencing instructions and forms to disallow the consideration of mitigating factors not unanimously found to exist. A reasonable possibility existed that the jurors believed they were precluded from considering mitigating evidence they had not found unanimously. We were presented with the question of whether Mills was applicable for purposes of our collateral review of Banks's conviction and sentence under 3 Teague v.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: This case comes before us a second time for a determination whether New Jersey's regulation of the disposal of solid waste is constitutional under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Are Atlantic Coast Demolition & Recycling. The latter two plaintiffs are. The defendants are the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). The Carbone plaintiffs and the defendants have appealed the district court's decision. We will affirm the district court's findings that New Jersey's flow control laws and regulations are unconstitutional insofar as they discriminate against out of state waste processing facilities. We will not. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. I. FACTS As this nation's prosperity and consumption have increased over the years. States have attempted to meet those concerns by limiting or banning the importation of solid waste. States and municipalities have erected barriers to the exportation of solid waste in the hope that in state control of solid waste facilities will protect their communities from environmental harm.
|
|
SPENCER WILLIAMS, V. U.S.
With him on the brief were Janice R. Of counsel on the brief were Richard J. ) are entitled to back pay and future cost of living pay increases under the Ethics Reform
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is whether he should be held immune from suit because of his consultation with the city attorney or. Reed argues that a reasonable officer in his position should not have known that his conduct was unlawful. Part of that property (the part next to the salvage yard) is zoned industrial. Is zoned residential. Lawrence (1) Slated for the 2002 Fair were barrel racing and roping competitions. By that time the Carbon County Fair and Rodeo was in full swing and the complaints of fair goers were rolling in. The removal of the (2) A derelict vehicle is any vehicle that is:
|
|
JOHN H. MCBRYDE V. COMMITTEE TO REVIEW CIRCUIT COUNCIL CONDUCT
Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on the brief. Et al.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
After he was released. After summary proceedings in which no evidence was heard and virtually no factual record developed. These cross appeals present numerous questions (some of which are quite difficult): (1) Do the registration and notification provisions of Megan's Law constitute
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
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 (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Planned Parenthood was allowed to receive program funds because it maintained accounting procedures that assured the State that no family planning funds were spent on abortion services. Abortion service providers like Planned Parenthood were receiving indirect benefits from family planning funds through shared revenue. These statutes were held to be unconstitutional by the district court. For fiscal year 1999 the Missouri legislature devised the three tiered approach that is at issue in this case. It provides that organizations or affiliates of organizations that
|
|
95-4084 -- BAUCHMAN V. WEST HIGH SCHOOL (SALT LAKE CITY) -- 12/18/1997
The Religion and Speech clauses of the Utah Constitution. The constitutional issues raised in this appeal are issues of acute public interest issues which evoke diverse opinions and strong emotions. Bauchman's claims focus on religious neutrality in public schools only intensifies that interest and emotion.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Union's fire and emergency services (along with those of other neighboring communities) were provided by the neighboring township of Randolph. The resolution establishing a Union fire department was challenged by the plaintiffs via a ballot initiative requiring a referendum. The referendum was preceded by a lively campaign in which the plaintiffs organized a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The jury unanimously returned a recommendation of a sentence of death as to each of the two victims who were murdered. They were picked up by a trucker who took them part of the way. It is a 35 minute drive that the two made in Slim's pewter colored double cab Sierra GMC pickup truck. Denison was unable to assist her. That is the last time they were seen alive. Slim and Jane were in front. Her body was pulled onto the rear seat. Jane was put next to her. Slim's body was dragged out. Jane was ordered out of the truck and told by Mitchell
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Eight Florida citizens1 (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: This action was brought on behalf of two elementary school students who allegedly were strip searched by a teacher and guidance counselor after having been accused of stealing money from a classmate. The district court concluded that defendants were In particular. Cassandra second Jenkins at and Graham Onieka McKenzie were in eight year old graders Elementary School Talladega. That $7 was missing from her purse. She instructed No money was Herring took charge of the investigation. the three students to take off their shoes and socks. revealed. A guidance counselor whose office was nearby. Who was waiting outside. Anthony claimed that the money was hidden behind a file cabinet and then. When nothing was found there. That it was stashed in a locker. Nelson concluded that Anthony had no idea where the money was and dismissed him. Herring ordered the two Cassandra was Herring then girls to take off their dresses. Onieka was wearing only underpants. instructed them to shake their dresses. She shook the slip Cassandra was wearing.
|
|
02-4174 -- UTAH ANIMAL RIGHTS COALITION V. SALT LAKE CITY CORP. -- 06/16/2004
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. Almost a year before the Olympics
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Our jurisdiction is pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Are not suspected of fraud or ineligibility. Are automatically enrolled in Project 100%. The parties are essentially in agreement as to the structure and operation of Project 100%. The visit includes a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Sewers are also used on occasion as an easy (if illicit) means for the direct discharge of unwanted contaminants. They are subject to the controls of the Clean Water Act. 578 ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER v. The Problem of Stormwater Runoff Stormwater runoff is one of the most significant sources of water pollution in the nation. SediThe
|
|
99-1414 -- CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT STATE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE V. DAVIDSON -- 12/26/2000
1 45 107 (Independent Expenditures).
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Published opinion issued 6/24/99 is vacated. This case was originally before the Court on appeal from a grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellees. The Court expressly declined to rule on the issue of whether application of the ADA to state prisons is a constitutional exercise of Congress' legislative power. These claims are no longer before the Court and will not be addressed further. 2 Although the issue of the constitutionality of applying the ADA and Rehabilitation Act to state prisons was not raised below. We exercise our limited discretion to consider the issue on appeal in light of the fact that the constitutionality of this federal statute is purely a question of law. Both parties have fully briefed the issue. Its resolution at this stage will advance and expedite the progress of this litigation. 488 U.S. 880 (1988) (when resolution of issue not presented below will
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The laws which provide in certain controlled substance cases for sentences beyond the basic 20 year maximum imposed by § 841(b)(1)(C) for default cases where quantity is not a sentence determining factor. As have our sister circuits before us. 1 we hold that § 841 is not facially unconstitutional. Buckland was indicted on one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. As was customary. The jury was not instructed that it had to determine any particular amount of methamphetamine in order to convict Buckland. 841(b)(1)(A) was life. The district court determined at sentencing that the gross amount of drugs for which Buckland was responsible was almost eight kilograms and sentenced him to 824 months in prison. Buckland originally advanced several contentions: (1) the district court's findings on the type and quantity of methamphetamine were erroneous. Contending also that 915 these sentencing errors were not prejudicial and. That was plain. III DISCUSSION Buckland contends that § 841 is facially unconstitutional.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
2002 is hereby recalled for the purpose of amending the opinion. Located at 277 F.3d 1173 is amended as follows: Page 1184 in section
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
These new restrictions have been hotly contested in both state and federal courts. Although the term
|
 |
ACTION FOR CHILDS TV V. FCC
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Announcing the judgment of the court: Timothy Lanier Allen was convicted of first degree murder in a North Carolina court and sentenced to death. Allen contends (1) that the short form indictment used by the State was unconstitutional. Jail records that indicated Allen was receiving daily doses of anti withdrawal medication. Was in fact not harmless error. Were violated during jury selection in his State trial and that a Batson hearing should be held. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that the North Carolina trial court's instructions on unanimity given to the jury during the sentencing phase was
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
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.
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.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The Supreme Court held that RFRA was unconstitutional as applied to state law because Congress THE HONORABLE ANDREW W. RFRA is constitutional as applied to federal law. I. Bruce and Nancy Young are active members of the Crystal Evangelical Free Church (the Church). Both the bankruptcy court and the district court held that the tithes to the church were avoidable transactions. The Trustee had the burden of proving that
|
|
98-6397 -- SMALLWOOD V. GIBSON -- 09/10/1999
Smallwood was convicted of First Degree Murder and Third Degree Arson in May of 1993. (3) petitioner's counsel was constitutionally ineffective at the trial. (5) the jury instructions given by the trial court were unconstitutional because they permitted the jury to ignore mitigating evidence. (6) the jury instructions were constitutionally impermissible because they failed to state that. (7) the trial court violated petitioner's constitutional rights by failing to instruct the jury that there is a presumption of life in death penalty cases. (8) the jury instructions were unconstitutional because they did not properly limit the jury's consideration of sympathy to the defendant. Cruel
|
|
JORDAN V. DOE JORDAN V. JORDAN WAS ARRESTED ON A CHARGE OF BANK ROBBERY IN 1986 AND HELD WITHOUT BAIL PENDING TRIAL. JORDAN WAS TRANSPORTED AND HELD IN VARIOUS LOCAL COUNTY JAILS IN THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. COUNT THREE ALLEGED THAT JORDAN WAS DENIED ADEQUATE MEDICAL CARE WHILE IN LOCAL JAILS. AUGUSTUS LAWSON ("THE MARSHALS") BECAUSE IT FOUND THAT JORDAN HAD RAISED AN ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT AS TO WHETHER UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITIONS EXISTED AT THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AND GILCHRIST COUNTY JAILS AND WHETHER THE MARSHALS WERE AWARE OF THOSE CONDITIONS. [ID. AT 15.]. JORDAN ALLEGES THAT "HE WAS FORCED TO SLEEP ON THE FLOOR DUE TO OVERCROWDING. ROACHES AND MICE WERE RAMPANT. THE PLUMBING WAS FAULTY. THAT CONDITIONS WERE FILTHY.". WAS FILTHY. DID NOT HAVE A LAW LIBRARY." ID. AT 11. MARSHALS WERE TOLD NUMEROUS TIMES OF THE VIOLATIONS OF THE JAILS. R.1 38 AT EX. 12. THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE MARSHALS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY BECAUSE: (1) THE MARSHALS HAD NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THEY WERE ACTING WITHIN THEIR DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY.">
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 >
|
|
JORDAN V. DOE JORDAN V. JORDAN WAS ARRESTED ON A CHARGE OF BANK ROBBERY IN 1986 AND HELD WITHOUT BAIL PENDING TRIAL. JORDAN WAS TRANSPORTED AND HELD IN VARIOUS LOCAL COUNTY JAILS IN THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. COUNT THREE ALLEGED THAT JORDAN WAS DENIED ADEQUATE MEDICAL CARE WHILE IN LOCAL JAILS. AUGUSTUS LAWSON ("THE MARSHALS") BECAUSE IT FOUND THAT JORDAN HAD RAISED AN ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT AS TO WHETHER UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITIONS EXISTED AT THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AND GILCHRIST COUNTY JAILS AND WHETHER THE MARSHALS WERE AWARE OF THOSE CONDITIONS. [ID. AT 15.]. JORDAN ALLEGES THAT "HE WAS FORCED TO SLEEP ON THE FLOOR DUE TO OVERCROWDING. ROACHES AND MICE WERE RAMPANT. THE PLUMBING WAS FAULTY. THAT CONDITIONS WERE FILTHY.". WAS FILTHY. DID NOT HAVE A LAW LIBRARY." ID. AT 11. MARSHALS WERE TOLD NUMEROUS TIMES OF THE VIOLATIONS OF THE JAILS. R.1 38 AT EX. 12. THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE MARSHALS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY BECAUSE: (1) THE MARSHALS HAD NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THEY WERE ACTING WITHIN THEIR DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY.">
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 >
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. BACKGROUND Miller is a paraplegic. Miller is housed in disciplinary isolation in the
|
|
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
Which was allowed without a recorded colloquy between Henderson and the judge regarding the dangers of self representation. Henderson was not represented by counsel at a subsequent pretrial hearing where he unsuccessfully moved to suppress his confession. He was represented by counsel at his trial. We must first decide whether his habeas 2 petition was time barred under provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (
|
|
PATRICK J. GRIFFIN V. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Argued for respondent.
|
|
ADLER V. DUVAL COUNTY SCH. BD. (3/15/2000, NO. 98-2709)
Circuit Judge: At issue today is whether the Duval County. The total absence of state involvement in deciding whether there will be a graduation message. Who will speak. Is not state sponsored. Nor how autonomous the speaker may be in crafting her message. I. The facts of this case are straightforward. Other religious prayers or messages were traditionally offered. Student led prayer during the graduation ceremony so long as the administration and faculty were not involved in the decision making process. The memorandum was entitled
|
|
ADLER V. DUVAL COUNTY SCH. BD. (3/15/2000, NO. 98-2709)
Circuit Judge: At issue today is whether the Duval County. The total absence of state involvement in deciding whether there will be a graduation message. Who will speak. Is not state sponsored. Nor how autonomous the speaker may be in crafting her message. I. The facts of this case are straightforward. Other religious prayers or messages were traditionally offered. Student led prayer during the graduation ceremony so long as the administration and faculty were not involved in the decision making process. The memorandum was entitled
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
McCoy challenges the section of the federal statute that prohibits the possession of child pornography made with materials that have traveled in interstate commerce. We hold that 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B) is unconstitutional as applied to simple intrastate possession of a visual depiction (or depictions) that has not been mailed. Or transported interstate and is not intended for interstate distribution. Were or are commercial producers of child pornography. At the time charges were filed against the McCoys. Kala were spending an evening at home. Her two older children were placed with foster care parents. Although only Kala was alleged to have played any role in the event that led to the arrest of her mother and stepfather. 1 UNITED STATES v. This pose was captured in one photograph. Rhonda was also charged with one count of manufacturing child pornography using materials transported in interstate commerce. 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a).3 Rhonda and Jonathan filed It is. District attorney declined to file charges). 3 Although § 2251 is generally referred to as a
|
|
02-6241 -- PIERCE V. MACY -- 03/02/2004
Because DNA analysis demonstrated that Pierce could not have been the source of the semen found on the rape victim. His conviction was vacated on May 7. He was released from prison. Pierce's complaint is that Dr. Were routinely used to secure convictions. While this system may have provided the citizens of Oklahoma with a false sense of efficient justice. If the allegations are correct. Are limited to the facts and legal issues bearing on the claims against Defendants Gilchrist and Macy. Because Defendants raise only issues of law in connection with their appeal of the district court's denial of qualified immunity. Pierce was employed as a landscaper at the Woodlake complex. He was 25 years old. While police were still on the scene. Pierce was taken by police to be viewed by the victim. Pierce was not the rapist. Two witnesses testified that he was elsewhere at the time of the rape. In March of 1986. Pierce was arrested and taken into custody. The arrest warrant was supported by an affidavit filed by an OCPD officer stating that Ms.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The defendants appellees are Albert Ruegg. Who are federal Bureau of Alcohol. Was released on parole on February 20. Was rearrested on February 3. While Jamerson was in custody. Jamerson's last known residence was on the list. The officers admit they had no reasonable suspicion to believe that Jamerson was involved in any crime. They were simply searching parolees as a way to
|
|
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.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Throughout this opinion the plaintiff appellant will be referred to simply as
|
|
MARSH V. BUTLER COUNTY, ALABAMA (9/26/2001, NO. 99-12813)
Circuit Judge:
|
|
MARSH V. BUTLER COUNTY, ALABAMA (9/26/2001, NO. 99-12813)
Circuit Judge:
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Whose recoveries under 42 2 Nos. 00 3981 & 00 4115 U.S.C. §1988(b) in constitutional tort litigation are not subject to any statutory maximum. That §1997e(d) is within Congress' authority. We hold that §1997e(d) is rationally related to valid objectives and hence is within the legislative power. Whether or not it is wise. I Section 1997e(d) provides: (1) In any action brought by a prisoner who is confined to any jail. In which attorney's fees are authorized under [42 U.S.C. §1988]. Except to the extent that (A) the fee was directly and reasonably incurred in proving an actual violation of the plaintiff's rights protected by a statute pursuant to which a fee may be awarded . . . . (B)(i) the amount of the fee is proportionately related to the court ordered relief for the violation. Or (ii) the fee was directly and reasonably incurred in enforcing the relief ordered for the violation. Nos. 00 3981 & 00 4115 (2) Whenever a monetary judgment is awarded in an action described in paragraph (1). If the award of attorney's fees is not greater than 150 percent of the judgment.
|
|
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
Whether certain kinds of international commercial agreements are
|
|
MADE IN THE UNITED STATES FOUND. V. UNITED STATES (2/27/2001, NO. 99-13138)
Whether certain kinds of international commercial agreements are
|
|
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
|
|
MADE IN THE UNITED STATES FOUND. V. UNITED STATES (2/27/2001, NO. 99-13138)
Whether certain kinds of international commercial agreements are
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We now conclude that the government's waiver of sovereign immunity reflected in the Suits in Admiralty Act is subject to an implied exception similar to the discretionary function exception contained within the Federal Tort Claims Act. I. The relevant facts are set out in detail in the panel's opinion. We will only briefly recount them here. The plaintiffs were riding two jet skis on the Ohio River in the vicinity of the Robert C. The plaintiffs were injured when they went over the gates and dropped approximately twenty five feet to the water below. There were several warning signs on the upstream side of the dam. Their evidence indicated that the signs were difficult to see from the river. Alleging that the government had a duty to warn about the dangers of the dam and that the signs in place were inadequate to satisfy this duty. Arguing that it was protected by an implied discretionary function exception to the SIAA's waiver of sovereign immunity. The government also moved for summary judgment on the merits of the plaintiffs' claims on the grounds that it had no duty to warn about the dam and that the warnings it provided were.
|
|
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
Whether certain kinds of international commercial agreements are
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Because the statute is a content based restriction which chills speech that
|
|
00-6054 -- CAMFIELD V. CITY OF OKLAHOMA -- 05/04/2001
Whose rented copy of the movie was obtained from him at his apartment by three OCPD officers. Was unsuccessful on his section 1983 claims and his attempt to have Oklahoma's child pornography statute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This decision was originally issued as an
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Ballinger claims that § 247 is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' commerce power. We have little trouble concluding that § 247. Is a constitutional expression of Congress' well established power to regulate the channels and instrumentalities of interstate commerce in order to prevent their use for harmful purposes. Concluding that § 247 was constitutional both facially and as applied. The panel held that although § 247 was a constitutional exercise of the commerce power. Ballinger is a practicing
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
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
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
A High Point animal control officer shot and killed one or more dogs that were running at large in the city. The officers have appealed that ruling. Is nevertheless of significant importance. Because in each instance the seizure involved was reasonable. The following facts are recounted in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. As they are the nonmovants in this action. Defendants Nelson Moxley and Bobby Ray Perdue are and were at all times relevant to this opinion employed by High Point as animal control officers. Moxley and Perdue were charged with enforcing the various High Point ordinances governing dogs. The ordinance defines
|
|
98-5261 -- TRIGALET V. CITY OF TULSA OKLAHOMA -- 02/07/2001
Circuit Judge.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Issue 3 In this case we are called upon to decide whether or not the official motto of the State of Ohio.
|
|
WILLIAMS V. PRYOR (10/12/2000, NO. 99-10798)
The district court declined to hold the statute violated any constitutional right but determined the statute was unconstitutional because it lacked a rational basis. BACKGROUND
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The district court declined to hold the statute violated any constitutional right but determined the statute was unconstitutional because it lacked a rational basis. I. BACKGROUND The case was tried by the district court from the parties' extensive stipulated facts. Id. at 1259 (quoting Ala.Code § 13A 12 200.2(a)(1) (Supp.1998)).1 A first violation is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum fine of $10. We adopt the district court's usage of the shorthand term
|
|
WILLIAMS V. PRYOR (1/31/2001, NO. 99-10798)
Is withdrawn. The following opinion is substituted in its place. The petition for rehearing filed by Appellees is otherwise DENIED.
|
|
UNITED STATES V. TINOCO (9/4/2002, NO. 01-11012)
They were convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine while on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Was on a counter narcotics patrol in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. The vessel was approximately 40 feet in length. It was approximately 300 miles from the nearest point of land. The Thetis crew launched a rigid hull inflatable boat (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The district court declined to hold the statute violated any constitutional right but determined the statute was unconstitutional because it lacked a rational basis. I. BACKGROUND The case was tried by the district court from the parties' extensive stipulated facts. Code § 13A 12 200.2(a)(1) (Supp. 1998)).2 A first 2 We adopt the district court's usage of the shorthand term
|
|
WILLIAMS V. PRYOR (10/12/2000, NO. 99-10798)
The district court declined to hold the statute violated any constitutional right but determined the statute was unconstitutional because it lacked a rational basis. BACKGROUND
|
|
UNITED STATES V. TINOCO (9/4/2002, NO. 01-11012)
They were convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine while on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Was on a counter narcotics patrol in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. The vessel was approximately 40 feet in length. It was approximately 300 miles from the nearest point of land. The Thetis crew launched a rigid hull inflatable boat (
|
|
WILLIAMS V. PRYOR (1/31/2001, NO. 99-10798)
Is withdrawn. The following opinion is substituted in its place. The petition for rehearing filed by Appellees is otherwise DENIED.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were H. On the brief were David W. Filed suit prior to termination of that conflict seeking a declaratory judgment that the President's use of American forces against Yugoslavia was unlawful un der both the War Powers Clause of the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Croxford raises two issues on appeal: (i) whether 18 U.S.C. 2251(a) is facially unconstitutional or unconstitutional as applied. (1) and (ii) (1) This Order and Judgment is not binding precedent. Sitting by designation. (1) Croxford also raises on appeal whether 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(5)(B) is facially unconstitutional or unconstitutional as applied. We will not. While the parties have continued to address the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(5)(B) in their briefs. Under which he was indicted but not convicted. Is facially constitutional and constitutional as applied to Croxford's conduct. Because the statute's application to Croxford's conduct is constitutional. Croxford also confirmed in the interview that he owned a Sony digital camera and was an Internet provider for certain customers. The Sony digital camera that the officers took from Croxford's home were manufactured outside of the state of Utah. Which visual depiction was produced using materials that have been transported in interstate commerce.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
BACKGROUND The facts underlying Moore's initial conviction and sentencing in Nebraska state court in 1980 are undisputed and have been repeated. If the driver was young. Moore was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and was sentenced to death by a three judge panel in 1980. Which was denied by the state district court in 1983. This denial was affirmed by the Nebraska Supreme Court in State v. Stat. § 29 2523(1)(d)2 was unconstitutionally vague. Both on its face and as Section 29 2523(1)(d) provides:
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
WILL. There were originally twenty two plaintiffs and twelve separate incidents at issue. Holding that this conduct raised an issue of fact as to whether the stop was based on race. Also whether the pat down search conducted by Officer Childs was reasonable under the circumstances. Is a suburb adjacent to Detroit. The 2000 census figures indicate that Eastpointe is 92.1 percent white and 4.7 percent African American. Detroit was found to be 12.3 percent white and 81.6 percent African American. Made famous by the popular movie 8 Mile divides the two cities and is commonly known as a racial dividing line. The plaintiffs claim that they were subjected to racial discrimination when they crossed Eight Mile Road into Eastpointe. Against the backdrop of each individual Fourteenth Amendment claim is reference to the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs in this case are physicians who provide abortions in their private medical practices in Arizona. They challenge the constitutionality of a statutory and regulatory scheme which requires the licensing and regulation of any medical facility in which five or more first trimester abortions in any month or any second or third trimester abortions are performed. I. Factual and Procedural Background1 1 Some of the evidence of record in this case is contested. They state that they are appealing
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is hereby amended as follows:
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was found to have violated the plaintiffs'. The award of injunctive relief was found to be unnecessary. E. The declaratory judgment relied upon by the panel majority in the instant appeal to support its reasoning and judgment is non existent. F. The Plaintiffs' have failed to prevail on a single cause of action charged in their complaint. G. The district court's sua sponte application of the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: No holiday season is complete. At issue in this case is the holiday display policy promulgated by the Department of Education (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The question of the degree of jury unanimity required by the CCE statute is a difficult one. Other courts of appeals have disagreed with Echeverri's resolution. We must also decide whether the district court's failure to give the proper unanimity instruction was harmless error. These convictions do not themselves show unanimous agreement that the same three violations were sufficiently related to each other to constitute a continuing series. The evidence that the jury must have credited to find Edmonds guilty of the predicate violations unequivocally established that all charged violations were related. No rational jury could unanimously find Edmonds guilty of the predicate offenses without unanimously finding that the offenses were related to each other. I. Facts and Procedural History The facts of this case are fully set out in the earlier panel opinion. The organization was based in Los Angeles. ] that in some way he was causing or attempting to cause the distribution of cocaine and heroin as charged in Count 1 of the indictment or in other counts charged in the indictment.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
After briefing was completed in this appeal. That increases the prescribed statutory maximum penalty to which a defendant is exposed must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We hold that 21 U.S.C.§§ 841(b)(1)(A) & (B) are facially unconstitutional under Apprendi .1 We therefore vacate Buckland's sentence and remand for resentencing under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C). Buckland was indicted on one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. Count One of the indictment alleged that the conspiracy involved
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Plaintiff Christopher Turner appeals the district court's order denying his motion for summary judgment and granting Defendants' summary judgment motion as to his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that (a) he was unconstitutionally detained in the City of Taylor jail for four days without being presented to a magistrate for arraignment. (b) he was subject to excessive force and denied medical treatment during his incarceration. The district court's orders are AFFIRMED. The officers later learned that the silver handgun was actually an inoperable BB gun. Plaintiff was asked about his physical condition. He indicated that he is HIV positive and an asthmatic. Plaintiff also stated that he was currently suffering pain in his chest and right arm. Plaintiff was then placed in a cell. It was determined on January 7 that Plaintiff would be charged with domestic violence. Plaintiff was told that he would be taken to court. Assuring Plaintiff that everything was okay. Plaintiff claims that he was not permitted to make any telephone calls during the entire period of his incarceration.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
After briefing was completed in this appeal. That increases the prescribed statutory maximum penalty to which a defendant is exposed must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We hold that 21 U.S.C.§§ 841(b)(1)(A) & (B) are facially unconstitutional under Apprendi .1 We therefore vacate Buckland's sentence and remand for resentencing under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C). Buckland was indicted on one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. Count One of the indictment alleged that the conspiracy involved
|
|
ALLI COMMTY MEDIA V. FCC
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: This case involves the application of the well established precepts of qualified immunity to a specific set of facts that concern a search of elementary school children who were suspected of having stolen money from a classmate. I. BACKGROUND Certain critical facts in this case are disputed by the parties. We are bound to view the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. Cassandra Jenkins and Oneika McKenzie were eight year old second graders in elementary school in Talladega. That $7.00 was missing from her purse. McKenzie offered conflicting testimony as to whether they were instructed to put their clothes back on while inside the bathroom stall or exit the stalls unclothed. Jenkins' and McKenzie's testimony is consistent. With respect to the assertion that they were asked to remove their clothes while inside the restroom. 4 Jamerson volunteered that it was hidden behind a file cabinet. Jenkins and McKenzie both contend that Herring then escorted them to the restroom a second time where they were again asked to remove their clothes in an effort to locate the $7.00.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
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
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was unconstitutional. The District Court viewed Coltec as seeking to escape the effects of its earlier agreements in order to benefit from the ruling in Eastern and denied Coltec's attempt to reassert its constitutional claims or to have its liability for Coal Act premiums reduced to zero. The background of the Coal Act is thoroughly reviewed in Eastern Enterprises v. Coltec was assigned 249 retirees as of February 1. The first four counts of the complaint claimed that the Act was unconstitutional as applied to them under the Fifth Amendment's takings and due process clauses because the plaintiff companies had not signed the relevant agreements. The terms were established in a contemporaneous separate written agreement (the
|
|
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 Supreme Court held in Apprendi that a criminal defendant's constitutional rights are violated when his prescribed statutory maximum penalties are increased by any fact. Our review is for plain error. Was erroneous. Because we remain confident that a rational jury would have found. We conclude that Vazquez is not entitled to plain error relief and we will therefore affirm his sentence.1 I. The relevant facts are largely undisputed. Vazquez's fingerprint was on one of the bags in which the cocaine had been stored. Algarin was identified as a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is withdrawn. The following opinion is substituted in its place. The petition for rehearing filed by Appellees is otherwise DENIED. The district court declined to hold the statute violated any constitutional right but determined the statute was unconstitutional because it lacked a rational basis. I. BACKGROUND The case was tried by the district court from the parties' extensive stipulated facts. Code § 13A 12 200.2(a)(1) (Supp. 1998)).1 A first violation is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum fine of $10. A subsequent violation is a class C felony. The plaintiffs appellees are vendors or users of sexual devices. The facts also describe a number of other sexual products the distribution of which is not prohibited by the statute. ANALYSIS Whether a statute is constitutional is determined in large part by the level of scrutiny applied by the courts. Are subject to strict scrutiny. Most statutes reviewed under the very stringent strict scrutiny standard are found to be unconstitutional. 2275 n.6 (1995) (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is withdrawn. The following opinion is substituted in its place. The petition for rehearing filed by Appellees is otherwise DENIED. The district court declined to hold the statute violated any constitutional right but determined the statute was unconstitutional because it lacked a rational basis. I. BACKGROUND The case was tried by the district court from the parties' extensive stipulated facts. Id. at 1259 (quoting Ala.Code § 13A 12 200.2(a)(1) (Supp.1998)).1 A first violation is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum fine of $10. A subsequent violation is a class C felony. The plaintiffs appellees are vendors or users of sexual devices. The facts also describe a number of other sexual products the distribution of which is not prohibited by the statute. ANALYSIS Whether a statute is constitutional is determined in large part by the level of scrutiny applied by the courts. Are subject to strict scrutiny. Most statutes reviewed under the very stringent strict scrutiny standard are found to be unconstitutional.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
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.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Enough is Enough. At issue is COPA's constitutionality. A statute designed to protect minors from
|
|
USA V. BAUCUM PATRICK
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Nottoway County contends that its decision to deny the permit was indeed supported by
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
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
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The petitions have been circulated not only to the original panel members but also to all other judges* of the court in regular active service. Less than a majority of whom have voted in favor of rehearing en banc. The petitions have been returned to the panel for decision. Upon consideration of the petitions and the response the panel concludes that the issues raised therein were fully considered upon the original submission and decision of the case. Each of the requests for rehearing is therefore denied. Copies of that decision and the revised concurrence are attached hereto. * Judge Daughtrey recused herself from participation in this ruling. 1 No. 04 5887 United States v. Ignores the fact that those decisions have been severely undermined and limited by other Eighth Circuit decisions. The panel's decision is incorrect and it undermines both the purposes of the exclusionary rule and the good faith exception. The police had information that Leon was heavily involved in drug importation into the United States.
|
|
JENKINS V. TALLADEGA CITY BD. OF ED.
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Jenkins v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This action was brought on behalf of two elementary school students who allegedly were strip searched by a teacher and guidance counselor after having been accused of stealing money from a classmate. The district court concluded that defendants were entitled to summary judgment on all claims. Cassandra Jenkins and Onieka McKenzie were eight year old second graders at Graham Elementary School in Talladega. That $7 was missing from her purse. No money was revealed. A guidance counselor whose office was nearby. Who was waiting outside. Anthony claimed that the money was hidden behind a file cabinet and then. When nothing was found there. That it was stashed in a locker. Nelson concluded that Anthony had no idea where the money was and dismissed him.<p> From Nelson's office. Cassandra was wearing a slip. Onieka was wearing only underpants. She shook the slip Cassandra was wearing. After nothing was found.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept96/95-6243.opa.html">JENKINS V. TALLADEGA CITY BD. OF ED.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Jenkins v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This action was brought on behalf of two elementary school students who allegedly were strip searched by a teacher and guidance counselor after having been accused of stealing money from a classmate. The district court concluded that defendants were entitled to summary judgment on all claims. Cassandra Jenkins and Onieka McKenzie were eight year old second graders at Graham Elementary School in Talladega. That $7 was missing from her purse. No money was revealed. A guidance counselor whose office was nearby. Who was waiting outside. Anthony claimed that the money was hidden behind a file cabinet and then. When nothing was found there. That it was stashed in a locker. Nelson concluded that Anthony had no idea where the money was and dismissed him.<p> From Nelson's office. Cassandra was wearing a slip. Onieka was wearing only underpants. She shook the slip Cassandra was wearing. After nothing was found.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1812.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="655"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200214469op2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plaintiffs filed this class action on behalf of all Florida citizens who have been convicted of a felony and have completed all terms of their incarceration. Parole but who are barred from voting under the state's felon disenfranchisement law.2 The defendants are members of Florida's Clemency Board.3 II. A felon who has completed his sentence may apply for clemency to have his civil rights restored. The requirement of a hearing is insufficient to support the plaintiffs' claim. We say nothing about whether conditioning an application for clemency on paying restitution would be an invalid poll tax. 2 Approximately seventy percent of the plaintiffs class is white. The Clemency Board is made up of the Governor of Florida and members of the Cabinet. Summary judgment is appropriate when
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug11/03-50608-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep02/03-50608-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/98C7F538AA7B5F6388256EBE004D44B4/$file/0235727.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
As this is an appeal from a denial of a motion to dismiss on grounds largely of qualified immunity. We are asked to decide these weighty questions aided only by the skeletal at best factual picture sketched out in the complaint. 1 2 Pub. The federal courts may not dismiss a complaint unless
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19956243.MA2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This case involves the application of the well established precepts of qualified immunity to a specific set of facts that concern a search of elementary school children who were suspected of having stolen money from a classmate. I. BACKGROUND Certain critical facts in this case are disputed by the parties. We are bound to view the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. Cassandra Jenkins and Oneika McKenzie were eight year old second graders in elementary school in Talladega. That $7.00 was missing from her purse. McKenzie offered conflicting testimony as to whether they were instructed to put their clothes back on while inside the bathroom stall or exit the stalls unclothed. Jenkins' and McKenzie's testimony is consistent. With respect to the assertion that they were asked to remove their clothes while inside the restroom. Jamerson volunteered that it was hidden behind a file cabinet. Jenkins and McKenzie both contend that Herring then escorted them to the restroom a second time where they were again asked to remove their clothes in an effort to locate the $7.00.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D3BB2B79B2BAD08688256BFA005882C4/$file/0035962.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This appeal challenges Washington law that denies a statefunded
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0064p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gary Bradford Cone was sentenced to death in a Tennessee state court for a double murder of an elderly couple and his conviction and death sentence were affirmed by the Tennessee Supreme Court. We are asked to decide · Whether Cone was sentenced to death in violation of the prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Is whether. Even in cases in which the issue is not raised explicitly. · The second. Is whether the petitioner procedurally defaulted. Bell No. 99 5279 Our answer to the first state law question is yes. It is no. We are authorized to reach the Eighth Amendment issue. We hold that petitioner Cone's death sentence must be vacated because one of the statutory aggravating circumstances the jury relied upon in imposing the death sentence that the murders were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1995/95a1099p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which appellant alleged that he was denied opportunities for promotion in violation of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Appellees countered that the decisions to promote persons other than appellant were made on the merits. They were. I The appellant in this action is William Markel. The appellees are Harry McIndoe and Penn Hills. McIndoe was arrested on a charge of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The purpose of which was to determine eligible candidates for promotion to the rank of sergeant in the Penn Hills Police Department. The person ranked third on the elibility list was promoted to sergeant. The person ranked first was promoted. The person originally ranked fourth was promoted. Their argument ¾ which the magistrate judge found persuasive ¾ was that. § 7104(b) would in any event have prohibited appellees from promoting Markel ahead of any eligible veterans. 1991 eligibility list were veterans. Markel argues that it was error to grant summary judgment.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/41C6261BDE70D75888257187007BC638/$file/0410090.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is withdrawn. Is replaced by the Amended Opinion and Amended Dissent. The petition for rehearing is otherwise denied. The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc will be accepted. This issue is one of first impression in our circuit. It is an issue of first impression in any federal circuit and the vast majority of state courts.1 A The dissent points to only two states whose supreme courts have addressed this issue: Maine and California. It is squarely presented. Facts Scott was arrested in Nevada on state charges of drug possession and released on his own recognizance. Scott was required to sign a form stating that he agreed to comply with certain conditions. Among the conditions was consent to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011348.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Opinion filed 1/25/02 is vacated PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444447 CHRISTINE BEAUMONT. We further hold that the prohibition on independent expenditures is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest. That the proscription on contributions is not closely drawn to match a sufficiently important interest. Because the provisions at issue are constitutional in the overwhelming majority of applications. Stacy Thompson and Barbara Holt are challenging 2 U.S.C. § 441b(a) of the Federal Election Campaign Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981481A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 25 a comma is inserted after the word
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0270p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1568ORD.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Kelly</SPAN> were on brief. Was on brief. The judgment of the district court is affirmed by an equally divided court. All of whom were arrested in Rhode Island for non violent. Were subjected to unconstitutional searches of their persons incident to their detention at the Adult Correctional Institutions (the ACI). Because the State is immune from suits for damages under section 1983. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0130p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
No. 03 1334 Decree explicitly stated that it was intended by the parties to assure the constitutionality of the conditions under which prisoners are incarcerated at SPSM CC. The district court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Consent Decree until compliance was achieved. Section 802(b)(2) of the PLRA entitles the defendant
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/03/99-2287.htm">99-2287 -- CURRIER V. DORAN -- 03/01/2001<BR></A><BR>
Regina Sentell are social workers for the Children. Defendant Melba Gonzales is a supervisor for CYF.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/03/99-1284.htm">99-1284 -- KIKUMURA V. HURLEY -- 03/09/2001<BR></A><BR>
Because the district court committed legal error in holding Plaintiff did not have a substantial likelihood of success on his RFRA claim and would not be irreparably harmed absent an injunction. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY</strong> <p> Plaintiff appellant Yu Kikumura is an inmate in the United States Penitentiary. Defendant John Hurley is Warden at the Penitentiary. Gallegos is an Associate Warden at the Penitentiary. Who is originally from Japan. Rickard's request to visit Plaintiff was denied by prison officials. <p> During the next several months Plaintiff. Defendant Hurley then sent letters to Plaintiff and Yasutake explaining that the requests were denied because they did not meet the criteria for pastoral visits established by Bureau of Prisons (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/07/971800P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The County argues that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish (1) a continuing.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1998/98a1823p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
S 11501.1 The district court held that the assessment was a discriminatory tax. We will reverse. 1. That section was recodified pursuant to Pub. We will refer to provisions of the 4 R Act at issue here by section number as currently codified in title 49. The bridge supporting that highway became so deteriorated that it was closed in 1982. That railroad is not a party. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation was to pay 7% of the construction costs. The Township was to pay the remaining 87% of the construction costs and 70% of the maintenance costs. It argued that the assessment was a discriminatory tax in violation of the 4 R Act. The district court declared that the assessment was an unlawfully discriminatory tax under the 4 R Act. That decision included a proposed allocation of the construction and maintenance costs and also decided that Wheeling was not discriminated against on the basis of its railroad status. There are two exceptions: Congress may abrogate a state's immunity. The parties do not dispute that the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission is an arm of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania protected by Eleventh Amendment principles of sovereign immunity.4 Also.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200611826.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We affirm the district court's determination that Deputy Terry was entitled to qualified immunity for effecting a warrantless arrest of McClish within his home. Because Holmberg was never convicted of a crime. We reverse the district court's judgment that his § 1983 wrongful arrest claim was barred by Heck v. The essential facts and procedural history are these. Who was not home when the deputies first arrived. The underlying conflict between the neighbors seems to have arisen over a property dispute. A number of the incidents involving threats or profanity shouted across the property line seem to have occurred when Michael Padzur was clearing brush from the disputed area.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-1092b.html">ACTION CHILD TV V. FCC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></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-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511628reh2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
O R D E R: The Court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor of it (Rule 35. The Emergency Petition for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED. /s/ J. Pryor Jr. did not participate in the consideration of the Petition because he is recovering from surgery performed on Monday. An axiom in the study of law is that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/07/99-1263a.htm">99-1263A -- HERRING V. KEENAN -- 07/10/2000<BR></A><BR>
The section should read
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216424.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Peter Evans and Detree Jordan were driving from Atlanta to Statesboro. Where the two were students at Georgia Southern University. Evans was the driver and Jordan the passenger of the vehicle. Because this is a review of a the denial of a motion for summary judgment by the appellant. We will recount the facts favorably to the appellees. The facts recounted here are drawn primarily from the district court's order and the deposition testimony of the appellees. 2 1 * which was a rental. Both are black males in their twenties. After hearing Evans's explanation of where he and Jordan were going and how they got where they were. Though it was Stephens's usual habit to display such items. Stephens asked him to remove 2 The subsequent traffic stop was captured by a video recorder in Stephens's patrol car. 3 it. The pop top is not visible in the tape and Stephens did not display it for the camera. Stephens placed Evans and Jordan in his patrol car and a tow truck was summoned. Stephens handcuffed Evans and Jordan to a bench outside of the 3 It would later turn out that the warrant was for a different man. 4 booking area while he spoke with Pike County Sheriff's Deputy Andre Dawson.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0253p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plaintiffs are a collection of associations and individuals led by the American Civil Liberties Union. Because we cannot find that any of the plaintiffs have standing for any of their claims. Of telephone and email communications where one party to the communication is located outside the United States and the NSA has
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2D22C4EEF10EDAA5882570E600030F5E/$file/0335102.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That a provision in the Oregon statute pursuant to which they had been ordered excluded from the Portland Meadows track by the ORC violated due process because it was unconstitutionally vague. The magistrate judge1 agreed that the provision was Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73 and Title 28 U.S.C. section 636(c). The parties consented to have the case heard by a magistrate judge. 1 LEE v. Was void for vagueness. It is necessary to determine the validity of the exclusion orders. We vacate the district court's ruling that section 462.080(1) is unconstitutionally vague because. It is not necessary to decide any constitutional question. The Lees' exclusion orders were based upon two separate grounds. One of which was a violation of another provision of the statute a provision that has not been challenged. We uphold the exclusion orders on the basis of the unchallenged provision and therefore need not reach the issue of whether the challenged provision is constitutional.2 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY At all times relevant to this action.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0065p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Complaint states that Keego Harbor is a small community of approximately 3. The licenses granted to Goose Island by the MLCC were in effect at the time this action was filed. Arthur Nance and David Hofmann).2 The individuals were sued in both their individual and official capacities. Relevant to this appeal are Goose Island's claims that the Defendants violated its rights to due process by way of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/01/943687P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Joubert's death sentences were based on an unconstitutionally vague statutory aggravating factor and granted the writ. Danny's gag worked loose and he asked Joubert if he was going to die. He was found with a figure resembling a plant carved into his torso. Giving details unknown to the public which were corroborated by the crime scenes. Which were later corroborated. Joubert was charged with two counts of first degree murder. Joubert was sentenced to death on both counts. The sentencing panel found two statutory aggravating factors in regard to the murder of Danny Eberle: 1) that he was killed in order to conceal the perpetrator's identity (Nebraska statutory aggravator 29 2523(1)(b)). 2) that the murder was both
</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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/07/99-1263.htm">99-1263 -- HERRING V. KEENAN -- 07/10/2000<BR></A><BR>
The manager and acting director of the restaurant where he was employed as a waiter. Herring was serving a period of probation under Keenan's supervision. The district court rejected Keenan's contention that she was entitled to qualified immunity because she did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. We conclude that there is a constitutional right to privacy that protects an individual from the disclosure of information concerning a person's health. Because we hold that it was not clearly established. That a probationer had a constitutionally protected right to privacy regarding information concerning his or her medical condition. <p> <center>I</center> <p> Because we are reviewing the denial of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The following facts are alleged in the second amended complaint. <p> On or about September of 1993. At no time did he inform Keenan that the results of the HIV test were positive. Herring was employed as a waiter at the 50's Café.
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216718.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032372p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
WILL T. We will reverse and remand for an appropriate due process analysis.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="643"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1995/95a1158p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are called upon in this case principally to perform one of our most delicate duties determining whether Congress exceeded its constitutional authority in enacting a federal law. At issue is the power of Congress to criminalize
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/472E17A9EC1E2D1488256E1A00006CDF/$file/0235194.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I Afshin Bahrampour is an inmate at the Snake River Correctional Institution in Ontario. Bahrampour after the bulk mail regulation at issue was declared unconstitutional. ODC's actions were upheld. Although the restriction on the receipt of sexually explicit materials is quite detailed. Roleplaying and similar fantasy games are neither defined nor described in the regulations. When this action was initiated. Or periodicals mail
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="638"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D3DC0E87BDDA3BAB88256EB300548E33/$file/0199008.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was viciously LEAVITT v. The relentless and merciless assault took place on her waterbed and with such implacable force that the bed itself was punctured and torn. She was also stabbed multiple times: One thrust caused the knife to enter her right lung. Another exceedingly peculiar and unique wound inflicted during this attack was a cut made by the attacker through which he then removed her sexual organs. For it was done in a manner that is difficult to accomplish. The evidence pointing to Leavitt was powerful. If circumstantial he was not caught redhanded. The victim's body was not found for several days which caused the destruction of some evidentiary markers. Who thought that Leavitt was the culprit. Another strange aspect of the case was that a person supposedly named Mike Jenkins also called the police a couple of times during that period and showed knowledge of details of the crime that only the killer himself would know. Mike Jenkins was not known in Blackfoot and was not heard of thereafter. Is 7780 LEAVITT v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="638"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043756p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It is proper to submit that question to a jury. Alleging that when he was a member of the Elizabeth. Perkins Auguste asserted that she was entitled to qualified immunity and moved for summary judgment on that ground. Her motion for summary judgment was denied on the basis that whether she was entitled to qualified immunity depended on a disputed issue of material factwhether she had Monteiro ejected from the meeting on the basis of viewpoint. The jury's verdict is based on sufficient evidence. 3 I. We note that it is not clear what rights. Was that right limited to legal errors made at trial and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's verdict? Qualified immunity is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="638"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2BA74308F4A4A6B0882573130055EBFC/$file/0517027.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on the brief. Circuit Judge: We are asked. Whether the Anti terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act is unconstitutional. Numerous news reports were written on the crime. Crater and Robinson were tried for robbery. Robinson was convicted on all counts. After learning that Crater was reluctant to accept this deal. Finding no evidence that the state judge harbored
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="638"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200116723ord.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
BY THE COURT: The Court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor of it (Rule 35. The Petition for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED. /s/ J L EDMONDSON Chief Judge 2 BIRCH. Specially Concurring in the Denial of Rehearing En Banc: The dissents to the denial of rehearing en banc both agree that the Equal Protection Clause challenge to the Florida statute at issue should have been embraced by our court. 4 the vociferous dissent by my sister jurist (for whom I have great respect and affection). The Florida adoption statute at issue is constitutionally flawed. The Lofton panel's analysis and approach in this case was premised on a fundamental principal or philosophy. When he observed: Courts are not representative bodies. They are not designed to be a good reflex of a democratic society. ... Their essential quality is detachment. History teaches that the independence of the judiciary is jeopardized when courts become embroiled in the passions of the day and assume primary responsibility in choosing between competing political.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="638"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/04/041568P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold unanimously that the residency restriction is not unconstitutional on its face. Because the appellees have not established by the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="638"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041732p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Concluding that the officers' conduct was reasonable. We conclude that Many of the relevant facts in this case are in dispute. Because this case is at the summary judgment stage. BACKGROUND The relevant facts are as follows. The Task Force was made up of both state and federal officers. The members at the scene were defendant appellees Scott Duffy of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The members of the Task Force were parked in two unmarked vehicles and wore plain clothes. Was inside the residence. She was waiting for Adam to put his skateboard in the garage and summon his sister. Not realizing that the man was an officer. From where he was standing inside the garage. He showed her what she thought was a badge and demanded entry. Told Tiffany that there was a robber in the house. They then handcuffed him.2 Plaintiffs suggest that the four men who jumped on Adam were Officers Armstrong. That he and Officer Sullivan did not arrive until after Adam Couden was handcuffed. Based on 5 2 Tiffany told the men that Adam was her brother.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="638"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972554.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Section 2 the first amicus curiae is corrected to read
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1C84F396001F211588256F080056BF3B/$file/0199008.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case is reported as Leavitt v. We will put page references to the published opinion in parenthesis. 1 LEAVITT v. As is well known by now. The Supreme Court determined that a capital sentencing scheme wherein the judge decides aggravating facts without a jury is unconstitutional. Leavitt asserts that Ring is retroactive to cases on habeas corpus review. Substitute the following in its place: CONCLUSION Leavitt is not entitled to habeas corpus relief as far as his conviction and the sentencing issues disposed of in this opinion are concerned. He is entitled to have the district court consider his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at his second sentencing hearing. Arave's petition for rehearing is DENIED. Leavitt's petition for rehearing and for rehearing en banc is also DENIED. Was viciously LEAVITT v. The relentless and merciless assault took place on her waterbed and with such implacable force that the bed itself was punctured and torn. She was also stabbed multiple times: One thrust caused the knife to enter her right lung.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.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="635"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0273p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a contract murder case with irreconcilable jury verdicts leading one defendant to be sentenced to death and another the defendant who initiated. Were charged with committing the murder of Ann Serafino and the 1 No. 03 3200 Getsy v. Santine was charged with hiring the other three defendants to kill Chuckie Serafino. Santine was sentenced to life imprisonment when a jury found him guilty of aggravated murder but not guilty of hiring Getsy to commit the murder. McNulty and Hudach were sentenced to life imprisonment after they were allowed to plead guilty. Expressed its dismay about the disproportionate nature of these inconsistent results: That Hudach received a lesser penalty than Getsy is not surprising Hudach did not enter the Serafino home. He was offered a plea bargain. Getsy was not. McNulty's case was not a case of the state's needing to secure testimony to obtain a conviction on a more culpable person. It is also troubling that Santine did not receive the death sentence even though he initiated the crime.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0398p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Received his Bachelor's degree in education in 1997 and was subsequently certified to teach elementary education. Barrett was scheduled to be interviewed for a full time teaching position with Steubenville City Schools. From the time that he was in kindergarten. Barrett was interviewed by Steubenville City Schools administrators. A teacher who had not substituted with Steubenville City Schools was hired.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/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-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may97/94-2638.man.html">ADLER V. DUVAL COUNTY SCH. BD.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Adler v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> Appellants are four former high school students<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/12/951885P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Rosenstiel and Longley seek a declaration that several provisions of the law are unconstitutional because they allegedly coerce a candidate into participating in Minnesota's public campaign financing program. They further maintain that the provisions are constitutionally infirm The Honorable Richard H. No refund is permitted for a campaign contribution made to a candidate who is not publicly funded. Id. § 290.06(23) (hereinafter referred to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0342p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The LPO's first claim is that Ohio's policy mandating strict compliance with election laws violates the Constitution. We do not have jurisdiction to address it. Which is not moot. Is that the combination of two Ohio election regulations the requirement that all political parties nominate their candidates via primary election and the requirement that all minor political parties file a petition with the Secretary 120 days in advance of the primary imposes an unconstitutional burden on its First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of free association. As the regulations are not narrowly tailored and do not advance a compelling state interest. States have pushed back the dates of their primary elections to the beginning of the primary election cycle. The issue in this case is whether the move to accommodate the major parties has placed an impermissible burden on the constitutional rights of minor parties. Primaries are held the first Tuesday after the first Monday in May. When the primaries are held the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may97/94-2638.man.html">ADLER V. DUVAL COUNTY SCH. BD.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Adler v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> Appellants are four former high school students<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="632"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1994/94a0796p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which was paid. We hold that the district court should have exercised its discretion to abstain. We will vacate the district court's judgment and remand with instructions that the district court dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint. We asked the parties to submit supplemental briefs addressing the question of whether the district court properly should have abstained from entertaining the plaintiffs' claims under the abstention doctrine announced by the Supreme Court in Younger v. Appeals from the traffic court's decisions were heard by the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas. A parking ticket is affixed to the vehicle. The owner of the ticketed vehicle is sent a notice by first class mail. The person to whom the ticket is issued has fifteen days to answer it. A failure to answer or to pay the fine will result in a Bureau of Administrative Adjudication (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="632"></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-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/nov95/94-8071.html">CLAJON PRODUCTION CORP. V. PETERA<BR></A><BR>
This case is a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action challenging several Wyoming hunting regulations as violative of the federal and state constitutional rights of a number of Wyoming ranchers (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june97/95-6243.ma2.html">JENKINS V. TALLEDEGA CITY BD. OF EDUC.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Jenkins v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This case involves the application of the well established precepts of qualified immunity to a specific set of facts that concern a search of elementary school children who were suspected of having stolen money from a classmate. BACKGROUND<p> <p> Certain critical facts in this case are disputed by the parties. We are bound to view the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. <i>United States v. Cassandra Jenkins and Oneika McKenzie were eight year old second graders in elementary school in Talladega. That $7.00 was missing from her purse. McKenzie offered conflicting testimony as to whether they were instructed to put their clothes back on while inside the bathroom stall or exit the stalls unclothed. Jenkins' and McKenzie's testimony is consistent. With respect to the assertion that they were asked to remove their clothes while inside the restroom.<p> Having again failed to discover the missing money.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1998/98a1961p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Or (2) the benefit level the family would have been eligible to receive in their prior state had they not moved to Pennsylvania. They became eligible for public assistance benefits but were 2 informed that the cash benefits allowance available to them would be substantially lower than the benefits provided to similarly situated long term Pennsylvania residents.1 Shortly thereafter. I. The relevant facts of this case are for the most part undisputed. Governing public assistance benefits to eligible families that have resided in Pennsylvania for less than one year. An eligible family's cash assistance benefits are limited to the lesser of (1) the benefit level that family 1. Pennsylvanians with a twelve month residence were eligible for cash benefits of $836 but the Maldonado family. Was eligible for cash benfits of only $304 per month. The amount they would have been allowed in Puerto Rico. 3 would have received in its prior state of residence. Especially relevant to this appeal is Section 604(c) of the PRWORA.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june97/95-6243.ma2.html">JENKINS V. TALLEDEGA CITY BD. OF EDUC.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Jenkins v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This case involves the application of the well established precepts of qualified immunity to a specific set of facts that concern a search of elementary school children who were suspected of having stolen money from a classmate. BACKGROUND<p> <p> Certain critical facts in this case are disputed by the parties. We are bound to view the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. <i>United States v. Cassandra Jenkins and Oneika McKenzie were eight year old second graders in elementary school in Talladega. That $7.00 was missing from her purse. McKenzie offered conflicting testimony as to whether they were instructed to put their clothes back on while inside the bathroom stall or exit the stalls unclothed. Jenkins' and McKenzie's testimony is consistent. With respect to the assertion that they were asked to remove their clothes while inside the restroom.<p> Having again failed to discover the missing money.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/55215A562F6A670188256BC7005C6CC5/$file/0071247.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Were on the brief for amicus curiae The DKT Liberty Project. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Senator Vincente C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2045.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This appeal is reviewed only for plain error. Hold that the fourth prong of plain error review is not satisfied. Gonzalez Huerta was convicted of committing burglary in California. He was deported to Mexico in 2000. Gonzalez Huerta was arrested in New Mexico for possession of a <hr> controlled substance. Gonzalez Huerta was being held in a New Mexico jail. This offense is punishable by a maximum sentence of 20 years. While this case was pending on appeal. That is to say. Gonzalez Huerta argues for the first time that Booker is grounds for remanding his case for resentencing. We note that this argument was not raised below. Ct. at 756 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="628"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2385.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On page 13. Was essentially a litigation document and did not suggest that Washburn had any personal involvement in making the decision to deny credit to Beauchamp. It is questionable whether either the arguments made in the state's brief or the Washburn affidavit amount to anything more than a kind of
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2470.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc.</SPAN> were on brief. Hovani</SPAN> and <SPAN STYLE=
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/95/12/952857P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is his official capacity as Missouri Attorney General. Was amended twice in 1994. (4) the requirement that negative campaign advertisements state that they were approved 1 and authorized by the candidate on whose behalf they were disseminated. Stat. § 130.031 is unconstitutional. So that issue is not before us. 22 1 I. We must address the state's contention that summary judgment should not have been granted because genuine issues of material fact remain in dispute. We are satisfied that no genuine issues of material fact remain in dispute. (2) held that the state's
</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.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2669.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19946343.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that they are entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. David was not admitted to Eufaula until He was fifteen years almost a year later. Although he was resuscitated. For the sake of simplicity and brevity we will refer to Dr. Discovery was completed. We have jurisdiction. The Court extended the Estelle analysis holding that the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause requires the state to provide involuntarily committed mental patients with such services as are necessary to ensure their
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/02/942691P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who was sexually abused by a school van driver. Angela Larson was born on December 3. Was diagnosed as anophthalmic in her left eye and microthalmic in her right eye. Meaning she had no left eye and her right eye was extremely small. Those home services continued until she was five years old. When Angela was nine years old and not progressing to her parents' satisfaction in her placement in the Omaha public schools. Spilker lived in the same neighborhood and have known each other for years. As indicated he has been personally involved in developing and implementing Angela's individual education plan since she was two years old. Where she was transported in a PLSD van driven by a PLSD employee to Oakdale school. The only other student on the van was a severely and profoundly handicapped youth who possessed minimal communicative abilities. Had been a part time PLSD employee for three years before he was hired as a van driver in 1986. Three PLSD supervisory personnel interviewed Szynskie when he was first hired but did not conduct a background check.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="625"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011662R1.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It condemns the conduct as
</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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAwLTkxNTlMb3JkZXIucGRm/00-9159Lorder.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A poll on whether to rehear the case in banc was conducted among the active judges of the court upon the request of an active judge of the court. Rehearing in banc was DENIED by order of the court filed February 11. The petition for rehearing was DENIED. Chief Judge Walker is filing a dissenting opinion. Judge Jacobs is filing a dissenting opinion. Judge Cabranes is filing a dissenting opinion. Other judges of the court have indicated that they expect to file opinions concurring in the denial of in banc rehearing in due course. If further opinions or amended opinions are filed. This order will be amended as necessary to reflect those opinions. Held that those limits were supported by a compelling interest. The full court should have reheard this case in banc. The panel unanimously upheld the district court's determination that the Vermont statute's limitation on out of state contributions was unconstitutional. The panel was divided. Would have upheld the district court's determination that campaign expenditure limits are unconstitutional under Buckley v.
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0225p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who was a member of the panel. A supporting affidavit that was crossreferenced in the warrant and that particularly described the things to be seized had been placed under seal and thus was not present during the search. BATF agent Michael Johnson uncovered the scheme when he found documents in a Missouri gun dealer's shop that linked Baranski to the dealer and when he learned that one of Baranski's letters of interest was forged. The agents were met by Saeid Shafizadeh. At which point the officers told him that it was under seal. One agent then told Shafizadeh that they were looking for firearms owned by Baranski (or by his company. Shafizadeh complained that the search was illegal because the warrant itself failed to describe with particularity what the agents could seize. Escorted the agents to the basement of the building where the bonded warehouse was located. The court concluded that probable cause supported the warrant and that
</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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAwLTkxNTlfMm5kIEFtZW5kZWQucGRm/00-9159_2nd%20Amended.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A poll on whether to rehear the case in banc was conducted among the active judges of the court upon the request of an active judge of the court. Rehearing in banc was DENIED by order of the court filed on February 11. The petition for rehearing was DENIED. Judges Straub and Pooler are filing a concurring opinion. Judges Sack and Katzmann are filing a concurring opinion. Chief Judge Walker is filing a dissenting opinion. Judge Jacobs is filing a dissenting opinion. Judge Cabranes is filing a dissenting opinion. Other judges of the court have indicated that they expect to file opinions concurring in the denial of in banc rehearing in due course. If further opinions or amended opinions are filed. This order will be amended as necessary to reflect those opinions. In light of the opinions that are being filed dissenting from this view. Is not whether the opinion for the panel majority or the dissent was right. Is indeed thorough and forceful. Assuming that it is as sound as the dissenters say that it is.
</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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAwLTkxNTlMb3JkZXIucGRm/00-9159Lorder.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A poll on whether to rehear the case in banc was conducted among the active judges of the court upon the request of an active judge of the court. Rehearing in banc was DENIED by order of the court filed February 11. The petition for rehearing was DENIED. Chief Judge Walker is filing a dissenting opinion. Judge Jacobs is filing a dissenting opinion. Judge Cabranes is filing a dissenting opinion. Other judges of the court have indicated that they expect to file opinions concurring in the denial of in banc rehearing in due course. If further opinions or amended opinions are filed. This order will be amended as necessary to reflect those opinions. Held that those limits were supported by a compelling interest. The full court should have reheard this case in banc. The panel unanimously upheld the district court's determination that the Vermont statute's limitation on out of state contributions was unconstitutional. The panel was divided. Would have upheld the district court's determination that campaign expenditure limits are unconstitutional under Buckley v.
</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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAwLTkxNTlMb3JkZXIucGRm/00-9159Lorder.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A poll on whether to rehear the case in banc was conducted among the active judges of the court upon the request of an active judge of the court. Rehearing in banc was DENIED by order of the court filed February 11. The petition for rehearing was DENIED. Chief Judge Walker is filing a dissenting opinion. Judge Jacobs is filing a dissenting opinion. Judge Cabranes is filing a dissenting opinion. Other judges of the court have indicated that they expect to file opinions concurring in the denial of in banc rehearing in due course. If further opinions or amended opinions are filed. This order will be amended as necessary to reflect those opinions. Held that those limits were supported by a compelling interest. The full court should have reheard this case in banc. The panel unanimously upheld the district court's determination that the Vermont statute's limitation on out of state contributions was unconstitutional. The panel was divided. Would have upheld the district court's determination that campaign expenditure limits are unconstitutional under Buckley v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9612A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 5 the phrase
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="622"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/016703R1.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 9 the phrase
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="621"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/043922P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
BACKGROUND Charles Russell was arrested on September 26. According to the County's InCustody Records (ICR) Quick Reference Guide: A conditional release is granted to some inmates if it is determined that they do not pose a significant threat to the community and there is a substantial likelihood that the person will appear at future Court dates. Conditional releases are most often granted in the Court room and documented on the inmate's Court Tracking Sheet.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="619"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200210898.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude Sheriff Wilson was entitled to qualified immunity but Officer Stanfield was not. That she was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="619"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2002/02-10898.opn.html">VINYARD V. WILSON (11/14/2002, NO. 02-10898)<BR></A><BR>
We conclude Sheriff Wilson was entitled to qualified immunity but Officer Stanfield was not. That she was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="619"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2002/02-10898.opn.html">VINYARD V. WILSON (11/14/2002, NO. 02-10898)<BR></A><BR>
We conclude Sheriff Wilson was entitled to qualified immunity but Officer Stanfield was not. That she was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/99-1045a.htm">99-1045A -- THOMPSON V. STATE OF COLORADO -- 08/07/2001<BR></A><BR>
</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.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2267.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The court's granting of the defendants' appellees' motion for summary judgment was proper. For there is no genuine issue of fact dealing 2 No. 02 2267 with the question of whether the defendants adopted a pattern. I. BACKGROUND Because this is an appeal from summary judgment. Was arrested and charged with bank robbery and held as a probation violator for a previous crime. Palmer was transferred from the Boone County Jail to the Marion County Jail to await a hearing on the probation violation. A fight ensued and Palmer was attacked by a group of inmates belonging to a gang known as the Gangster Disciples. Palmer was hit on the back of his head with a door handle and struck several times with fists. Palmer identified his assailants by their nicknames.1 Shortly after identifying his assailants Palmer was placed in the reclassification cell. The next day he was relocated to Cell Block 2T. Palmer told the correctional officers escorting him that he could not be placed in 2T because he had been involved in a gang related incident and Palmer was in fear that other members of the Gangster Disciples were presently confined in 2T.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/12/042538P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who was homeless. Was sleeping in a city park in Crystal when he was attacked by a police dog. Szabla also argues that the district court erred in holding that Baker was entitled to qualified immunity. He chose Becker Park because it was across the street from Labor Ready. Szabla settled in to a shelter for portable toilets that was partly empty. The car's windshield was broken. There was an imprint where a head had hit the windshield. Hair was sticking out of the lining of the car's roof. The Crystal police determined that they needed to locate the driver because the car could have been stolen and the driver might be drunk or ill or injured. The City of Crystal did not have any police dogs. It did have a cooperative arrangement with the City of Brooklyn Park. He also noticed that there was a screwdriver on the ground next to the car and that the car was full of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="615"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0410n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because the district court correctly found that the District was not deliberately indifferent to the risk that its teachers would engage in unconstitutional searches and the District did not have a custom of tolerating unconstitutional searches. Michael Baier and Kevin Saunders were students between the ages of fifteen and eighteen at Whitmore Lake High School. While these and other students were in the school gymnasium for a coeducational gym class. Reported to Whitmore Lake High School gym teacher Brian Carpenter that a few hundred dollars from her purse was missing. (Principal Nelson was absent.). The policy and guidelines were available for public view and were part of the student handbook and administrators handbook. Noting that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="615"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042849p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The survey itself was designed to be voluntary and anonymous. Survey results were designed to be and actually were released only in the aggregate with no identifying information. We will affirm. The Parties Plaintiffs are Carol Nunn. We will refer to the student Plaintiffs as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="615"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974750.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That the provision is unconstitutional. The district court erred in suppressing Dickerson's voluntary confession on the grounds that it was obtained in technical violation of Miranda. Dickerson was subsequently indicted by a federal grand jury on one count of conspiracy to commit bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.§ 371 (West Supp. 1998). Although the district court specifically found that Dickerson's confession was voluntary for purposes of the Fifth Amendment. It nevertheless suppressed the confession because it was obtained in technical violation of Miranda.1 In ruling on the admissibility of Dickerson's confession. That
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="614"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2389.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. This appeal is the second appearance here of a case challenging a state law regulating speech and activities within a buffer zone around health care facilities which perform abortions. Women who are regular pro life
</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="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D3EAFBA3AC5722E98825703F0002ABCC/$file/0199018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Brown is substituted for her predecessor. We filed an opinion in this case holding that there is a reasonable probability that as a result of instructional error the jury did not consider constitutionally mitigating evidence at the penalty phase. Payton was a postAEDPA case and was decided under the highly deferential AEDPA standard. While the case before us is pre AEDPA and is determined by the application of the ordinary rules of constitutional interpretation. BROWN habeas corpus only if the state court was objectively unreasonable in its application of clearly established Supreme Court law. Such is not the case when AEDPA does not apply. If anything about AEDPA is clear. It is that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="610"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2498.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Kesten</SPAN> were on brief. Wood</SPAN> was on brief. Jerome Jarrett fled the scene of a minor traffic accident and was subsequently apprehended by Shadow. Who was driving in excess of sixty miles per hour. Jarrett insists that Britt never activated his lights and that there was no near collision. Was also radioed to the scene by Officer White. Did he release Shadow with instructions to locate Jarrett and hold him. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="610"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D6EEA93BBA7A22E388256ED8005F99F6/$file/0230326filed.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The Panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. * Alfred Ameline appeals his 150 month sentence that was imposed after he pled guilty to knowingly conspiring to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Ameline contended that the district court's drug quantity finding was clearly erroneous because it was based on multiple layers of unreliable hearsay evidence. 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004) because the facts underlying the calculation of his base offense level and his sentence enhancement were not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. If Ameline is correct that the Blakely rule applies to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. That the district court violated Ameline's right to have the facts underlying his sentence found beyond a reasonable doubt. Admitted that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="610"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B960BC8AD64682AA88256EDD0076E3B3/$file/0230326.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Alfred Ameline appeals his 150 month sentence that was imposed after he pled guilty to knowingly conspiring to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Ameline contended that the district court's drug quantity finding was clearly erroneous because it was based on multiple layers of unreliable hearsay evidence. 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004) because the facts underlying the calculation of his base offense level and his sentence enhancement were not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. If Ameline is correct that the Blakely rule applies to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. That the district court violated Ameline's right to have the facts underlying his sentence found beyond a reasonable doubt. Admitted that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="610"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2003/022056p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We must determine whether the State Defendants are entitled to constitutional immunity from plaintiff A.W.'s claims under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The District Court correctly held that the State Defendants have waived any immunity from these claims by the acceptance of the federal financial assistance. We therefore will affirm. The defendants knew or should have known of his medical condition. He was a nineteen year old high school student when he commenced this action. A request was filed in December 1997 with the NJDOE on behalf of A.W. and other Jersey City students with dyslexia. The NJDOE is a recipient of financial assistance under the IDEA and other federal programs. The district was ordered to undertake corrective action regarding its reading curricula. He allegedly is making progress in reading. This amended complaint contained ten counts and sought such relief as the entry of a judgment declaring that A.W.'s rights were violated and both compensatory and punitive damages. Were allegedly liable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for infringing his rights under the IDEA and section 504 by conducting an allegedly ineffective complaint investigation.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="610"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/025.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Corrected opinion filed 2/14/03 is vacated. Was tried and convicted of first degree murder for killing Raymond E. Seven African Americans were seated on the jury. One of whom was later removed for cause during the trial. Allen's fate was finally decided by a jury of six blacks and six whites. 2 At sentencing. The jury was instructed. That they should
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="610"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3B3CEEC82D3324EE882571E7007F8397/$file/9899003.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The District Court held an evidentiary hearing and found Comer to have competently and voluntarily waived his habeas appeal right. We hold that Comer's sentence was invalid and hereby grant the writ of habeas corpus based on the violation of Comer's due process rights that occurred when he was sentenced to death while nearly naked. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 Crime The facts of this case are deeply disturbing. It is unclear whether Pritchard died immediately from the The facts related to Comer's crime. Conviction are largely taken from the Supreme Court of Arizona's 1990 decision in this case. Remembering from their earlier encounter that Jones and Smith were in possession of a small quantity of marijuana. Jones managed to escape while Comer was fixing his truck. She was later picked up by a passing motorist and taken to the sheriff's home. SCHRIRO Charges Comer and Willis were charged in Maricopa County with the first degree murder and armed robbery of Pritchard and the armed robbery. Comer was charged with two counts of sexual abuse and three counts of sexual assault of Jones.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="610"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7C237E269BC9D58688256C2F005B2403/$file/0117023.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 9856. Judges Graber and Paez have voted to deny the Plaintiffs' petitions for rehearing en banc. The Plaintiffs' petitions for panel rehearing and petitions for rehearing en banc are DENIED. The Defendant's petition for panel rehearing is DENIED. Which are various insurance companies and a trade association of insurance companies. The main question for decision is this: May California constitutionally require the disclosure of insurance claims related information by an insurance company that is licensed to do business in California even though the required information may be in the hands of a related entity that is located in a foreign country? Requires any insurer doing business in California that sold insurance policies to persons in Europe that were in effect between the years 1920 and 1945 (Holocaust era policies) to file certain information about those policies with the Commissioner.1 Cal. The reporting requirement also applies to insurance companies that do business in California and are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="610"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/03/00-6128.htm">00-6128 -- EARLS V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TECUMSEH PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT -- 03/21/2001<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="610"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/15341DC0D6C517F688256BF40072A0AC/$file/0117023.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which are various insurance companies and a trade association of insurance companies. The main question for decision is this: May California constitutionally require the disclosure of insurance claims related information by an insurance company that is licensed to do business in California even though the required information may be in the hands of a related entity that is located in a foreign country? Requires any insurer doing business in California that sold insurance policies to persons in Europe that were in effect between the years 1920 and 1945 (Holocaust era policies) to file certain information about those policies with the Commissioner.1 Cal. The reporting requirement also applies to insurance companies that do business in California and are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="610"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0715n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court held that summary judgment was inappropriate because there were genuine factual disputes regarding the Appellants' liability. There was no violation of a clearly established constitutional right. We conclude that when all the facts are viewed in the light most favorable to him. We are without jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal from the denial of summary judgment in favor of the County. Given that we are reviewing the denial of a summary judgment motion. Was living in the chalet and working for the Resort on the ground maintenance staff. The snow maintenance building houses the Resort's maintenance equipment and was always unlocked and occupied. Was in the building awaiting some of his co workers. Anderson approached him and asked who he was and what he was doing in the building. Anderson believed Bultema was intoxicated because of his movements and the smell of alcohol emanating from him. Noted in his deposition that Bultema was on probation at the time and was tested for alcohol every day at the Benzie County Sheriff's Department.
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/206F28925B84F6D488256E5A00707C53/$file/9935453.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended to include as an appendix Lakewood Municipal Code §§ 5.16.00 5.16.120. Clark claims the Ordinance violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the free speech provisions of the Washington Constitution and was passed in violation of the Washington Open Public Meetings Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E796785AACDBA0B288256F40005E3E19/$file/0210526.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That his written consent to search his room was coerced. The consent itself and the evidence obtained pursuant to the consent were tainted by the officers' violations of his Fourth Amendment rights. We agree with Washington that the officers repeatedly violated his Fourth Amendment rights and that both Washington's written consent and the evidence obtained pursuant to it were tainted. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND1 1 The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted. 15566 UNITED STATES v. RPD officers received a tip that an individual named
</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/2003/07/01-5098.htm">01-5098 -- DUBBS V. HEAD START INC. -- 07/21/2003<BR></A><BR>
Complain that their children were subjected to intrusive physical examinations. Including reconsideration of the assessment of costs against the parents. <p align=
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/04/001634P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The purchase was partially financed through a $200. Bank personnel came to believe that Audio Odyssey was failing to perform its duties under the loan and Agreement. Hand delivered a letter to Dincer stating that the Bank was accelerating the loan. Contending that Audio Odyssey was not in default. 3 The Bank was not persuaded. That (i) Audio Odyssey was delinquent in its loan payments and other obligations. (ii) the Bank was entitled to possession of the collateral under the Agreement. (iii) immediate action was necessary because the collateral might be destroyed. Or fraudulently transferred (Bank personnel had told Hofmann that an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8F43ABB9F94F77EF88256E5A00707C24/$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-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F7D505D580225D0F88256AA80080E609/$file/9935453.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended to include as an appendix Lakewood Municipal Code §§ 5.16.00 5.16.120. Clark claims the Ordinance violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the free speech provisions of the Washington Constitution and was passed in violation of the Washington Open Public Meetings Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EBB395FAAD69EF7F88256AA000550EAA/$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-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1995/95a1005p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The question on this appeal is whether the Borough and Enterprise can be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Basing the decision on its finding that Enterprise was not a state actor for section 1983 purposes. We conclude that the district court erred in holding that Enterprise is not a state actor. Will affirm the grant of summary judgment. Factual background and procedural history Enterprise is a private association of volunteers which has served the Borough of Hatboro since 1890.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2021.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Were on brief. The district court denied all of plaintiffs' claims save one: an award of nominal damages of $1.00 each to the two students who would have been assigned to the school of their choice under the old system but for their race. While high school assignments are made on a citywide basis. Boston is divided into three Attendance Zones the North. These zones were drawn by the district court as part of its desegregation orders. The lines largely hew to major transportation routes to keep traditional neighborhoods intact as much as possible.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/57B72CCC0B4522B588256E440001C9C1/$file/0135032o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing en banc is denied. Dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc: This is a dark day for the Voting Rights Act. The court should have taken this case en banc and brought order back into our caselaw. Plaintiffs' case is based entirely on statistical disparities: They claim that disparities in the felony conviction rates of certain minority groups in relation to their presence in the general population lead to a disparity in the rate of disenfranchisement under Washington's felon disenfranchisement law. They argue that these disparities alone prove that under the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan2001/987307.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The primary issue for decision is whether we should overrule the holding of Gibbs v. The prisoner has br ought a federal action or appeal that was dismissed on the gr ounds that it was frivolous. Unless the prisoner
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BAA25A9642E5CC2E88256CEF0078ADD5/$file/0150633.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is withdrawn and replaced with the attached dissent. FBI Special Agent David Bowdich was assigned to investigate a series of bank robberies that UNITED STATES v. Bowdich received information from an unnamed source that a person known as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4A057A971B23BDF98825735200553C3B/$file/0099005.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2007 *Jill Brown is substituted for her predecessor. Was convicted in 1979 for the robbery and murder of Rosemary Cobbs. He was sentenced to death. Both the convictions and sentence were upheld by the courts of California. We consider whether Fields was denied a fair trial on account of juror bias. The effect is to deny habeas relief. I Fields was paroled from prison on September 13. Rosemary was naked on the bed and Fields was standing by the door. A 16 year old girl who was the former girlfriend of Fields's brother. That he was going to take her on a long trip
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/04/01-4057.htm">01-4057 -- ROSKA V. PETERSON -- 04/29/2003<BR></A><BR>
Chief Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="604"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/994737A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Section 2 the last slash in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2003/00-14380.op2.html">VAUGHAN V. COX (1/3/2003, NO. 00-14380)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge: </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/19784157EEB9654788256D2000566966/$file/0215378.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAwLTkxNTlfTF9vcmRlci5wZGY=/00-9159_L_order.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A poll on whether to rehear the case in banc was conducted among the active judges of the court upon the request of an active judge of the court. Rehearing in banc was DENIED by order of the court filed February 11. The petition for rehearing was DENIED. Chief Judge Walker is filing a dissenting opinion. Judge Jacobs is filing a dissenting opinion. Judge Cabranes is filing a dissenting opinion. Other judges of the court have indicated that they expect to file opinions concurring in the denial of in banc rehearing in due course. If further opinions or amended opinions are filed. This order will be amended as necessary to reflect those opinions. Held that those limits were supported by a compelling interest. The full court should have reheard this case in banc. The panel unanimously upheld the district court's determination that the Vermont statute's limitation on out of state contributions was unconstitutional. The panel was divided. Would have upheld the district court's determination that campaign expenditure limits are unconstitutional under Buckley v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2269.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On page 12. Was on brief for appellee. *Of the Eleventh Circuit. Bonneau is a boilermaker who has spent many years in the construction of steel structures. Bonneau was working in Nevada and heard from co workers about an organization called Stop Taxing Our People (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/06/981721P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Claiming that the findings and award are not supported by the record. The State of Arkansas and ADE make only one argument: that because Congress does not have the power under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to pass legislation such as the IDEA. The purported abrogation of states' Eleventh Amendment immunity in § 1403 of that Act is ineffectual and therefore the state and the ADE are not proper parties to the suit. Was amended as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act in 1975. The stated purpose of the Act is to assure that all children with disabilities have available to them . . . a free appropriate public education which emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs. To assure that the rights of children with disabilities and their parents or guardians are protected. The chief mechanism for instituting the congressional purpose is the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2003/00-14380.op2.html">VAUGHAN V. COX (1/3/2003, NO. 00-14380)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge: </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></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-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FE05EEE79C2A97B688256BE3007FEE32/$file/0016423.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bush is substituted for his predecessor. By his daughter's public school teacher are violations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Newdow is an atheist whose daughter attends public elementary school in the Elk Grove Unified School District (
</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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/11/01-1220.htm">01-1220 -- Z.J. GIFTS D-4 V. CITY OF LITTLETON -- 11/18/2002<BR></A><BR>
Including one in which the circuits are substantially divided: namely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
</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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/99-1045.htm">99-1045 -- THOMPSON V. STATE OF COLORADO -- 08/07/2001<BR></A><BR>
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. <em>See id.</em>
</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/6D86FE52B4E4EBBE88256CDF00834482/$file/0150633.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
FBI Special Agent David Bowdich was assigned to investigate a series of bank robberies that occurred in San Diego in 1997 and 1998. Bowdich received information from an unnamed source that a person known as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A707687A97AFC14888257155007E2112/$file/0455457.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: We must decide whether Ventura County Sheriff Bob Brooks and Deputy Karen Hanson are entitled to qualified immunity for conducting a strip search with a visual cavity inspection of Noelle Way during the booking process at a pretrial detention facility on a misdemeanor charge of being under the influence of cocaine or methamphetamine in violation of California Health & Safety Code § 11550(a). The district court held that the search was unconstitutional. It was not clearly established at the time of Way's booking that strip searching persons arrested on drug charges 4480 WAY v. COUNTY OF VENTURA is unreasonable. Where she was a bartender. He suspected that she was under the influence of cocaine or methamphetamine. A blood sample taken from Way at a hospital the night of the arrest revealed that the officer's suspicion was incorrect. The person arrested was to be searched immediately upon booking. The sole justification was that Way had been arrested for violating California Health & Safety Code § 11550(a).
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216424ord2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have rejected the argument that the Supreme Court's recent decision in Nguyen v. This motion is the first instance that was both timely and ripe in which a party objected. To his taking part in a decision as a judge of this Court. 2 1 was not beyond his constitutional power. The Judicial Branch is the controlling interpreter of how the Constitution applies. Is also sworn to uphold the Constitution. When the President is acting under the color of express authority of the United States Constitution. We start with a presumption that his acts are constitutional.2 See United States v. The interpretation of its powers by any branch is due great respect from the others.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="601"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200217017.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That Pastor violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment when she arrested him for being in the busy intersection of Flagler Street and N.W. 27th Avenue in Miami as the police were trying to keep the streets clear on a chaotic day after the federal government removed young Elian Gonzalez from his family in Miami in order to return him to his father. We conclude that Pastor is entitled to qualified immunity on Durruthy's wrongful arrest and excessive force claims. Show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving 2 party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="601"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/987002A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Senior Judge Butzner wrote a dissenting opinion. *Judge Murnaghan heard oral argument in this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. 2 BELL v. Bell was convicted by a jury in North Carolina of fifty eight counts of sexual misconduct comprised of eight counts of first degree rape. Because Bell's petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed after the April 24. 1602 (2000). 2 The record indicates that twenty seven additional counts were dismissed during the course of the trial. 1 BELL v. When Wendy was awakened on a Saturday morning by Bell. Wendy was twelve years old and in the sixth grade. Bell was fiftyfive years old. The threat was effective. While his wife was sleeping or at work. Both of whom lived nearby and were friends of Wendy. Toni also testified that she was present at Bell's home on one occasion when he sexually molested Wendy. Toni was eleven years old when the abuse began. Bell's wife was cooking dinner and Vicki. Vicki was twelve years old. JARVIS hoping Bell would leave Wendy alone if Vicki was present.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="601"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct99/98-6069.man.html">GARRETT V. UNIV. OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM BD. OF TRUSTEES (10/26/1999, NO. 98-6069)<BR></A><BR>
They raise the question that is being litigated in various jurisdictions of whether a state is immune from suits by state employees asserting rights under certain federal laws. The three statutes here are: the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). We hold that the state is not immune from suit under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act and reverse the judgments of the district court against plaintiffs Patricia Garrett and Milton Ash as to those two statutes and remand the two cases for further proceedings. The state is immune from suit under the specific provisions at issue here. <A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="601"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022199.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 2 and line 9 the citations are corrected to read
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="601"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200112/00-5053a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Dana C. Was on the briefs for appellant. With her on the brief were Wilma A. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. We further hold that Lepre's due process challenge is unpersuasive. We affirm the dismiss al of the complaint. * Senior Circuit Judge Williams was in regular active service at the time of oral argument. His right to compensation is suspended until the refusal or ob struction stops.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="601"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/07/043379P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Alberto Gonzales is automatically substituted for his predecessor. An official caption containing a complete list of parties is on file and available for inspection in the Office of the Clerk of Court. The Court determined the law was unconstitutional because it did not contain an exception to preserve the health of the mother. The Court determined the law was worded so broadly it covered the vast majority of late term abortions and thus imposed an undue burden on the right to abortion itself. The entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother. Any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother. For the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus. Id. § 1531(b)(1). 3 The Act contains an exception allowing the performance of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="601"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct99/98-6069.man.html">GARRETT V. UNIV. OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM BD. OF TRUSTEES (10/26/1999, NO. 98-6069)<BR></A><BR>
They raise the question that is being litigated in various jurisdictions of whether a state is immune from suits by state employees asserting rights under certain federal laws. The three statutes here are: the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). We hold that the state is not immune from suit under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act and reverse the judgments of the district court against plaintiffs Patricia Garrett and Milton Ash as to those two statutes and remand the two cases for further proceedings. The state is immune from suit under the specific provisions at issue here. <A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1496.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Or reputation or expose the natural defects of one who is alive. (3) the damages claim against the assistant district attorney arising from the search was barred by absolute prosecutorial immunity. We affirm both the dismissal of Mink's facial challenge to the Colorado criminal libel statute because he lacks standing and his claim is moot. We reverse the district court's dismissal of the damages claim arising from the search because we conclude it is not barred by absolute immunity. Which was created. Was to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1158.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
When it vacated a restrictive covenant attached to their property that was designed to preserve the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood. Was unconstitutional because it does not require the Commission to follow the procedures set forth in the state's eminent domain statute for determining public use. William and Judy Daniels (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1374.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Mitchell</SPAN> were on brief. Were on brief. LLP</SPAN> was on brief. Who was attempting to respond to the same incident under a city policy (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0298p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
His driver's license was suspended pursuant to Ohio Revised Code § 4511.191. Salkil was arraigned the next day. Finding that Salkil was not indigent because of his employment with a sports equipment company. Salkil was returned to the Madison County jail. Salkil was unable to post the requisite bail bond. No local bail bondsman would assist Salkil because he was not an Ohio resident. Salkil was forced to remain in jail. He was unable to timely file a new affidavit of indigency as instructed by the court because the jail guards refused to give him the proper forms. He was released on his own recognizance. Page 3 Village from liability and that the release was standard practice. That finding was necessary to terminate the suspension on Salkil's license. The suspension on Salkil's license was never terminated. Sometime after the order was entered. He assumed that plea negotiations were ongoing because he would not agree to the release. The district court expressly held that the Village's objections to the claims were more appropriately addressed in a motion to dismiss rather than in a denial of leave to amend.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1588.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for appellees. Was stabbed to death in a brawl that erupted outside of a South Boston housing project. Petitioner and George Cooper were indicted and tried for the 1. As we will explain more fully infra in discussing the effects of the presumption creating instruction. We do not believe it at all likely that the jury would have returned a verdict of manslaughter even if it had been perfectly instructed. Cooper was acquitted. Was convicted of murder in the first degree. Although the circumstances in which the stabbing took place are sketchy. Petitioner was drinking beer. Included among these men were the victim. The reason for the fight is not entirely clear. Although there was testimony indicating that it started simply because Cullen and Bates were not from the area. There also was testimony indicating that petitioner and Cullen were arguing about whether Cullen had been in a certain federal prison. Cullen was stabbed nine times. Six of the stab wounds were to his chest. The other three were to his back or side.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/08/981494P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jurisdiction in the district court was proper based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. Jurisdiction on appeal is proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. For the legal analysis supporting its decision that the amendment was unconstitutional on Article I. The Missouri Amendment orders members of Missouri's congressional delegation to use their authority to amend the United States Constitution Similar initiatives were on the ballot in thirteen other states in November 1996. Missouri have been invalidated in federal and state courts on various state and federal constitutional grounds. Yet another similar initiative was passed in California in June 1998. (2) failure to second it if a second is lacking. (8) failure to ensure that all votes on term limits are recorded and available to the public. It orders that those who do not take the pledge have the label
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/506028B2B8E6533D88256B3B0082D162/$file/9917373.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is substituted for his predecessor. Is substituted for his predecessor. He was convicted of first degree burglary in California state court. He was convicted in California state court of petty theft with priors. Was sentenced to three years imprisonment. A hearing before an Immigration Judge (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/98-1333.htm">98-1333 -- DACHO V. GREENE -- 02/29/2000<BR></A><BR>
Duy Dac Ho (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="597"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0138p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
File Name: 00a0138p.06 Because we conclude that there was no manifest miscarriage of justice in Scott's trial or sentencing that would authorize us to issue a federal writ of habeas corpus countermanding the judgment of the Ohio courts. We are convinced that the district court erred in holding that the ground on which it granted the writ was not procedurally barred. Because we conclude that the district court correctly held that the other grounds raised by Scott's petition were either defaulted or without merit. We will reverse the issuance of the writ. Factual History The facts of the underlying crime are not in significant dispute. The following summary is largely taken from the district court's Order. Any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. This claim is not procedurally defaulted. Scott argues that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to prove that he committed or attempted to commit aggravated robbery. As the only specification that made him deatheligible was
</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/C7CBFC80E3D385D188256BE300803DBE/$file/0055406eb.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This appeal is the latest chapter in a protracted saga centered around a 43 foot high Latin cross that stands atop Mt. A 170 acre parcel of land that was dedicated to public use in 1916 as
</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/833BB21E77B4E35D88256AA3005AD73C/$file/0030193.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Will protect defendants from propensity evidence so inflammatory as to jeopardize their right to a fair trial. We therefore conclude that Rule 414 is constitutional. We emphasize that Rule 414 is not a blank check entitling the government to introduce whatever evidence it wishes. We conclude that the district judge in this case applied Rule 403 conscientiously and did not abuse his discretion in finding that LeMay's prior acts of child molestation were not so prejudicial as to outweigh their probative value. BACKGROUND Fred LeMay is a twenty four year old Native American and a member of the Fort Peck Indian tribe. LeMay made both children orally copulate with him while their parents were away and threatened to beat them up if they told anyone. LeMay was eventually arrested and charged with child molestation. When LeMay was just twelve years old. Who in the summer of 1989 were two years and eight months old. As in the 1997 incident for which LeMay was charged. Implied that this substance was semen. LeMay was found guilty of rape.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/953CA73EC0D14D2B88256C4C007B52E4/$file/0116799.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Arizona's 1989 version of the statute was first held unconstitutional by the United States District Court for the District of Arizona in 1992. The court enjoined enforcement of the statute on the grounds that the medical procedure provision was unconstitutionally vague. The definition of medical emergency was unconstitutionally narrow. The court held that two provisions were unconstitutionally vague: the requirement that a request for judicial authorization for abortion without parental consent be determined
</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/4142DCC83BE2459288256C1E0002C51F/$file/9956984.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Powell is substituted for his predecessor Madeline K. Are hereby withdrawn. A dissenting opinion by Judge Kleinfeld are filed simultaneously herewith. The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. POWELL 12379 The petitions for rehearing and for rehearing en banc are. Circuit Judge: Eudene Eunique was denied a passport because she was severely in arrears on her child support payments. She brought an action for declaratory and injunctive relief on the theory that the statute and regulation authorizing that denial were unconstitutional. BACKGROUND When Eunique's marriage was dissolved. Her husband was awarded custody1 of the children. She was ordered to pay child support. By 1998 she was in arrears in an amount over $20. The arrearage continued to grow.2 Despite the fact that she is unable or unwilling to pay her child support obligations. He was designated as primary caretaker. She was able to enter Mexico without a passport. 1 12380 EUNIQUE v. There is no dispute that California has adopted a procedure and that it followed the procedure in this case.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982174.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/02/982147P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
North Dakota and several police officers asserting that they were arrested in violation of their constitutional rights for alleged violation of Fargo's residential picketing ordinance. This matter is now before the court en banc. Certain words and phrases used herein are defined as follows: A. Which is used as a place of residence. Deciding that the ordinance was constitutional on its face but unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs on October 10. The district court concluded that the officers' conduct was not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B49D3074CE2937E488256E5A00707C3E/$file/0030193.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Will protect defendants from propensity evidence so inflammatory as to jeopardize their right to a fair trial. We therefore conclude that Rule 414 is constitutional. We emphasize that Rule 414 is not a blank check entitling the government to introduce whatever evidence it wishes. We conclude that the district judge in this case applied Rule 403 conscientiously and did not abuse his discretion in finding that LeMay's prior acts of child molestation were not so prejudicial as to outweigh their probative value. BACKGROUND Fred LeMay is a twenty four year old Native American and a member of the Fort Peck Indian tribe. LeMay made both children orally copulate with him while their parents were away and threatened to beat them up if they told anyone. LeMay was eventually arrested and charged with child molestation. When LeMay was just twelve years old. Who in the summer of 1989 were two years and eight months old. As in the 1997 incident for which LeMay was charged. Implied that this substance was semen. LeMay was found guilty of rape.
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1176.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lori Wiechelt were on brief. P.C. was on brief.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="595"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/may96/94-8056.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. CUSUMANO<BR></A><BR>
Detective Bohlig concluded that Defendants Cusumano and Porco were growing marijuana for sale in the basement of their rented residence. Defendants stated to the landlord that a grow light in the basement's furnace room was used to grow fresh vegetables. Power company reports indicated that the residence was consuming twice the amount of electricity as similar structures in the area. The electrician also reported that the use of power equipment to provide electricity to an alleged sound stage placed over the basement's indoor swimming pool was inconsistent with existing wiring. Defendants were operating a generator in the garage of the residence purportedly to provide supplemental electricity for musical equipment in the basement. Though no such equipment was ever observed. A thermal imager scan of the residence indicated that Defendants were emitting high levels of heat from the residence. Detective Bohlig concluded in his affidavit that Defendants Cusumano and Porco were growing marijuana in the basement's swimming pool.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="595"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/024027np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Many layers of complex procedural issues have beclouded this initial claim. We will affirm the District Court's decision regarding the as2 applied challenge. This rather prolix explanation of the procedural twists and turns of this case is necessary to understand our decision. The case was decided in two phases. The first phase ended in October 1994 when WCJ Mickey found Bass was serving in the course and scope of her employment when she fell. To determine whether Bass was actually injured by the fall. Was whether Bass's back pain was from a preexisting injury. WCJ Michael Rosen was hired to fill Mickey's position. Her cases were turned over to him. Bass was not notified of this change. Which was then reviewed and signed by Perry and issued more than five years after Bass filed her claim. Finding that her testimony was not credible as to what 1. The Judges assumed the handling of this case after the record was closed and they had no opportunity to observe the claimant. Were otherwise incapable of properly evaluating her credibility.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="595"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1727.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C.</SPAN> was on brief. Were on brief. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="595"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/957694A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Holding they were entitled to qualified immunity. We hold that the officers are entitled to absolute immunity. The officers are protected by qualified immunity. Soon after the incident was reported to the Jacksonville police. Told him he was a suspect in a rape. Wilson was transported to the hospital for treatment and then to the police station to make a statement. Wearing dark shorts that were probably navy blue. A photograph of her composite was distributed to the Jacksonville Police Department. The same sketch artist also met with Shingleton but was unable to develop a reliable composite due to the incomplete nature of the officer's observations. The hypnotic session was recorded on audio tape and its results were noted in a hypnosis information worksheet. Shingleton's memory of the possible suspect changed in at least three respects: he now believed that the tee shirt design was instead a sweat mark. He remembered that the person in fact did not have a mustache. Chief of Police Roger Halbert was in a Dunkin Donuts and noticed appellant Jean.
</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/05a0326p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We previously held that Officer Christine Keith was entitled to qualified immunity from Cheryl Lyons' false arrest claim. Officer Matthew Foubert was entitled to qualified immunity from Lyons' claim that he used excessive force in handcuffing her. Officer Foubert was not entitled to qualified immunity from Lyons' claim that he used excessive force in tackling her in response to a distressed call for backup support from Officer Keith. Aiesha was also present at the Dodd residence. That a police officer was with her. Aiesha would have to come
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/058EC3532F25D02588256F1C0052B980/$file/0016531.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Weston was on the briefs. 13936 DREAM PALACE v. Was on the briefs. COUNTY OF MARICOPA 13937 adult oriented businesses were associated with
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1994/94a0761p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
National Union and Gulf sought to rescind insurance policies which they had issued and under which City Savings and the RTC were seeking coverage. National Union and Gulf were jurisdictionally barred from raising certain affirmative defenses to the RTC's counterclaim. We will affirm the district court's holding that under FIRREA the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over National Union and Gulf's declaratory judgment action. We will reverse the district court's holding that under FIRREA National Union and Gulf are barred from raising affirmative defenses to the counterclaim. Sent a letter to National Union and Gulf providing notice that City Federal might have suffered a loss covered by the insurance policies as a result of dishonest or fraudulent acts of City Federal employees. City Federal was declared insolvent by the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F0D4962B0B715836882573530050B241/$file/0536143.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is hereby withdrawn. A Superseding Opinion is filed simultaneously with this order. Circuit Judge: In these sentencing cases Robert Tillitz and Craig Carrington (petitioners) assert a number of creative arguments in an attempt to have their final sentences reconsidered in light of the Supreme Court's opinion in United States v. We conclude that petitioners have not presented exceptional circumstances sufficient to support a grant of extraordinary relief such as the recall of our prior mandates. Carrington's conviction and sentence were upheld on direct and collateral appeals. Robert Tillitz was convicted by a jury for conspiracy to import hashish. That the Sentencing Guidelines were unconstitutional. Tillitz's conviction and sentence were upheld on direct and collateral reviews. Both argued that their sentences were unconstitutional and also should be modified under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). This distinction
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0469p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appeals the district court's dismissal of his § 1983 civil rights action challenging the refusal of certain Michigan Supreme Court Justices to recuse themselves from cases in which he is involved. Andin turnseveral of the justices have made public remarks regarding Fieger.
</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/998F96BF16F626B18825713000771550/$file/0250084.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Other United States Navy and Coast Guard ships were engaged in maritime surveillance of vessels suspected of drug trafficking in the Eastern waters of the Pacific off the coasts of Ecuador. The De Wert's helicopter was dispatched to the site of the suspicious activity. The five speedboat crew members and seven crew members of the Gran Tauro were prosecuted under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act. The remaining ten Defendants opted for a jury trial and were convicted on all charges. We have jurisdiction. Our reversal is without prejudice to re indictment and retrial because we find that the Government's evidence was sufficient to sustain these Defendants' convictions and that the Government's improper closing argument did not trigger the Double Jeopardy Clause's bar to retrial. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND1 The preferred method of smuggling cocaine from South America to the United States in the Eastern Pacific requires the use of speedboats to transfer and land drugs2 and larger logistical support vessels (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="591"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/993863.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are called upon to decide whether. The Supreme Court recently held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="590"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug97/95-3251.wpd.html">PHELPS V. HAMILTON<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This is one of a series of cases initiated by the plaintiffs appellants seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983 from eleven state criminal prosecutions arising from their anti homosexual picketing and from state statutes which allegedly threaten their picketing activities. The district court held that: (1) a state court determination that the criminal prosecutions were not brought in bad faith violation of the plaintiffs' constitutional rights was entitled to full faith and credit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1738. (2) the Kansas Funeral Picketing Act was unconstitutionally vague. (3) the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the Kansas anti stalking law and Kansas telephone and fax harassment law. Phelps are members of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka. Who are involved in anti homosexual protests and picketing in Shawnee County. The plaintiffs and other members of the Westboro Baptist Church have engaged in a campaign against homosexuality through demonstrating.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="590"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200014380.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sitting by designation. * The issue presented by this case is whether Deputy Fred Lawrence Cox is entitled to qualified immunity and. Is shielded from Jerry Charles Vaughan's suit seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his Fourth Amendment rights arising out of a police chase. This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court. We concluded that a reasonable jury could find that Deputy Cox's use of deadly force was unconstitutional. We affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Deputy Cox in his individual capacity because he was protected by qualified immunity. We hold that Deputy Cox is entitled to qualified immunity. The facts of this case are presented in our original opinion. If we conclude that Vaughan's constitutional rights have been violated under the facts alleged. We must determine whether Vaughan's right was clearly established that is. Whether it would have been clear to a reasonable officer that Deputy Cox's conduct was unlawful. We addressed Vaughan's purported constitutional violation and held that a reasonable jury could conclude if the facts alleged by Vaughan were proven that a constitutional violation occurred.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="590"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1241.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Claiming he was injured during the incident due to excessive force. Serna's claims against Gasko were premised on his alleged supervision and control of the team that removed Serna from his cell. Arguing that he was not liable for Serna's injuries under a theory of supervisory liability. So summary judgment should have been granted in his favor. Factual Background Serna was a prisoner at the Colorado Territorial Corrections Facility. Claimed it was loaded. One of the inmates allegedly involved with the gun was Serna's cell mate. Gasko was not at the prison. He was in his office in Colorado Springs. He had authority to activate SORT but was not in charge of the officers who would enter the cell units. He was in his cell during the early afternoon when
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="590"></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-5.gif" ALT="590"></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-5.gif" ALT="590"></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-5.gif" ALT="590"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022052.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="590"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0472p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Patty Conlin are all former Boyd County. They were not reappointed to their positions after Hollan won election in 2002 and took office in 2003. Plaintiff Lynn Butler is the former Boyd County. She was a former deputy clerk who was appointed to that office after the death of the previously elected clerk. Claiming that they were not rehired (a constructive discharge) in violation of their First Amendment rights of free speech and free association. Because the law regarding patronage dismissals of Kentucky deputy county clerks was not clearly established. Butler did not have any expectation of continued employment or of being rehired. Their appeals have been consolidated. Plaintiffs argue that the district court should not have granted summary judgment to Hollan in either her individual or official capacities. Whether we have jurisdiction over all aspects of those appeals. The appeal was taken from the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="590"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/957694B.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 6 the phrase
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9BF7269BE348D0F788257077004F61F8/$file/0316535.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are amended as follows: At slip op. 14. That the Act was not susceptible to a First Amendment compelled subsidy challenge because the assessments funded government speech. He would now remand to the district court pursuant to the Court's statement in Johanns that an as applied challenge might lie
</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/AE43C9BB7916256288256A76007A56DB/$file/9899018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Their goal for the day was to film a student movie for Buflo's cinema class at the University of Southern California. While Murtishaw and Laufenburger were driving along the dirt road. Their efforts were ultimately unsuccessful. Who were busy filming their movie.1 Murtishaw explained to Buflo that his car had broken down. Buflo explained to Murtishaw and Laufenburger that he and the other students were filming a movie. It was at this time that Murtishaw's intentions toward the students first turned sinister. He 1 The plot of the movie is ironic when compared to the facts of this case. Is stranded in the desert due to car failure. He grows progressively weaker and is confronted by a hooded figure. Is unable to harm it. Thinking that Murtishaw was joking. Soto and Etayo responded that they were not going into town. Murtishaw and Laufenburger walked back to where Buflo and Henderson were still filming in order to watch them. He observed that Murtishaw smelled strongly of alcohol and that he was using profanity.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C00F063B75958F1488256E5A00707BB5/$file/9899018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Their goal for the day was to film a student movie for Buflo's cinema class at the University of Southern California. While Murtishaw and Laufenburger were driving along the dirt road. Their efforts were ultimately unsuccessful. Who were busy filming their movie.1 Murtishaw explained to Buflo that his car had broken down. Buflo explained to Murtishaw and Laufenburger that he and the other students were filming a movie. It was at this time that Murtishaw's intentions toward the students first turned sinister. He 1 The plot of the movie is ironic when compared to the facts of this case. Is stranded in the desert due to car failure. He grows progressively weaker and is confronted by a hooded figure. Is unable to harm it. Thinking that Murtishaw was joking. Soto and Etayo responded that they were not going into town. Murtishaw and Laufenburger walked back to where Buflo and Henderson were still filming in order to watch them. He observed that Murtishaw smelled strongly of alcohol and that he was using profanity.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2002/012782.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The principal issue on appeal is whether the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania waived its sovereign immunity by accepting certain federal funds for the Department of Corrections. We will reverse in part and affirm in part. George Koslow was hired by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections as a water treatment plant supervisor for the State Correctional Institute in Graterford. He was dismissed for being unable to perform
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200613643.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs are former independent political candidates who appeal the district court's order granting summary judgment to the state defendants on plaintiffs' constitutional challenge to Alabama's ballot access restrictions. Which is the first Tuesday in June. Plaintiffs have not shown a constitutional violation.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0121p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Tewksbury was working alone as the night clerk at the King Kwik convenience store at 9870 Pippin Road in Hamilton County. Monte was married and was the father of three children. Robert Shephard was driving northbound on Pippin Road. Monte was bleeding from his side. Went back to the telephone which was still off the hook. Monte was transported to a hospital.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-2098.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Concluding that many of the DCFS employees were entitled to absolute or qualified immunity. Was not a state actor. They have reasonable cause to believe that a child may be abused or neglected. If the person who is alleged to have caused the abuse or neglect is employed or otherwise engaged in an activity resulting in frequent contact with children and the alleged abuse or neglect are in the course of such employment or activity. Once DCFS informs a licensed child care facility that one of its employees is the subject of a DCFS formal investigation. State law mandates that the employer
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/04/032708P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jason Albert Becht was convicted of one count of possessing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) and one count of distribution of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1). His conviction was affirmed on appeal. It is final. The conviction was based upon a statute that made criminal certain activities protected by the First Amendment. Which was discovered by law enforcement authorities. Becht was prosecuted for possession and distribution of child pornography under the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/06/00-6298.htm">00-6298 -- DANIELS V. U.S. -- 06/25/2001<BR></A><BR>
Because this is his first habeas application following the amendment of section 2255 by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Applying AEDPA's standards to his application is impermissibly retroactive. We conclude that no impermissible retroactive result will arise from the application of AEDPA's rules to Mr. Daniels' request. <p align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/01/03-1162.htm">03-1162 -- SOSKIN V. REINERTSON -- 01/12/2004<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/007665.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1292(a)(1) & 2253. I Welch is a citizen of Panama who has been a permanent legal resident in the United States since he was ten years of age. Siblings and son are United States citizens. Welch served in the United States Navy and Naval Reserve for six years and was honorably discharged in 1994. While Welch was in State custody. The DOJ asserted that Welch was deportable pursuant to two subsections of former section 241 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act based on his State felony convictions. Id. § 1251 (a)(2)(C) (authorizing deportation for conviction for unlawfully possessing or carrying firearm).2 Soon after Welch was released from State custody. An immigration judge ordered Welch removed to Panama pursuant to former section 1 The terms
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-5160.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argue that Oklahoma's statutory scheme for specialty motor vehicle license plates is unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Motorists contend that Oklahoma's laws unlawfully discriminate against their views by permitting drivers to obtain license plates bearing the messages
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CB340BA134E0B81688256CBB005A9417/$file/0115098.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is hereby amended as follows: 1 At Slip Op. at 7. We conclude that there is no constitutional infirmity in the statute's provisions regarding active peace officers. LOCKYER 1119 three additional constitutional claims asserted by plaintiffs on appeal is without merit. The immediate cause of the AWCA's enactment was a random shooting earlier that year at the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton. Where three hundred pupils were enjoying their morning recess. Five children aged 6 to 9 were killed. One teacher and 29 children were wounded. Was the first legislative restriction on assault weapons in the nation. Was the model for a similar federal statute enacted in 1994. So that the weapon will continue to reload and fire continuously so long as the trigger is depressed. Imposes significant restrictions on the use of weapons that are registered pursuant to its provisions. Id. § 12285(c).3 Approximately forty models of firearms are listed in the statute as subject to its restrictions. Only one bullet is fired when the user of a semi automatic weapon depresses the trigger.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510904.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Marquard argues primarily that his trial counsel was ineffective in various ways during the penalty phase of his trial. Murder of Stacey Willets Marquard was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death for the 1991 murder of his girlfriend. After Willets's remains were discovered by hunters in the woods. Marquard and codefendant Michael Abshire were arrested. Are as follows: John Marquard. During a stop in South Carolina Marquard told Abshire that he was going to kill her because he was tired of arguing with her. She was still breathing. Marquard was arrested and confessed. Marquard was convicted of first degree murder and armed robbery. Marquard contended that he was present for the murder of Stacey Willets. Testified that it was Marquard who planned to kill and ultimately did kill Willets. As follows: [STATE ATTORNEY]: Where is the first place that you stopped? [ABSHIRE]: We stopped at a . . . like a convenience store/gas station in South Carolina when the sea bags that were on the trunk fell off.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0263p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were unable to obtain a marriage license because Chaiffetz's incarceration made it impossible for him to comply with an Ohio statute requiring both applicants for a marriage license to appear personally before the probate court. After the settlement was obtained. No. 01 4035 entered an order stating that plaintiffs' request for an injunction was moot. The district court also granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on the ground that they were protected by qualified immunity and refused to award attorney's fees because plaintiffs were not prevailing parties within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1988. (2) finding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. I. Ira Chaiffetz and Laura Toms (now Laura Chaiffetz) became engaged while Chaiffetz was incarcerated at the Warren Correctional Institution (WCI) in Warren County.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/661116A4ECB1A7BE88256C8600544DCB/$file/0115098.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude that there is no constitutional infirmity in the statute's provisions regarding active peace officers. We conclude that each of the three additional constitutional claims asserted by plaintiffs on appeal is without merit. The immediate cause of the AWCA's enactment was a random shooting earlier that year at the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton. Where three hundred pupils were enjoying their morning recess. Five children aged 6 to 9 were killed. One teacher and 29 children were wounded. Was the first legislative restriction on assault weapons in the nation. Was the model for a similar federal statute enacted in 1994. So that the weapon will continue to reload and fire continuously so long as the trigger is depressed. Only one bullet is fired when the user of a semi automatic weapon depresses the trigger. Another is automatically reloaded into the gun's chamber. 27 C.F.R. § 178.11 (defining semiautomatic weapons). LOCKYER restrictions on the use of weapons that are registered pursuant to its provisions.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2002/00-14144.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. EDGAR (9/12/2002, NO. 00-14144)<BR></A><BR>
We have carefully considered these various arguments and have concluded that the district court did not commit reversible error in this case. Edgar argues that 18 U.S.C. § 666 is facially unconstitutional because Congress lacks the power to enact criminal laws under the Spending Clause of the Constitution.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C77F14877387BE4688256C16007B59F0/$file/0150468.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The appellants collectively claim that their indictments should have been dismissed because the district court's charge to the grand jury misstated its constitutional role and function. An Apprendi claim that the statute under which he was charged was facially unconstitutional. David Francis Marcucci (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/09/02-1405.htm">02-1405 -- DONOHUE V. HOEY -- 09/21/2004<BR></A><BR>
Eighteen months later her slain body was found abandoned in a wooded area in the neighboring county. During the time Buffy was missing. They alleged that the investigation was so deficient that it violated their federal and state constitutional and statutory rights. The Rices claim that summary judgment was improper in light of the evidence they offered. We agree with the district court and affirm. <ol> <li>BACKGROUND</strong></li> </ol> <p> <strong> Because this case is before us on appeal from a district court's decision granting summary judgment. The Rices promptly filed a missing person report. <p> The Rices' biggest complaint about the subsequent investigation is that the police missed the most obvious suspects: Evonne Haley and David Middleton. These individuals were the prime suspects right from the start. There he had been charged with the kidnaping and sexual assault of a teenage girl and was ultimately convicted for false imprisonment and aggravated assault. He was a prime suspect in the investigation.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2002/00-14144.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. EDGAR (9/12/2002, NO. 00-14144)<BR></A><BR>
We have carefully considered these various arguments and have concluded that the district court did not commit reversible error in this case. Edgar argues that 18 U.S.C. § 666 is facially unconstitutional because Congress lacks the power to enact criminal laws under the Spending Clause of the Constitution.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1210.html">U.S. SHOE CORP. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1460.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellants. Rosenfeld & Weissberg were on brief for appellees. That the district court mistakenly treated his motion to vacate as if it were a motion to modify the consent decree. I. This appeal is part of an ongoing saga involving the construction and the operation of the new Suffolk County Jail on Nashua Street in Boston. A copy of the original consent decree is included as an appendix to this Opinion. 2. The Inmates are those individuals. Who are awaiting trial on criminal charges. Who have either been denied bail or who are unable or unwilling to post bail. 2 chapters of this drama. They are fully set out in published opinions. Approximately ten years after the consent decree was entered. While the [Nashua Street Jail] was still under construction. The Sheriff's motion was brought pursuant to Fed. Which state: On motion and upon such terms as are just. Or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated. Or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should 3 the Suffolk County Jail.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2000/987416.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He is not challenging the merits of the state conviction for 2 which he is presently incarcerated. He contends that because a former conviction for which he is no longer incarcerated or under any parole restraint was tainted by a constitutional infirmity. That conviction was improperly considered when he was sentenced for his second offense. We must first decide whether the conviction of hisfirst offense was considered by the sentencing judge in the matter for which he is presently incarcerated. If we find such jurisdiction we must then examine his first conviction to determine whether he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to competent counsel. If we agree with this contention then we must decide what remedy is available to him. When the local police were called to a high school graduation party at the home of Carol Ann Frank. Testimony was presented that Appellant attended the party along with his brothers. Apparently picked sides and a grand donnybrook was had by all until Carol Ann.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/99-4210.htm">99-4210 -- U.S. V. HARDMAN -- 08/08/2001<BR></A><BR>
That the Act is enforced in a discriminatory fashion in violation of his equal protection rights. Hardman is not of Native American descent. His ex wife and two children are. His ex wife and children are enrolled members of the S'Kallum Tribe. Hardman was still married to and living with his ex wife. He was informed that he would not be allowed to apply as he was not a member of a federally recognized tribe. <p> Years later. Hardman and his wife were separated. Ute tribal officers were informed by Mr. Officer Murray was a cross commissioned federal law enforcement officer acting under the authority of the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs. Which were hanging from the rear view mirror of his truck. <p> On March 10. Hardman was issued a federal violation notice for possessing golden eagle feathers without a permit in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. A bench trial was held before a magistrate judge. Hardman was found guilty of violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and sentenced to pay a small fine.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200615304.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Testified in his affidavit that the shop was certified by and performed repair work for many insurance companies. They were the official body shop for Heintzelman's Truck Center in Orlando. Gager also testified that Bruce and the shop were well respected in the local automotive industry as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/08/02-2008.htm">02-2008 -- U.S. V. VANNESS -- 08/26/2003<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9EA1A9E9FF00EE458825734700517E52/$file/0356712.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is withdrawn and replaced by the new opinion and dissent filed concurrently with this order. The petitions for panel rehearing and for rehearing en banc are DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing will be entertained. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/955107DE045454F7882571F7004DD70F/$file/0356712.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is hereby amended. Their motion was summarily denied by the district court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="583"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/08/02-6079.htm">02-6079 -- CARR V. CASTLE -- 08/04/2003<BR></A><BR>
Both Officers were charged with the use of excessive force by shooting Randall fatally. While the City was charged with a failure to train or supervise the Officers that resulted in the shooting. <p> As for the claim against the Officers. That motion was denied by the district court. The Officers have taken an interlocutory appeal from that ruling. <p> As for the City. It too filed a motion for summary judgment at a time when two earlier filed motions to compel its production of certain documents were unresolved. 2000) the district court sustained the City's motion for summary judgment and found that Carr's last motion to compel (the only one about which he now complains on appeal) was moot. Was acting very excited and aggressive. Eventually Randall came to a fence that he was unable to climb because he was holding a four inch piece of concrete that the Officers had seen him pick up during the chase. Impartial witness Jason Williams (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/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-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/487AE14C5D6C4C8C882571530057D1CB/$file/0250355o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
AFSHARI The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Money is fungible. Giving money to a political organization that is not engaged in terrorist activities is constitutionally protected. The determination of whether or not an organization is engaged in terrorism is therefore crucial. Because it distinguishes activities that can be criminalized from those that are protected by the First Amendment. This case concerns the manner in which this distinction is drawn. The net result is that Rahmani is being criminally prosecuted. Almost certainly will be convicted. For contributing to an organization that has been designated as terrorist with none of the protections that are constitutionally UNITED STATES v. Rahmani will in all likelihood spend many years in prison for contributing to an organization whose designation the D.C. Or attempts or conspires to do so
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200312/02-5224a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2C667A355EA2645D8825715D007EC2C3/$file/0250355o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Denying the petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc is amended as follows: After the sentence. AFSHARI Fisher and Judge Berzon were recused from all proceedings in this case.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="582"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4270.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
One of the issues before the district court was whether the ordinance was properly supported as targeting the untoward
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2521.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. Schwartz LLP</SPAN> were on brief. Is awarded the following declaratory relief: It is hereby declared that Acting Governor Jane M. Contrary to her communicated wishes.</P> <BR WP=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200313331.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appellant Kingsland was involved in an automobile accident with off duty Officer Ramon De Armas of the City of Miami Police Department. Who was driving a yellow Penske rental truck. De Armas was transporting one passenger in his unmarked police vehicle. While De Armas avers that it was Kingsland who ran the red light. Kingsland was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Was dizzy. She was disoriented and was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200408/03-7057a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan2001/989009.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a capital case. Riley pleaded not guilty to all of the charges and was tried by jury in Kent County Superior Court in December 1982. He was represented by appointed counsel. Riley placed a quart bottle of beer on the counter and announced that the store was being robbed. The prosecution intr oduced evidence that Riley's fingerprints were found on the bottle of beer that had been placed on the counter. Riley took the stand in his own defense and testified that he was in Philadelphia with his mother celebrating her birthday when the robbery occurred. Although Riley's mother was present in court at the beginning of the trial. No other alibi witnesses were presented. The penalty phase of the trial was held. After Riley was sentenced on the remaining counts for which he had been convicted. This claim is procedurally barred.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200512540.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5DC075690643E627882570F80008C7F7/$file/0699001.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We find that it is not a second or successive petition within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244 or. Because we conclude that Allen's Lackey claim is a second or successive application which could
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/03/00-2013.htm">00-2013 -- U.S. V. DUNCAN -- 03/09/2001<BR></A><BR>
The grounds for its decision were
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/01/004079P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Carey Dean Moore was sentenced to death under the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="578"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/982041.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was pregnant. Have now sued Seip under 42 U.S.C.S 1983. A. Seventeen year old Leah Gruenke was an eleventh grader at Emmaus High School and a member of the varsity swim team. Began to suspect that Leah was pregnant. Seip observed that Leah was often nauseated. Leah's body was
</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//nov2001/00-14140.opn.html">FLORIDA RIGHT TO LIFE, INC. V. LAMAR (11/28/2001, NO. 00-14140)<BR></A><BR>
The district court ruled that the provision was constitutional on its face under the First and Fourteenth Amendments because of its susceptibility to a narrowing construction. BACKGROUND</STRONG></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/09/983443P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The action was brought on behalf of all present and future general population inmates at ISP challenging the conditions of confinement at the institution as violative of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. A three week trial was held in 1980. The court held a final settlement conference at the penitentiary wherein it informally gave its view of the issues it would be called upon to decide if settlement were not consummated. If the court finds a current and ongoing violation of a federal right and the prospective relief is necessary and narrowly drawn. Then the prospective relief will not be terminated. The inmates asserted that the immediate termination provision of the PLRA was unconstitutional. That the PLRA's immediate termination provision is unconstitutional. Concluded that the PLRA was not unconstitutional. The plaintiff inmates appeal the termination of the consent decree claiming that the district court erred in holding that the decree did not contain the findings required under 18 U.S.C. § 3626 and that the district court erred in concluding that the immediate termination provision of the PLRA is constitutional.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2068.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for Edward Isaacs. Was on brief for the United States of America. The Government appeals both the decision of the court to entertain a collateral challenge to the constitutionality of a prior conviction at sentencing and the decision of the court that the prior conviction was constitutionally invalid. BACKGROUND Isaacs was convicted of one count of conspiracy and one count of using extortionate means to attempt to collect a loan. Racketeering and loansharking was something of a family business. Was 2 indicted. Isaacs' conviction is based on his dealings with one of his father's alleged loansharking victims. Isaacs was tried before a jury and convicted. There was proof that Isaacs broke into Ayala's home and threatened Ayala with a pistol in front of his three small children. The court allowed Isaacs 3 to challenge a 1980 burglary conviction1 that would have resulted in his being classified as a career offender. The district court found that Isaacs had demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that his prior conviction was unconstitutional and refused to consider either the conviction or the underlying conduct as a basis for changing Isaacs' Criminal History Category.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1996/96a1377p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from an order of the district court declaring unconstitutional 241(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A21927B11E3B07C88825717F0076B726/$file/0356712.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Their motion was summarily denied by the district court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Is
</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.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-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2001/00-14140.opn.html">FLORIDA RIGHT TO LIFE, INC. V. LAMAR (11/28/2001, NO. 00-14140)<BR></A><BR>
The district court ruled that the provision was constitutional on its face under the First and Fourteenth Amendments because of its susceptibility to a narrowing construction. BACKGROUND</STRONG></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="575"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/02/99-1385a.htm">99-1385A -- SCHAFFER V. CLINTON -- 02/13/2001<BR></A><BR>
Appellant Schaffer's last name was misspelled as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="575"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/99-1211.htm">99-1211 -- FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION V. COLORADO REPUBLICAN FEDERAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE -- 05/05/2000<BR></A><BR>
Are subject to FECA's contribution limits. <u>Buckley</u>. The Act sets the following contribution limits: A
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6AE2E7FAA0B6F34188256CD8005C607E/$file/0156436.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on the brief. I Garrison Johnson is an African American prisoner in the California Department of Corrections (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5144.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Michael B. This is a suit for a refund of patent fees alleged to have been unlawfully exacted. Because the statute was designed to generate revenue to fund federal programs other than the United States Patent and Trademark Office (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1845B4A48AADBA1D88256D63007AEC0D/$file/0199018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because the jury was not instructed that it must consider Belmontes' principal mitigation evidence. Because there is a reasonable probability that the instructional error affected the jury's decision to impose the death penalty on Belmontes. 19 year old Steacy McConnell telephoned her parents and stated that she was afraid because several people. Her skull was cracked. The house was ransacked and her stereo was missing. Belmontes was nineteen at the time. Vasquez were each charged with first degree murder and special circumstances. B. The Guilt Phase Bolanos was the principal witness for the state. Vasquez was on the phone with McConnell. The three were short of cash. Belmontes was sprinkled with blood on his face. Belmontes stated that he had had to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept95/91-3528.ma2.html">GLOCK V. SINGLETARY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Glock v. A panel of this court granted relief from the sentence based on Glock's claim that the trial court's jury instructions were unconstitutionally vague. Which was that the admission into evidence of a confession he made together with his codefendant violated his Confrontation Clause rights under <i>Cruz v. Were convicted in Florida of the first degree murder. When they saw she was still standing. Which was recorded by a court reporter. Stating that the murder was Glock's idea. The two men agreed that the entire statement accurately recounted the incident.<p> Glock and Puiatti were tried together. Were admitted in evidence. No limiting instruction was requested or given with respect to the joint confession. One of the aggravators was that the murder was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept95/91-3528.ma2.html">GLOCK V. SINGLETARY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Glock v. A panel of this court granted relief from the sentence based on Glock's claim that the trial court's jury instructions were unconstitutionally vague. Which was that the admission into evidence of a confession he made together with his codefendant violated his Confrontation Clause rights under <i>Cruz v. Were convicted in Florida of the first degree murder. When they saw she was still standing. Which was recorded by a court reporter. Stating that the murder was Glock's idea. The two men agreed that the entire statement accurately recounted the incident.<p> Glock and Puiatti were tried together. Were admitted in evidence. No limiting instruction was requested or given with respect to the joint confession. One of the aggravators was that the murder was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/04/982549P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Security guard Richard Heflin was killed during an armed robbery of the Lindell Bank & Trust in St. Holder were charged and convicted in separate jury trials for violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 2. Allen was sentenced to life in prison on Count I and received a sentence of death on Count II. I. Background Holder was a regular customer of the Lindell Bank & Trust. Five hundred dollars was automatically deposited to his account each month from a legal settlement Holder obtained after losing the lower portion of one leg in a train accident. Allen and Holder were also seen together on several other occasions during the ten days leading up to the armed robbery. The night before the armed robbery two vans were stolen for use as the first two getaway vehicles after the robbery (Holder's mother's car was to be used as the third. The ballistics evidence showed that both rifles were discharged during the robbery and a total of sixteen shots were fired inside the bank. The remaining two could have come from either rifle. Was on fire and two park workers helped to extinguish the flames.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTA3NDMtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0743-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 is constitutional as applied to federal law. Hankins was a clergy member ordained by appellee New York Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/64B02BA4E794A47988256EE8005777FF/$file/0115462.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTA3NDMtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0743-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 is constitutional as applied to federal law. Hankins was a clergy member ordained by appellee New York Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Robert A. Were on the brief for amici curiae States of Texas. Polsby were on the brief for amici curiae Professors Frederick Bieber. Stefan Bijan Tahmassebi was on the brief for amicus curiae Congress of Racial Equality. Ferrara was on the brief for amicus curiae American Civil Rights Union in support of appellants. Robert Dowlut was on the brief for amicus curiae National Rifle Association Civil Rights Defense Fund in support of appellants seeking reversal. With him on the brief were Robert J. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Ernest McGill in support of appellees. Were on the brief for amici curiae Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Were on the brief for amici curiae The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Who is a District of Columbia special police officer permitted to carry a handgun on duty as a guard at the Federal Judicial Center. Heller applied for and was denied a registration certificate to own a handgun. They are not asserting a right to carry such weapons outside their homes.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B3F216ECA850F0598825707A004DCC31/$file/0335333.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That sentence is now replaced with:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F169BCFEDEBA005988256BAC00761D97/$file/0135222.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That decision was subsequently upheld on appeal. While the appeal in Crofton was pending. The law with respect to the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-2304.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Dwyer & Collora were on brief. We affirm the district court's finding that the law interferes with the foreign affairs power of the federal government and is thus unconstitutional. We further find that the Massachusetts Burma Law violates the Supremacy Clause because it is preempted by federal sanctions against Burma. There is one matter on which the parties are agreed: human rights conditions in Burma are deplorable. Final determination as to whether a company is in fact
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/164F3F0966B78CC388257028008029A9/$file/0335333.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Defendant Noel Shields appeals the district court's ruling that he is not entitled to summary judgment against Plaintiff Kimberly Kennedy's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. Conclude the district court correctly determined that Shields is not entitled to qualified immunity. Kennedy claims to have warned Shields of Michael Burns's violent tendencies at the September 6 meeting. She told Shields that the Burns family was unstable and that she had seen a lot of violence in their home. It is undisputed that Shields had no contact with Kennedy between the September 6 meeting and September 24. That the investigation concluded that he was not responsible. Kennedy asserts that she expressed concerns about her safety and told the CAIC officer handling the investigation that she was anxious to have the investigation started. The content of this message is disputed. There was a message from Kennedy inquiring about his contact with Angela Burns and the status of the molestation case. The officer responsible for the case was out so Shields left a message.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/08/972302P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The University of Minnesota is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2003/991324.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Enough is Enough. In which the Court held that our decision affirming the District Court's grant of a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199809/97-5132a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Steyer and Mary Lou Smith were on the briefs. United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on the brief. Mooney were on the brief. Circuit Judge: Appellant Association of Bitumi nous Contractors contends that because its members are not in 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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0155p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case stems from a strip search of over twenty students that occurred after a student in a high school gym class reported that her prom money had been stolen.1 The plaintiffs in this case include both male and female high school students who were subjected to the search. The defendants are the teachers who were involved in the search and the police officer who instructed the teachers to search the female plaintiffs. The actions of the defendants in this case were unconstitutional. The law regarding the reasonableness of a strip search under these circumstances was not clearly established. The denial of summary judgment is therefore reversed. The school principal was absent on the date of the incident. Was advised of the theft. The male students were in the boys' locker room. The female students were in the gymnasium. Balsillie then went to the boys' locker room and told Carpenter that the police were on their way. The amount of money missing was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-5132a.html">ASSN BITUMINOUS INC V. APFEL KENNETH S.<BR></A><BR>
Steyer</i> and <i>Mary Lou Smith</i> were on the <p> briefs.<p> <p> <i>Sushma Soni. </i> United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on the brief. <p> <p> <i>Peter Buscemi</i> argued the cause for appellees United Mine <p> Workers of America. Mooney</i> were on the brief.<p> <p> Before: Silberman. <i>Circuit Judge</i>: Appellant Association of Bitumi <p> nous Contractors contends that because its members are not <p> in 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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6FA63303852632AC8825734F0059D078/$file/0615474.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Even though Ricky Inouye is now deceased. 1 INOUYE v. Was released on parole on November 20. Nanamori was added to the prison case in the third amended complaint. Judge Mollway initially held that Nanamori was not entitled to qualified immunity. Nanamori was dismissed. The case was ultimately settled and dismissed on August 12. Because there was no final judgment on the merits in the case. Inouye is a Buddhist. Enclosed is a copy of the decision in Kerr v. Is not limited to. Inouye is required to participate in the prayer. Please assure that there is no religious content in any substance abuse program that is imposed as a requirement of Mr. Inouye's parole. under the law of the State in which the judgment was rendered.
</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//july2000/99-10646.man.html">METHENY V. HAMMONDS (7/7/2000, NO. 99-10646)<BR></A><BR>
We vacate and remand.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/09/00-1168.htm">00-1168 -- FAUSTIN V. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER COLORADO -- 09/28/2001<BR></A><BR>
1983 that her First Amendment rights were violated. The sidewalk is public property. The sidewalk is approximately five feet wide. Faustin was displaying the banner at the overpass when Denver Police Officer Lindsay approached her and asked her to stop displaying the banner. Faustin complied but asked Lindsay to cite the specific law she was violating. The officers told Faustin they were unaware of any law she had violated by displaying the banner. Faustin was displaying the banner at the overpass when Sergeant Reyes of the Denver Police informed her she could not display the banner. Faustin told Reyes she was finished for the day. Faustin was displaying the banner at the overpass when Denver Police Officer Blea told her she was violating the Posting Ordinance (Denver Municipal Code section 3 1).<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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-2243.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
<U>Senior Circuit Judges</U>.</FONT></P> <BR WP=
</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/sept99/98-2403.man.html">GULF POWER CO. V. UNITED STATES (9/9/1999, NO. 98-2403)<BR></A><BR>
Florida Power Corp. are electric utility companies who brought suit against the United States and the Federal Communications Commission seeking a declaration that the 1996 amendment to the Pole Attachment Act. Is facially unconstitutional because it effects a taking of their property without an adequate process for securing just compensation. Rights of way which are used to supply electricity to consumers. Power lines are strung across public and private lands and millions of poles support those lines.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2000/99-10646.man.html">METHENY V. HAMMONDS (7/7/2000, NO. 99-10646)<BR></A><BR>
We vacate and remand.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DAED665F64D0731A88257101007B887C/$file/0435416.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs appellants (
</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//sept99/98-2403.man.html">GULF POWER CO. V. UNITED STATES (9/9/1999, NO. 98-2403)<BR></A><BR>
Florida Power Corp. are electric utility companies who brought suit against the United States and the Federal Communications Commission seeking a declaration that the 1996 amendment to the Pole Attachment Act. Is facially unconstitutional because it effects a taking of their property without an adequate process for securing just compensation. Rights of way which are used to supply electricity to consumers. Power lines are strung across public and private lands and millions of poles support those lines.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-3984_021.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who was disabled. Both Allen and Patricia were convicted of incest and sentenced to years in prison. Allen Muth argues that Wisconsin's incest statute is unconstitutional insofar as it 2 No. 03 3984 seeks to criminalize a sexual relationship between two consenting adults. Were arrested by the State of Wisconsin in 1997 and charged with incest in violation of Wisconsin law. The facts leading up to this 1 arrest are not pleasant. Allen was one of the oldest and Patricia one of the youngest. During their childhood they were in and out of foster care. They and several other siblings were involved in a cycle of sexual abuse and incest. Although they were separated for some length of time. Was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CFC05CC73FD5AC0B88256B6D005FDCC3/$file/0035732.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Idaho state prisoner William Gray was convicted of killing his wife. Because we find that the Idaho trial court's (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2000/98-2174.man.html">UNITED STATES V. FRANDSEN (5/25/2000, NO. 98-2174)<BR></A><BR>
Marvin Frandsen and Bryan Morris (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1995/95a0986p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
These consolidated appeals have been taken from judgments and orders in three civil actions against the City of Philadelphia and certain of its former officials and employees. The court is divided on the disposition of various issues and on certain issues there are majorities consisting of each of the three possible combination of judges. On other issues the court is unanimous. In this opinion I will set forth the ultimate conclusions reached and also will set forth the majority view on some points and my own view on other points. Judges Scirica and Lewis are filing separate opinions. As a matter of convenience I largely will deliver this opinion in the first person. Judge Scirica and I conclude that all the individual defendants are immune because their actions on May 13. We will affirm the grant of summary judgment to defendants Wilson Goode. Will reverse the denial of summary judgment on the section 1983 claims to defendants Brooks. Judges Scirica and Lewis conclude that the City of Philadelphia is not entitled to summary judgment on the section 1983 claims and accordingly we will affirm the district court's denial of summary judgment to the city on those claims.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200014140.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court ruled that the provision was constitutional on its face under the First and Fourteenth Amendments because of its susceptibility to a narrowing construction. I. BACKGROUND FRL is a non profit Florida corporation that has as its primary purpose the dissemination of information concerning fetal development. At issue here and consequently is not a party to this appeal. 2 1 * organizations established primarily for the public good.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3310.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The amended opinion is attached to this order. The petition for rehearing is denied. The petition for rehearing en banc was transmitted to all of the judges of the court who are in regular active service. That petition is also denied. Other individuals to notify the state government whenever they have
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012155.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Massey Plaintiffs maintain that their assignments of liability are unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's decision in Eastern Enterprises v. We conclude that these contentions are without merit. The Combined Fund is financed by annual premiums assessed against current and former coal operators. Among those assignments were several made to the Massey Plaintiffs. Was unable to agree upon the rationale for its ruling: a four justice plurality voted to invalidate the assignments on one constitutional theory. The events leading to the enactment of the Coal Act have been well chronicled by this and several other courts. These benefit trusts were financed by coal production royalties and by payroll deductions. The coal mines were returned to private control. Which was modeled on the Krug Lewis benefit trusts. The 1947 Fund was financed exclusively by royalties from coal production. Although the 1950 NBCWA was amended several times. The 1950 Benefit Plan covered coal miners who were already retired. The 1974 NBCWA constituted a significant break from the past in that it was the first agreement between the UMWA and the BCOA to provide lifetime health benefits for retirees and their widows (unless a widow remarried).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200012/99-5307a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the briefs were Paul Hoffman. With him on the brief was Wilma A. She also claims that while he was being tortured and for more than a year and a half after his death. Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. Because the NSC and State Department officials are not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. Emphasizing that defendants have not yet answered Harbury's charges and that her claims have been subject to neither discovery nor cross examination. Bamaca committed suicide and was buried nearby. This was false. Harbury learned from a prisoner who had escaped from a Guatemalan interrogation camp that her husband was alive and being tortured. Discovering that the body there was not his. Saying they were concerned about Bamaca's situation. These officials reassured her they were seriously looking into the matter and told her the Guatemalan Military had informed them that it did not have (and never had) custody of Bamaca. The State Department also reported that it had no information confirming that Bamaca was still alive.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2000/98-2174.man.html">UNITED STATES V. FRANDSEN (5/25/2000, NO. 98-2174)<BR></A><BR>
Marvin Frandsen and Bryan Morris (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200101/99-5307b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the briefs were Paul Hoffman. With him on the brief was Wilma A. She also claims that while he was being tortured and for more than a year and a half after his death. Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Because the NSC and State Department officials are not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. Emphasizing that defendants have not yet answered Harbury's charges and that her claims have been subject to neither discovery nor cross examination. Bamaca committed suicide and was buried nearby. This was false. Harbury learned from a prisoner who had escaped from a Guatemalan interrogation camp that her husband was alive and being tortured. Discovering that the body there was not his. Saying they were concerned about Bamaca's situation. These officials reassured her they were seriously looking into the matter and told her the Guatemalan Military had informed them that it did not have (and never had) custody of Bamaca. The State Department also reported that it had no information confirming that Bamaca was still alive.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-5307b.html">JENNIFER K. HARBURY V. JOHN M. DEUTCH<BR></A><BR>
With her </p> <p>on the briefs were Paul Hoffman. With him on the brief was Wilma A. </p> <p>Lewis. She also </p> <p>claims that while he was being tortured and for more than a </p> <p>year and a half after his death. Defendants were entitled to qualified </p> <p>immunity. Because </p> <p>the NSC and State Department officials are not entitled to </p> <p>qualified immunity on this claim. Emphasizing that </p> <p>defendants have not yet answered Harbury's charges and </p> <p>that her claims have been subject to neither discovery nor </p> <p>cross examination. Bamaca </p> <p>committed suicide and was buried nearby. This was false. </p> <p>In fact. </p> <p>Harbury learned from a prisoner who had escaped from a </p> <p>Guatemalan interrogation camp that her husband was alive </p> <p>and being tortured. Discovering that the body there was not </p> <p>his. </p> <p>Harbury met repeatedly with State Department officials. </p> <p>Saying they were concerned about Bamaca's situation. These </p> <p>officials reassured her they were seriously looking into the </p> <p>matter and told her the Guatemalan Military had informed </p> <p>them that it did not have (and never had) custody of Bamaca.</p> <p> .
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/00-4015.htm">00-4015 -- U.S. V. WILGUS -- 08/08/2001<BR></A><BR>
The Secretary of the Interior to promulgate regulations which authorize takings or possession of these eagles when such possession is compatible with eagle preservation and
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19956243.PAK.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Join: I fully agree that government officials acting within their discretionary authority should be shielded from liability for violating rights of which a reasonable person would not have known. Would lead a reasonable person to understand that the conduct in this case was prohibited. Stating that a constitutional test is general or that factually similar precedent is lacking bypasses the fundamental inquiry set out by the Supreme Court: determining whether the governing constitutional standard provides sufficient guidance.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6662FBE72165A60E88256E3100792791/$file/0215057.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2003 is amended as follows: Insert at Slip. Judges McKeown and Rawlinson have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc and Judge KONG v. The petition for rehearing is DENIED and the petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED. 2004 in which to file a reply brief is GRANTED. The district court held that these amendments were not an establishment of religion. SCULLY 1739 (1) The term
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051519p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are presented here with a casebook ready fact pattern implicating an area of Fourth Amendment law that has long been a source of confusion. How the exclusionary rule applies in cases in which evidence obtained during an illegal traffic stop is introduced against a passenger with no possessory interest in the vehicle. We hold that when a vehicle is illegally stopped by the police. No evidence found during the stop may be used by the 2 government against any occupant of the vehicle unless the government can show that the taint of the illegal stop was purged. We join all of our sister circuits that have directly faced this issue. We will canvass that caselaw. While they were at the club. Told Mosley that he was leaving the club to go meet her. A dancer at the club who was accompanying Hayes. The source of the information relayed in the radio call is not reflected in the record. As it was pulling away from the nightclub. Hayes and Mosley were arrested and charged with gun possession. The officers did not observe Hayes committing any traffic violation that would have justified the stop under Whren v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/01/98-4158.htm">98-4158 -- AMERICAN TARGET ADVERTISING, INC. V. GIANI -- 01/13/2000<BR></A><BR>
Background</strong> <p> American Target is a Virginia corporation that provides fundraising services to nonprofit organizations. The corporation is under contract to provide such services to Judicial Watch. American Target is classified as a professional fundraising consultant under the Utah Charitable Solicitations Act. 13 22 9. <p> American Target has not complied with the registration requirements and is therefore barred from assisting Judicial Watch with its mailing in Utah. Because nothing in the record indicates that the Act will have any different impact upon interests not before this court. We analyze both prongs of the First Amendment challenge as they are presented under the facts of this case. <u>City Council of L.A. v. We will then decide if the provision is unconstitutional on its face. Where expressive activity is arguably protected by the First Amendment. We conclude that all but three of the challenged provisions are consistent with the First Amendment. <p> Charitable solicitations qualify as protected speech for First Amendment purposes. <u>Village of Schaumburg v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4E4AC35D7D39C98288256B83001A860D/$file/0055709.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It refused to award nominal damages for Schneider's due process claim. 4616 We must decide whether Schneider is entitled to prejudgment interest as part of the constitutionally required
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2DC2AF1C268A46E388256D95005CC9AD/$file/0215057.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court held that these amendments were not an establishment of religion. The cross referenced section x(ss)(1) reads in relevant part as follows: Religious nonmedical health care institution (1) The term
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E67E664DE6DAEE5388256DE4000107D8/$file/0199018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2003 is hereby amended. Because the jury was not instructed that it must consider Belmontes' principal mitigation evidence. Because there is a reasonable probability that the instructional error affected the jury's decision to impose the death penalty on Belmontes. 19 year old Steacy McConnell telephoned her parents and stated that she was afraid because several people. Her skull was cracked. The house was ransacked and her stereo was missing. Belmontes was nineteen at the time. Vasquez were each charged with first degree murder and special circumstances. B. The Guilt Phase Bolanos was the principal witness for the state. Vasquez was on the phone with McConnell. The three were short of cash. Belmontes was sprinkled with blood on his face. Belmontes stated that he had had to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/088ADB1589395F3F8825716500567FE7/$file/0556040.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appeal the district court's orders1 which (a) abstained as to their claim that three sections of the California law relating to marriage are unconstitutional. 2 and (b) ruled adversely to them on their claims that two sections of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)3 are likewise unconstitutional. BACKGROUND It is agreed: Smelt and Hammer are both males who wish to obtain a California marriage license and to marry each other in that state. They were denied a license both times
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0225p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The United States was engaged in a criminal investigation of Plaintiff Steven Warshak and the company he owned. (2)
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/02/99-1385.htm">99-1385 -- SCHAEFFER V. CLINTON -- 02/13/2001<BR></A><BR>
Because we determine that appellant does not have standing to sue. Whether the district court erred in holding that the COLA provision of the Ethics Reform Act does not violate the Twenty Seventh Amendment to the Constitution and that the COLA provision is not an unconstitutional delegation of Congress's legislative authority. Until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0168FFB46E51AC548825718F00493302/$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-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F2EF603F9078AB0E88256EC100533598/$file/0235776.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The flash bang grenade is a light/sound diversionary device designed to emit a brilliant light and loud noise upon detonation. Its purpose is to stun. The district court found that all individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and that Boyd's Monell1 claim against the City of Corvallis failed for lack of evidence. Arguing that the district court should have granted qualified immunity on alternative grounds. We conclude that the district court properly found a material issue of fact as to whether Boyd's Fourth Amendment rights were violated. Properly determined that these rights were not clearly established at the time of the injury. We also conclude that Boyd's Monell claim was properly denied on summary judgment. 690 (1978) (holding that municipalities may be liable under section 1983 if a constitutional violation was the product of an official policy or a failure to train employees). 1 8594 BOYD v. CPD officers were contacted by a confidential informant. The informant claimed to have overheard a Mr.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1997/97a1755p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction to review the judgment of the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY CSB is a New Jersey chartered. It has been selling CollegeSure(R) CDs which are deposit contracts designed to provide sufficient funds to cover future costs of college education. We deal only with the second action and thus our further references are to that case. Was unconstitutional. Because the abrogation was not a proper exercise of Congress' Fourteenth Amendment enforcement powers. It also pleaded a common law tort of unfair competition but we will not discuss that claim further as the district court dismissed it. Was an unconstitutional attempt to abrogate the states' Eleventh Amendment immunity. The district court found that the constructive waiver doctrine did not apply because Florida Prepaid was engaging in a core government function. CSB appealed from the dismissal of the Lanham Act claim to this court.2 We will affirm the district court's holding that the TRCA is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' Fourteenth Amendment powers as applied to the present case.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1951.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/08DCA40B5268F1E188256B52006025B3/$file/0055117.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He was. The Judge Advocate 1 This factual background is based on the complaint. Because the case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Non Liturgical/Other denominations were each guaranteed one third of the chaplain corps positions. Liturgical chaplains are. A declaration that his involuntary early retirement was invalid and violative of due process. The court concluded that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction. 000 were subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. The district court concluded that they were barred by the Feres doctrine. Whether the Feres doctrine applies to the facts in the record is reviewed de novo. The district court's underlying factual determinations are reviewed for clear error. Its application of substantive law is reviewed de novo. Which were well in excess of $10. The district court also reasoned that Wilkins's tort claims were barred by the Feres doctrine. Although the United States is generally liable for tort damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1226.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Associates</SPAN> were on brief. Were on brief. Were on brief. Burke</SPAN> were on brief. Was on brief. This civil rights case requires us to decide whether police officers of the Town of Walpole and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of State Police (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1996/96a1278p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Although we have previously held that the administrative review scheme provided in the Longshore Act supplants district court jurisdiction over claims for benefits. Kreschollek's claim presents a new twist on the question because his challenge to the Longshore Act is a constitutional one and he claims that the review process established by the Act is insufficient to address his injuries. Asserting that Kreschollek was now able to return to work. While the matter was pending before the ALJ. Kreschollek filed this action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey invoking jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and alleging that the review procedure under the Act is unconstitutional because it does not require a predeprivation hearing before employers who voluntarily compensated injured employees may terminate those benefits. Is unconstitutional. Named as defendants were Southern Stevedoring Co. The ALJ's final decision on Kreschollek's administrative claim for benefits and the district court's ruling on the motion to dismiss were handed down within days of each other in March 1995.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199906/96-7239b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were John M. With him on the brief were Wilma A. With him on the brief was Arthur B. Farris was on the brief for amicus curiae Home School Legal Defense Association. Holding that it violates the fundamental rights of minors and their parents and is unconstitutionally vague. Rehearing en banc was granted. Determining that juvenile crime and victimization in the District was a serious prob lem and growing worse unanimously adopted the Juvenile Curfew Act of 1995. The curfew contains eight
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/11/961892P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Before the court is Joseph Amrine's motion to remand to the district court prior to the briefing on his appeal from the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Amrine seeks a remand because of new evidence discovered Judge Henley participated in the consideration of the case and concurred in the result at conference but died before the opinion was filed. 1 after his petition was ruled on by the district court.2 He says this new evidence shows him actually innocent of the murder of a fellow prison inmate for which he has been sentenced to death. He wants to introduce at an evidentiary hearing testimony from the eyewitnesses who made the case against him at trial because they have now all sworn that that testimony was false and induced by pressure. So that the constitutional claims found by the district court to have been procedurally barred should be considered on the merits before the appeal proceeds. I. Amrine was convicted of murdering Gary Barber on October 18. Barber was stabbed in the back with an ice pick at a punching bag.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTAzNDAtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-0340-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: When one of the cases of this consolidated appeal was before us seven years ago. Such forgetfulness is understandable because we know that even Homer nodded.1 We have before us an appeal and several cross appeals from a preliminary injunction entered in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Block. Defendant LSC is a 1 A reference to the reappearance in Homer's famous
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/01/013637P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Arguing that the SDP Act and his civil commitment under it are unconstitutional. In 1956 when Linehan was 15. He took indecent liberties with a 4 year old girl and was sent to reform school. Linehan was arrested the next month for that kidnapping and murder. The charges for her murder were dropped. He was sentenced to serve a maximum of 40 years. Linehan was arrested in Michigan for sexually assaulting a 12 year old girl. He was charged. When the jury's verdict was read. Linehan was returned to Stillwater. Linehan's mandatory release date was in May 1992. Linehan was then released in August 1994 to a residence on the grounds of the Stillwater correctional facility where he lived under intensive supervised release and participated in sex offender treatment programs. It is not necessary to prove that the person has an inability to control the person's sexual impulses.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981658.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1657.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001252.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961581.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: We are convened to review a decision of the district court holding two statutes one enacted by the General Assembly of North Carolina and the other enacted by the Congress of the United States to be unconstitutional. 1 is violative of the First Amendment on its face and as applied. In pertinent part: (a) No person shall obstruct or block another person's access to or egress from a health care facility or from the common areas of the real property upon which the facility is located in a manner that deprives or delays the person from obtaining or providing health care services in the facility. .... (e) This section shall not prohibit any person from engaging in lawful speech or picketing which does not impede or deny another person's access to health care services or to a health care facility or interfere with the delivery of health care services within a health care facility. John Bradley are North Carolina residents who oppose abortion for moral. Their opposition has motivated them to engage in demonstrations outside facilities in North Carolina where abortions are performed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19947158.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We determine whether a federal pretrial detainee was subjected to unconstitutional conditions of imprisonment in a city jail. We affirm because we conclude that all of the defendants appellees are entitled to qualified immunity. Was arrested by drug enforcement agents in Fort Lauderdale. Because there is no federal detention facility in the Middle District of Alabama. 2 individuals awaiting trial or sentencing on federal charges are housed in municipal and county jails in the district pursuant to intergovernmental agreements. One such jail used by the Marshals Service to house federal detainees is the Montgomery City Jail (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/08/052165P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was convicted of drug and firearm offenses. One forfeiture count and was sentenced to 25 years in prison. Arguing that his motions to suppress evidence should have been granted. That there was insufficient evidence to uphold his convictions for conspiracy and attempted obstruction of justice. Holding that the district court should have granted his motion to suppress the evidence found when the warrant was executed. The government's petition for rehearing en banc was granted and the panel opinion vacated. He absconded after he was placed on work release. Received a report from Crime Stoppers that Tylan Lucas was staying at 2316 Ogden Street apartment 1 in North Omaha. That address was for a unit on the first floor of a house converted into apartments. They had learned that the tenant in apartment 1 was Theresa Scaife. On their arrival a man and woman were heard speaking inside. The police asked whether Lucas was in the apartment. She denied that he was. The officers told her they believed he was inside and wanted to look for him.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/94-7158.man.html">WILSON V. BLANKENSHIP (12/31/1998, NO. 94-7158)<BR></A><BR>
We determine whether a federal pretrial detainee was subjected to unconstitutional conditions of imprisonment in a city jail. We affirm because we conclude that all of the defendants appellees are entitled to qualified immunity.</P> <P><CENTER>I. Was arrested by drug enforcement agents in Fort Lauderdale. Because there is no federal detention facility in the Middle District of Alabama. Individuals awaiting trial or sentencing on federal charges are housed in municipal and county jails in the district pursuant to intergovernmental agreements. One such jail used by the Marshals Service to house federal detainees is the Montgomery City Jail (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19947158.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We determine whether a federal pretrial detainee was subjected to unconstitutional conditions of imprisonment in a city jail. We affirm because we conclude that all of the defendants appellees are entitled to qualified immunity. Was arrested by drug enforcement agents in Fort Lauderdale. Because there is no federal detention facility in the Middle District of Alabama. Individuals awaiting trial or sentencing on federal charges are housed in municipal and county jails in the district pursuant to intergovernmental agreements. One such jail used by the Marshals Service to house federal detainees is the Montgomery City Jail (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may96/96-1077.man.html">FELKER V. TURPIN<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Felker v. Facts in the case are summarized in our prior opinions and in the Georgia Supreme Court's decision affirming his convictions and sentence on direct appeal. (It was his second state habeas petition. Today.<p> Felker is now back before us. His application was formally filed at 11:30 a.m. The Court reiterated that:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/05/001874P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Public School District (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTA3NDMtY3YgdyBkaXNzZW50LnBkZg==/04-0743-cv%20w%20dissent.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Dissenting: The Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/94-7158.man.html">WILSON V. BLANKENSHIP (12/31/1998, NO. 94-7158)<BR></A><BR>
We determine whether a federal pretrial detainee was subjected to unconstitutional conditions of imprisonment in a city jail. We affirm because we conclude that all of the defendants appellees are entitled to qualified immunity.</P> <P><CENTER>I. Was arrested by drug enforcement agents in Fort Lauderdale. Because there is no federal detention facility in the Middle District of Alabama. Individuals awaiting trial or sentencing on federal charges are housed in municipal and county jails in the district pursuant to intergovernmental agreements. One such jail used by the Marshals Service to house federal detainees is the Montgomery City Jail (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may96/96-1077.man.html">FELKER V. TURPIN<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Felker v. Facts in the case are summarized in our prior opinions and in the Georgia Supreme Court's decision affirming his convictions and sentence on direct appeal. (It was his second state habeas petition. Today.<p> Felker is now back before us. His application was formally filed at 11:30 a.m. The Court reiterated that:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct98/97-6793.man.html">HARBERT INT'L, INC. V. JAMES (10/14/1998, NO. 97-6793)<BR></A><BR>
Which we will refer to as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/98-4160.htm">98-4160 -- TILLMAN V. COOK -- 06/15/2000<BR></A><BR>
Claiming his right to Due Process was violated. (3) the jury convicted him on the basis of elements for which there was insufficient evidence. (4) his indictment was insufficient. (5) his sentence of death was arbitrary. Because the distinction between first degree and second degree murder was entirely unclear to a jury. (6) his sentence of death was arbitrary and unconstitutional. Because three of five Justices of the Utah Supreme Court have. Tillman was convicted by a jury of first degree murder. Which was denied. <u>See</u> <u>Tillman v. Tillman's right to appeal is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Because his appeal was filed after its effective date. While the Court's clarification in <u>Slack</u> may have some effect on non constitutional claims. The standard remains the same for constitutional claims. <u>See</u> <u>id.</u> <p> Because the showing for a CPC is the same as that required for a COA. 2253(c) is straightforward: The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. . . .
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2002/00-16086.opn.html">CUESTA V. SCH. BD. (3/14/2002, NO. 00-16086)<BR></A><BR>
We consider two issues: whether a school board is liable for an allegedly unlawful arrest stemming from a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct97/97-6179.opa.html">OLD REPUBLIC UNION INS. CO. V. TILLIS TRUCKING CO.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Old Republic Union Ins. To have its obligations under certain insurance policies determined by a federal court instead of state court. While maintaining that it was potentially responsible for a judgment only up to the $1. Old Republic moved to intervene in order to submit interrogatories to the jury for the purpose of establishing whether liability was based on any theory that would implicate the general liability policy in addition to the commercial automobile policy. Old Republic's proposed interrogatories were not submitted to the jury. Is unconstitutional. A district court is authorized. Which are necessarily bound up with their decisions about the propriety of granting declaratory relief. Among those considerations were the abstention principles of <i>Younger v. Those principles alone are sufficient to prevent the district court's decision from being an abuse of discretion.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2000/99-10593.opn.html">STANLEY V. CITY OF DALTON (7/26/2000, NO. 99-10593)<BR></A><BR>
Stanley was a Lieutenant in the Narcotics Unit and Chadwick was Deputy Chief in charge of the evidence room. Gene Slade was Chief.</P> <P><STRONG>A. Stanley testified that he gave the GBI his
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199910593.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Stanley was a Lieutenant in the Narcotics Unit and Chadwick was Deputy Chief in charge of the evidence room. Gene Slade was Chief. Stanley testified that he gave the GBI his
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct98/97-6793.man.html">HARBERT INT'L, INC. V. JAMES (10/14/1998, NO. 97-6793)<BR></A><BR>
Which we will refer to as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/52F840BF69A5E89F88257077004FB57F/$file/0410090.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This issue is one of first impression in our circuit. It is an issue of first impression UNITED STATES v. It is squarely presented.2 Facts Scott was arrested for drug possession crimes under state law and released on his own recognizance. Among the conditions of his release was consent to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200508/04-5045a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200016086.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We consider two issues: whether a school board is liable for an allegedly unlawful arrest stemming from a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962164A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
OPINION PER CURIAM: This is a class action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which it was claimed that the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of class members were violated when they were subjected to warrantless stops and physical searches at a police checkpoint set up to prevent the suspected introduction of weapons into a charity motorcycle rally in Spartanburg. The class members sought a declaration of constitutional violations in both the stops and searches to which they were subjected. Bain was acting as the City's policy maker so as to subject it to liability for any constitutional violation found. To whom the issues were submitted for decision when the jury was unable to reach a verdict. (4) neither were they entitled under Fourth Circuit precedent to any award of nominal damages. Challenging the district court's ruling that the checkpoint stops and videotaping did not violate their constitutional rights and the court's ruling that they were entitled to no actual or nominal damage award for the unconstitutional searches declared by the court.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2002/00-16086.opn.html">CUESTA V. SCH. BD. (3/14/2002, NO. 00-16086)<BR></A><BR>
We consider two issues: whether a school board is liable for an allegedly unlawful arrest stemming from a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0171p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jimmy Ray and Kenneth Valentine were convicted of conspiring to possess and distribute cocaine powder and crack cocaine. We reverse and hold that Jimmy Ray Valentine is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine whether his trial counsel thwarted his efforts to accept a plea bargain. Jimmy Ray Valentine Jimmy Ray was convicted in February 2000 of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base. While his motion was pending in the district court. While his application was pending. Valentine Kenneth was tried with his brother Jimmy Ray and six other defendants. Was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base. Kenneth was sentenced to 292 months. Predicated on the district court's finding that at least 1.5 kilograms of cocaine base were involved in the offense. The merits of Kenneth's Booker challenge are properly before us. This distinction is irrelevant. Because the district court based its ruling on the legal conclusion that Jimmy Ray's proposed amendment to include a Blakely argument would be futile as Blakely was inapplicable on collateral review.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2000/99-10593.opn.html">STANLEY V. CITY OF DALTON (7/26/2000, NO. 99-10593)<BR></A><BR>
Stanley was a Lieutenant in the Narcotics Unit and Chadwick was Deputy Chief in charge of the evidence room. Gene Slade was Chief.</P> <P><STRONG>A. Stanley testified that he gave the GBI his
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct97/97-6179.opa.html">OLD REPUBLIC UNION INS. CO. V. TILLIS TRUCKING CO.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Old Republic Union Ins. To have its obligations under certain insurance policies determined by a federal court instead of state court. While maintaining that it was potentially responsible for a judgment only up to the $1. Old Republic moved to intervene in order to submit interrogatories to the jury for the purpose of establishing whether liability was based on any theory that would implicate the general liability policy in addition to the commercial automobile policy. Old Republic's proposed interrogatories were not submitted to the jury. Is unconstitutional. A district court is authorized. Which are necessarily bound up with their decisions about the propriety of granting declaratory relief. Among those considerations were the abstention principles of <i>Younger v. Those principles alone are sufficient to prevent the district court's decision from being an abuse of discretion.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2EC0DA1401999D9E88256ED900693A89/$file/0330339.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The court clerk was to send these reports to the United States Sentencing Commission. We are asked to decide whether the district court exceeded its statutory or inherent authority. The United States argues that we have jurisdiction to consider its direct appeal from the district court's order denying its motion to set aside the Standing Order in this criminal case. Which was one of the first cases in which the Standing Order's requirements were triggered. If appellate jurisdiction is lacking. These questions have divided our panel. We are unanimous as to Sections I and III. Provides insight into how the requirement generally was satisfied: Most districts ask the probation office to submit the sentencing documents. This is. Particularly where the probation office is not involved in the proceeding. The Memorandum of Understanding set forth the complete list of documents to be submitted as part of the sentencing report and
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="559"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-7008a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With </P> <P>him on the briefs were Kevin C. Was on the brief for </P> <P>amicus curiae District of Columbia Financial Responsibility </P> <P>&. On the brief </P> <P>were Brendan V. </P> <P>the District of Columbia contends that the officers are enti </P> <P>tled to qualified immunity because. It was not </P> <P>clearly established prior to Eric Butera's death that the </P> <P>officers' conduct would violate these rights. </P> <P>the appeal presents two questions of first impression in this </P> <P>circuit: (1) whether the District of Columbia can be held </P> <P>constitutionally liable for failing to protect an individual who </P> <P>is not in custody from harm inflicted by a third party. </P> <P>through which Eric Butera might have succeeded in proving a </P> <P>constitutional violation. Was not clearly established prior to </P> <P>his death. The officers were entitled to qualified immu </P> <P>nity. We also hold that there is no parental due process right </P> <P>to the company of an adult child who is independent.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="559"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200101/00-7008a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Kevin C. Was on the brief for amicus curiae District of Columbia Financial Responsibility & Management Assistance Authority. On the brief were Brendan V. The District of Columbia contends that the officers are enti tled to qualified immunity because. It was not clearly established prior to Eric Butera's death that the officers' conduct would violate these rights. The appeal presents two questions of first impression in this circuit: (1) whether the District of Columbia can be held constitutionally liable for failing to protect an individual who is not in custody from harm inflicted by a third party. Through which Eric Butera might have succeeded in proving a constitutional violation. Was not clearly established prior to his death. The officers were entitled to qualified immu nity. We also hold that there is no parental due process right to the company of an adult child who is independent. The officers were entitled to summary judgment on all claims brought under 42 U.S.C. s 1983.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/12/97-4197.htm">97-4197 -- UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. V. STATE OF UTAH -- 12/03/1999<BR></A><BR>
The Railroads allege that their property has been assessed substantially in excess of its fair market value for tax purposes while all other commercial and industrial property in the same tax category is assessed at less than fair market value. That the individual members of the Tax Commission are amenable to suit under <em>Ex parte Young</em>. We hold that section 11501 is a valid abrogation of Eleventh Amendment immunity and we therefore do not address the district court's application of <em>Ex parte Young</em>. <p> <center><strong>I </center> </strong> <p> <strong><center>Eleventh Amendment Immunity</strong></center> <p> The Eleventh Amendment states that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec2000/00-15985.ma2.html">TOUCHSTON V. MCDERMOTT (12/6/2000, NO. 00-15985)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judges.</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/06/991698P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gooden and Jackson argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because they lacked actual knowledge of and were not deliberately indifferent to any abuse that rose to the level of a constitutional violation committed by school teacher Claudie Lovell. The district court concluded reasonable jurors could find on the evidence that Gooden and Jackson had notice of and were deliberately indifferent to Lovell's conduct and. Were two of the named defendants in a complaint filed by six minor students alleging that their teacher. The allegations of abuse are extensive.2 Lovell was an elementary school teacher in the Fort Smith School District for over twenty two years until his verbal suspension on Monday. Only the § 1983 claim is before us. Filed a motion for partial summary The specific abuse allegations will be addressed as relevant in the analysis section of this opinion. 2 2 judgment as to the § 1983 claim. A district court's order denying a defendant's motion for summary judgment is an immediately appealable order where the defendant has asserted qualified immunity and the issue concerns an abstract issue of law relating to qualified immunity.
</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/2004/02/03-1002.htm">03-1002 -- BIODIVERSITY ASSOCIATES V. CABLES -- 02/04/2004<BR></A><BR>
Explicitly supersedes a settlement agreement between the Forest Service and various environmental groups regarding management of these lands. <p> The question presented is whether the extraordinary specificity of this legislation. Congress is permitted to be as specific as it deems appropriate. Settlement agreements between private litigants and the executive branch cannot divest Congress of its constitutionally vested authority to legislate. <p align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></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-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9712.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 4 the phrase
</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/dec2000/00-15985.ma2.html">TOUCHSTON V. MCDERMOTT (12/6/2000, NO. 00-15985)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judges.</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://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-4161.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. <hr> HOLMES. G. Cook is married to D. After concluding <hr> that plaintiffs have forfeited any challenge to the constitutionality of Utah's civil prohibition of polygamous marriages. That polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/93-3291.ma3.html">UNITED STATES V. GECAS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Is a Lithuanian national who has lived in the United States as a resident alien for thirty four years. Claiming that his silence is protected by the constitutional privilege against self incrimination. Held that Gecas was entitled to the equitable relief provided by the privilege because he had a real and substantial fear of conviction under foreign law.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug97/93-3291.ma3.html">UNITED STATES V. GECAS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Is a Lithuanian national who has lived in the United States as a resident alien for thirty four years. Claiming that his silence is protected by the constitutional privilege against self incrimination. Held that Gecas was entitled to the equitable relief provided by the privilege because he had a real and substantial fear of conviction under foreign law.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/626A5E633B8887E388256E5C006D2DEC/$file/0255418.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Richard Ceballos filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 contending that he was subjected to adverse employ 3448 CEBALLOS v. Qualified immunity was not available to the individual defendants because the law was clearly established that Ceballos's speech addressed a matter of public concern and that his interest in the speech outweighed the public employer's interest in avoiding inefficiency and disruption. Is entitled to such immunity depends on whether he was performing a state or a county function when he took the alleged actions with respect to Ceballos. We hold that in most respects he was acting in the latter capacity. He is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Neither is the County. In 1997 or 1998 he was assigned to the District Attorney's CEBALLOS v. GARCETTI 3449 Office's Pomona Branch and about a year later was promoted to calendar deputy. Told Ceballos that he believed that one of the arresting deputy sheriffs may have lied in a search warrant affidavit. Ceballos was supervising the deputy district attorney assigned to the case.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ED4EEB8B572112F288256ED100749A46/$file/0315066.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Proposed increases exceeding this amount are subject to administrative review. The City was required to place the question of repealing the 1979 Ordinance on the ballot for November 1998. A lawful space vacancy is defined as follows: A vacancy of the mobilehome space occurring because of the termination of the tenancy of the affected mobilehome (1) CASHMAN v. CITY OF COTATI 9343 Vacancy control prevents mobilehome park owners from charging a new base rent or increasing the existing rent for a mobilehome space when ownership of a mobilehome coach is transferred and the coach remains in place. The stated purpose of Ordinance No. 680 is to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/08/972286P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Alleging that her constitutional rights were violated when Morgan raped her while he was on duty. She indicated that she did not have the necessary papers with her. Morgan called for a tow truck which was standard procedure in such a situation. Rogers was unable to locate the papers. She stopped when Morgan said she did not have to have sex with him. Rogers testified that she was in shock and afraid during this encounter and that she did not know what to do. That she was surprised a police officer would be acting in such a way. That she was intimidated by Morgan's gun and badge. The events took place during Morgan's duty shift when he was wearing his uniform. Rogers said she was afraid to show how upset she was at the time. He testified that she was upset and cried during the call. The court held there was insufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact about whether there was a policy or custom of failing to investigate or act on allegations of abuse by police officers and whether there was evidence that the chief handled prior incidents improperly or ignored complaints.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/599BC82D47F2F68788256F1D0057798A/$file/0316535.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The tobacco companies argue that this is a case of compelled subsidization of speech prohibited by the First Amendment. California counters that the advertisements are government speech entirely immune from First Amendment attack. The tobacco companies concede that (1) the imposition of the tax itself is not unconstitutional and (2) the message produced by the government's advertisements creates no First Amendment problem apart from its method of funding. The revenue generated by the surtax is placed in the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug20/03-60539-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendants argue the district court erred by not granting them qualified immunity because Plaintiffs have failed to offer material facts that demonstrated clearly established constitutional violations and/or objectively unreasonable actions by Defendants. We find that the Plaintiffs have not put forth material evidence of any constitutional violations committed by Deputies Kirby. We also find that Plaintiffs have not materially supported any clearly established Fourteenth Amendment violation committed by Sheriff Ainsworth as a matter of law. His actions in connection with the checkpoints were objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established Fourth Amendment law. Some of these concerts were staged at Collins Field. Collins Field was to open early in the afternoon. Was to start at 5:00 or 6:00 p.m. Brown stated that this request was made because of calls Ainsworth had received about foul language and issues related 3 to a previous concert held on Mother's Day. The Collins stated the request was really solicitation for a bribe and retaliation for supporting Ainsworth's political opponent.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3451_054.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This appeal presents another variation on the question whether taxpayers have standing to challenge a governmental action that allegedly violates the Establishment Clause an issue that arises with some regularity. Each of these cases addresses challenging issues in an area of law in which the law is by no means clear. The taxpayers' target is a federal statute. Plaintiff Eugene Winkler and others (to whom we refer collectively as Winkler) sued the Secretary of Defense claiming that the Jamboree statute violates the Establishment Clause because it requires the government to support an organization BSA that conditions membership upon a belief in God and thus that excludes believers in religions that are not based on one or more Deities. The district court ruled that standing was proper. It then found that BSA is a religious organization and that the direct public subsidy of the Jamborees violated the Establishment Clause. We conclude that Winkler does not have standing to challenge the Jamboree statute. There are three elements of Article III standing: injury in fact.
</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.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="554"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july96/95-6123.op.html">MCMILLIAN V. JOHNSON<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>McMillian v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> <p> Walter McMillian was convicted of the murder of Ronda Morrison and sentenced to death. McMillian alleges that state and local officials prosecuted and punished him for a crime that they knew he did not commit.<p> This is an appeal from the district court's order denying several defendants' motions for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. We do not know to what extent McMillian's allegations of egregious official misconduct are true. Our role on this appeal is to decide the legal question of whether. If McMillian's allegations are true. The officials responsible are entitled to qualified immunity.<p> <p> <b>I. Many of the facts surrounding these events are hotly disputed at this. The summary judgment stage of the litigation.<p> Ronda Morrison was murdered in Jackson Cleaners in Monroeville. Were involved in the investigation of the Morrison murder. Benson are the appellants on this appeal.<p> On June 3.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1625.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: Page 50. Was on brief for Ankers White. Was on brief for appellants defendants. appellants defendants. Procter & Hoar were on brief for plaintiff appellee. Hoar were on brief for plaintiff appellee. 3 3 CYR. The inmate was given no hearing prior to the AFP placement. AFP status was reviewed every five days by the prison official who recommended the particular placement. Domegan sought to establish that the AFP was viola tive of the Eighth Amendment. (iii) turned off his water supply. 3The ten defendants named in the final amended complaint were Joseph J. Three other defendants were named in earlier complaints but were 5 5 Domegan was granted summary judgment on the procedural due process claim. Judgment was entered in the amount of $1.00 against Ponte. Although the district court determined that Domegan was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july96/95-6123.op.html">MCMILLIAN V. JOHNSON<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>McMillian v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> <p> Walter McMillian was convicted of the murder of Ronda Morrison and sentenced to death. McMillian alleges that state and local officials prosecuted and punished him for a crime that they knew he did not commit.<p> This is an appeal from the district court's order denying several defendants' motions for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. We do not know to what extent McMillian's allegations of egregious official misconduct are true. Our role on this appeal is to decide the legal question of whether. If McMillian's allegations are true. The officials responsible are entitled to qualified immunity.<p> <p> <b>I. Many of the facts surrounding these events are hotly disputed at this. The summary judgment stage of the litigation.<p> Ronda Morrison was murdered in Jackson Cleaners in Monroeville. Were involved in the investigation of the Morrison murder. Benson are the appellants on this appeal.<p> On June 3.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/05/043830P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge. 3 Ellen Maria Reasonover (Reasonover) was convicted in 1983 of killing James Buckley (Buckley). Was released in 1999 after her petition for writ of habeas corpus was granted. It was more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found Reasonover guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Buckley was shot to death at the Vickers gas station in Dellwood. Which was operated as a consortium by a group of local police departments. Reasonover went to a nearby 7 Eleven store where again she saw the three men as she was exiting the store. The police later learned both Scott and Staples were in jail at the time of the murder. When police told Reasonover the men she identified could not have committed the murder. White stated he was with the Weston family the night Buckley was killed. Two of the Westons stated Officer Pruett's report was incorrect. Reasonover now claims this report is false because it fails to include her numerous denials of involvement in Buckley's murder. Reasonover and White engaged in what they thought was a fifty six minute private conversation.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200610216.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is the second appeal involving the detention and handcuffing of a nineyear old student. The Incident Coach Lattuce Greer Williams believed that Gray was not doing
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200314326.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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)
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-4351.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2046.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(3) imposed an incorrect and unconstitutional sentence under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0118n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
For the reasons that are set forth below. BACKGROUND The details of this case are tragic. Morton was released on personal recognizance and ordered to return to court on April 3. 2003 and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. 2003 he was arrested by Dearborn police. An arrangement was made to transfer him to the custody of the Ann Arbor police. Morton attempted to escape and was caught. Morton tested positive for cocaine and his blood alcohol level was found to be .363. Which is over four times the legal limit for operating a motor vehicle. University medical specialists concluded that hospitalization was unnecessary and that Morton's violent behavior was 2 No. 06 1013 the result of his drug and alcohol use. Morton was released from the University Hospital the same day and taken to his arraignment. Morton once again reacted violently when he was told he would not be released while he awaited his sentencing hearing set for June 12. Was present at this arraignment. He admitted that it is customary for him to have received a copy of the court disposition and that he likely received one in this case as well.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AA172172B3CFF121882571A200746779/$file/0450518.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Beng was sentenced under the now defunct mandatory Guidelines regime. Were sufficient to preserve his Booker challenge to the court's imposition of his sentence using the erstwhile mandatory Guidelines. It was not until January 2005. Based on the fact that he was previously deported following a conviction for a crime of violence. Beng argued to the district court that these recommendations would violate his Sixth Amendment right to have a jury determine any facts that increased the maximum sentence he could receive. The court also found that Beng was in Criminal History Category III. Which are foreclosed by our case law. The maximum penalty for illegal reentry is increased from two years to twenty years in prison if the defendant was previously removed subsequent to a conviction for an aggravated felony.1 In Almendarez Torres. The Supreme Court held that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/12/97-6389.htm">97-6389 -- STATE OF OKLAHOMA V. U.S. -- 12/03/1998<BR></A><BR>
Oklahoma's open record laws and federal legislation preventing disclosure of information contained in motor vehicle records are in conflict. Any public official who willfully violates the state's open records policy is subject to both criminal and civil liability. <u>Id.</u> . The question presented is whether the DPPA is a valid exercise of congressional power to which contrary state law must yield consistent with constitutional principals of federalism and the Tenth Amendment's reservation to the States of all
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0418p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which requires the Attorney General to detain immigrants who have committed certain crimes. Ly was convicted of credit card fraud. Ly was involved in a checkkiting scheme. He was convicted of bank fraud. Ly was kept in detention for 500 days. The INS asserted that Ly was subject to removal1 from the United States because he was an alien convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude. He was an alien convicted of an aggravated felony. With another charge that Ly was an alien convicted of an aggravated felony. The hearing was rescheduled for September 21. Actual removal of Ly from the United States was never a possibility during this process. Vietnam has not and does not accept deportees because there is no repatriation agreement between the United States and Vietnam. 1 1999 hearing. The immigration judge found that Ly was removable. The hearing was continued to April 28. Granting habeas relief unless a bond hearing was held. The immigration judge determined that he did not have the statutory authority to release Ly from detention.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/01/951050P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have before us in this appeal the novel question whether the person currently serving as President of the United States is entitled to immunity from civil liability for his unofficial acts. Who here is sued personally. He argues that the court instead should have dismissed Mrs. Jones's suit without prejudice to the refiling of her suit when he no longer is President. Seeking to have the stays entered by the District Court lifted. An Arkansas State Trooper who was assigned to Mr. For actions alleged to have occurred beginning with an incident in a Little Rock. Clinton was governor and Mrs. Jones was a state employee. Filed a motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice to its refiling when he is no longer President or. Amicus briefs have been filed in support of Mr. Van Alstyne. 42 1 for a stay of the proceedings for so long as he is President. Clinton was entitled to a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1171.html">ROTHE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, V. DEPT OF DEFENSE<BR></A><BR>
Argued</p> <p class=MsoNormal>for plaintiff appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3496D4587B80681E88256BC0007BB5AC/$file/9917338.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A number of the sheriff's deputies who were on duty at the Washoe County jail the night Gibson died. That summary judgment was improperly granted on the question whether the County was deliberately indifferent to Gibson's mental illness while he was in custody at the county jail. Review is de novo. To determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact. Was in the regular care of a psychiatrist. Gibson was entering a manic phase. He was pacing agitatedly through his home. Gibson where he was going. The psychiatrist on call at West Hills in an effort to find Gibson and have him taken to the hospital. Four dispatches were broadcast over the Reno1 and Washoe County police frequencies: On February 1 at 9:33 PM. A notice was broadcast. The broadcast stated that Gibson was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BCAB3BC271B1E39B8825731A00829964/$file/0515080.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Edgerly was not prosecuted for trespass or any other offense. That Schiff and the City were liable for the Officers' unconstitutional actions. Found that there were genuine issues of material fact with regard to Edgerly's constitutional and state law claims against the Officers and The Officers and City filed joint motions for summary judgment and. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We hold as a matter of law that the Officers did not have probable cause to arrest Edgerly for trespass in violation of then section 602(l). We also hold that the Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity for the arrest. Edgerly is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the arrest claims and we reverse and remand for a determination of damages. We also hold that the Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity for the search. Other than one discrepancy in Edgerly's testimony that is not relevant to our disposition. 3 there were no significant differences between the parties' depositions and trial testimony.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/9725.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lines 3 4 the citation is corrected to read
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2000/98-4971.man.html">WYZYKOWSKI V. DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS (9/11/2000, NO. 98-4971)<BR></A><BR>
BACKGROUND</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></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-5.gif" ALT="551"></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-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F847B86BCD2AB49488256DFE007B89AE/$file/0315481.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are seriously ill Californians who use marijuana for medical purposes on the recommendation of their doctors. Such use is legal under California's Compassionate Use Act. That ruling is now before us. Marijuana is a schedule I controlled substance. (3) that there is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0254p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Hartman was convicted in an Ohio state court of aggravated murder and was sentenced to death. Defendant was convicted of aggravated murder. Morris testified that Snipes was yelling at defendant about touching stuff that was not his. Snipes was observed crossing a street in a nearby business district. She was never seen alive again. Defendant was in and out of the bar five to six times between 9:00 and 10:30 p.m. Snipes's leg was draped across the bed. Bagley Page 3 plastic chair was on top of her body. Snipes's hands were cut off and have never been found. Defendant was at the Inn Between with Morris. While police units were across the street investigating Snipes's murder. Defendant approached Detective Gregory Harrison while he was at a mobile crime lab parked outside Snipes's apartment. Defendant approached Harrison a second time and spontaneously mentioned that Snipes was a whore. Defendant was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/21FFD637F320655D88256BBC00528B36/$file/0135222.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That decision was subsequently upheld on appeal. While the appeal in Crofton was pending. The law with respect to the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></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-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan2001/993458.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Holding that it was so irrationally underinclusive as to violate equal pr otection. While this appeal was pending. The Happy Landing Landfill The pertinent facts of this case are not in dispute. Is the general partner of Eagle. Happy Landing was intended to accept municipal waste from primarily out of state producers. The Happy Landing site is located approximately 5.25 miles from the Dubois Jefferson County Airport. The PDEP determined that the landfill site contained wetlands of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></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-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/96311E1BD528E6CC88256DA2005952F9/$file/0070014.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are vacated. They are replaced by the Opinion and Dissent filed today. The petitions for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. The clerk is instructed not to accept for filing any new petitions for rehearing or petitions for rehearing en banc in this case. 13774 ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER v. Sewers are also used on occasion as an easy (if illicit) means for the direct discharge of unwanted contaminants. They are subject to the controls of the Clean Water Act. EPA preserved The
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2000/98-4971.man.html">WYZYKOWSKI V. DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS (9/11/2000, NO. 98-4971)<BR></A><BR>
BACKGROUND</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug95/93-4044.html">JANE L. V. BANGERTER<BR></A><BR>
We are called upon to determine the legal vitality of several provisions of Utah's 1991 abortion law against the backdrop of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Recognizing that their legislation was a facial attack on prevailing Supreme Court abortion jurisprudence. We are satisfied that any jurisdictional problems have been corrected and that appellate jurisdiction is present. Casey was argued April 22. Were unconstitutional. Section 302(3): Post 20 Week Abortion Ban The district court's first task after Casey was to determine the constitutionality of section 302 of the Act.3 The court held 3 Utah Code Ann. 76 7 302. The abortion is necessary to save the pregnant woman's life. (b) the pregnancy is the result of rape or rape of a child. That was reported to a law enforcement agency prior to the abortion. (c) the pregnancy is the result of incest. The incident was reported to a law enforcement agency prior to the abortion. (e). (4) The name of a victim reported pursuant to Subsection (b) or (c) is confidential and may not be revealed by law enforcement or any other party except upon approval of the victim.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2001/00-14340.opn.html">JOHNSON V. BD. OF REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF GEORGIA (8/27/2001, NO. 00-14340)<BR></A><BR>
The three Plaintiffs are white females who applied unsuccessfully for admission to the University's Fall 1999 class. The University's freshman admissions policy does not unlawfully discriminate on the basis of race because the policy is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest in ensuring a diverse student body. Student body diversity is not a compelling interest sufficient to withstand the strict scrutiny that courts must apply to government decision making based on race. Because even assuming that student body diversity is a compelling interest. The University's 1999 freshman admissions policy is not narrowly tailored to achieve this interest. Plaintiff Jennifer Johnson's complaint was filed separately. Eventually was consolidated with the complaint of Plaintiffs Aimee Bogrow and Molly Ann Beckenhauer.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021432.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are 4 BESKIND v. Who are permitted to sell and ship their wine directly to consumers. The district court held that North Carolina's ABC laws unconstitutionally discriminated against out of state wine manufacturers and sellers and were not saved by the Twenty first Amendment. The structure in North Carolina is a familiar three tiered one in which out ofstate sellers of alcoholic beverages may sell their alcoholic beverages only to licensed wholesalers. North Carolina General Statutes § 18B 102.1 provides that it is unlawful
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2001/00-14340.opn.html">JOHNSON V. BD. OF REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF GEORGIA (8/27/2001, NO. 00-14340)<BR></A><BR>
The three Plaintiffs are white females who applied unsuccessfully for admission to the University's Fall 1999 class. The University's freshman admissions policy does not unlawfully discriminate on the basis of race because the policy is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest in ensuring a diverse student body. Student body diversity is not a compelling interest sufficient to withstand the strict scrutiny that courts must apply to government decision making based on race. Because even assuming that student body diversity is a compelling interest. The University's 1999 freshman admissions policy is not narrowly tailored to achieve this interest. Plaintiff Jennifer Johnson's complaint was filed separately. Eventually was consolidated with the complaint of Plaintiffs Aimee Bogrow and Molly Ann Beckenhauer.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/04/00-3113.htm">00-3113 -- JOHNSON V. MCKUNE -- 04/15/2002<BR></A><BR>
Noble Leroy Johnson was convicted in the district court of Butler County. The District Court found the <em>Sandstrom</em> issue not to have been defaulted or waived because <em>Sandstrom</em> was not decided until after Johnson's conviction was final and because he had raised the issue in his first motion and appealed its denial to the highest state court. <em>Johnson v. The court held that the ruling in <em>Sandstrom</em> was not retroactively applicable on collateral review under <em>Teague v. Thomas and Darlene Woodyard were murdered in El Dorado. The Woodyards were friends of Noble Leroy Johnson and his wife Linda. The bodies were discovered three days later when the Woodyards' landlady entered the house. Her husband told her he was going to go back and kill them. A witness said he had seen Noble Johnson crouching by the river behind the Woodyards' house the day before the bodies were discovered. Johnson said that because the doors were locked from the inside. Johnson said he was angry at this.
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200014340.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The three Plaintiffs are white females who applied unsuccessfully for admission to the University's Fall 1999 class. The University's freshman admissions policy does not unlawfully discriminate on the basis of race because the policy is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest in ensuring a diverse Honorable Harlington Wood. Student body diversity is not a compelling interest sufficient to withstand the strict scrutiny that courts must apply to government decision making based on race. Because even assuming that student body diversity is a compelling interest. The University's 1999 freshman admissions policy is not narrowly tailored to achieve this interest. Plaintiff Jennifer Johnson's complaint was filed separately. Eventually was consolidated with the complaint of Plaintiffs Aimee Bogrow and Molly Ann Beckenhauer.1 All three Plaintiffs had recently been denied admission to UGA. Therefore were. Johnson was offered admission to UGA after filing this lawsuit. They alleged that UGA's use of gender violated Equal Protection and Title IX.2 Named as Defendants were the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0022p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Payne was sentenced to death in a Tennessee state court for the murder of Charisse Christopher and her daughter Lacie Christopher. His Eighth Amendment rights were violated by instruction on the heinous. Were violated. That he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The Tennessee state court's rejection of Payne's challenge was contrary to clearly established United States Supreme Court precedent. Are excerpted from the opinion of the Tennessee Supreme Court. Defendant was found guilty of first degree murder of Charisse Christopher and her daughter. He was given the death penalty for each of the murders and thirty (30) years for the assault with intent to commit murder offense. Charisse Christopher was 28 years old. Bobbie Thomas had spent the week visiting her mother in Arkansas but was expected to return on Saturday. With the bag were three cans of Colt 45 malt liquor. Was the first officer to arrive at the Hiwassee Apartments. He was alone in a squad car when the disturbance call was assigned to Officers Beck and Brawell.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3C06C2A185E7373388256E5A00707C06/$file/9935976.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which is reported at 208 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2000).1 Following the issuance of our opinion. The Court further held that following issuance of a final order of removal there is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/12/01-4130.htm">01-4130 -- OLSEN V. LAYTON HILLS MALL -- 12/11/2002<BR></A><BR>
The appeal was timely under Rule 4. Although the Visa card was valid and had not expired. Appellant was unaware that his mother Donna Olsen had asked for a new card to be issued because of prior billing concerns. Discover Card informed her that Appellant was using the card fraudulently and that she should confiscate it. Who advised her that he would return with a personal check to pay for the purchases. <p> While Appellant was en route from the Layton Hills Mall to his home and back again. Appellant was charged with fraudulent use of a financial transaction card. To verify that the card was not fraudulent. Reasoning that he would be unable to determine whether the voices on the other end of the line were indeed Appellant's parents. Allow
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></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="549"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2003/00-14413.op2.html">ATLANTA JOURNAL AND CONSTITUTION V. CITY OF ATLANTA DEP'T OF AVIATION (2/28/2003, NO. 00-14413)<BR></A><BR>
Is permitted to assess profit conscious fees on expressive activities for use of distribution facilities in a non public forum. The district court found that the assessment of any fee in excess of administrative costs was contrary to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and precedent in this circuit under <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr97/95-7091.wpd.html">HOLLINGSWORTH V. HILL<BR></A><BR>
BACKGROUND The following facts are not in dispute. While her husband was gone. Received a copy of the Order he was to serve on Patricia Hollingsworth. Was frequently required to serve protective orders and summonses but was uncertain what this Order required him to do. The fifth item in the Order stated:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200411063.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: At issue in this class action lawsuit is whether the City of Thomasville School District (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2003/00-14413.op2.html">ATLANTA JOURNAL AND CONSTITUTION V. CITY OF ATLANTA DEP'T OF AVIATION (2/28/2003, NO. 00-14413)<BR></A><BR>
Is permitted to assess profit conscious fees on expressive activities for use of distribution facilities in a non public forum. The district court found that the assessment of any fee in excess of administrative costs was contrary to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and precedent in this circuit under <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/09A4D16644F713028825727C0057465C/$file/0535170.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
000 of the punitive damages were allocated to Oregon's Criminal Injuries Com ENGQUIST v. Contending that the constitutional claims are invalid as a matter of law. Contending that a jury verdict from a coworker's similar trial in state court should have been given preclusive effect. Or that it should have been admitted into evidence. We have jurisdiction over the appeal and cross appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We hold that Engquist's constitutional claims are invalid as a matter of law. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Engquist was hired in 1992 as an international food standards specialist for the Export Service Center (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DA0A2F8B476A6FE688256A95007765C5/$file/9935976.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which is reported at 208 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2000).1 Following the issuance of our opinion. The Court further held that following issuance of a final order of removal there is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981020.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Claimed he had seen Corey Carter and another male leave a Piggly Wiggly store at around the time the store was robbed. The police obtained information that Corey Carter was at home. The officers then handcuffed her and told her she was under arrest for the Winn Dixie and Piggly Wiggly robberies. Carter contends that her handcuffs were too tight and that the police pushed her legs as she got into their patrol car. Cobbs stated that she was not the person whom he had seen driving the car from the Piggly Wiggly and who admitted participating in the other robberies. Pamela Carter was never charged for the crimes. Corey Carter was tried and acquitted of the Piggly Wiggly robbery. Other persons were eventually convicted of the Winn Dixie crimes. It is by now well settled that a municipality is only liable under section 1983 if it causes such a deprivation through an official policy or custom. A municipal custom may arise if a practice is so
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></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-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-7005.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendant Kenneth Barrett was convicted of using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to several drug trafficking crimes. Barrett was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of release for the first two convictions. State law enforcement officials were aware of his presence and continued to investigate his activities. Received information from a confidential informant (CI) that Barrett was manufacturing and distributing methamphetamine at his residence. Johnson was aware that Barrett routinely carried firearms and had threatened to kill law enforcement officers if they
</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=96-1744.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Queeney were on brief. Was on brief. The 1New Hampshire considers independent expenditures to include expenditures by a political committee for the purpose of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200210218.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We must determine whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is violated when a code enforcement officer condemns an apartment complex and evicts the tenants without providing the tenants with contemporaneous notice of their right to appeal the condemnation decision. We must then determine whether the tenants' right to contemporaneous notice was established with such clarity at the time of eviction in this case that the chief of the City of Orlando's Code Enforcement Bureau is not entitled to qualified immunity. Threatened to declare the building unfit for human occupancy if the Our recitation of the facts is based primarily on the admitted facts contained in the parties' joint pretrial statement. To the extent that material facts are in dispute. As we must when the issue of qualified immunity is raised in a summary judgment motion. 92526 n.3 (11th Cir. 2000). 2 1 violations were not corrected.2 The owner was informed that the City of Orlando Code Enforcement Board (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/08/051363P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
County Juvenile Detention Center (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-3018.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because the local jail is crowded. Nothing was found. Campbell supposes that money never is an adequate remedy for a constitutional wrong. That belief is incorrect. Damages are a normal. Which as a constitutional tort often is analogized to (other) personal injury litigation. Erroneous grants of injunctive relief that hamper enforcement of the criminal law have the potential to cause havoc. While erroneous awards (or denials) of damages to a single person have more limited ability to injure the general public. Judges are fallible. When the costs of false negatives are low and this is what it means to say that the remedy at law is adequate there is correspondingly slight reason to incur the risk of premature or overbroad injunctive relief. Campbell's suit is just getting under way. The decision will have precedential effect even if the only remedy is monetary. If this court decides that the City's practice is unconstitutional then it must cease whether or not a formal injunction issues (for the prospect of damages paid to thousands of suspects would bring the City into line).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0065p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Dayton clinic is required to be licensed. WMPC argued that the written transfer agreement requirement was unconstitutional as applied to the Dayton clinic. The case was then transferred to United States District Judge Algenon Marbley. We affirm the district court with respect to its conclusion that WMPC's procedural due process rights were violated. Its director is authorized to establish quality standards. The director promulgated a requirement that ASFs have a written transfer agreement with a local hospital. It is solely within the director's discretion as to whether a variance or waiver should be granted. WMPC is owned by Dr. The Dayton clinic is approximately forty five to fifty five miles away from the next closest abortion clinic in Cincinnati. It is also the only clinic in southern Ohio providing abortion services 1 ASFs are free standing facilities where outpatient surgery is routinely performed. He is the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2002/01-10859.opn.html">CLARK V. PUTNAM COUNTY (6/10/2002, NO. 01-10859)<BR></A><BR>
Appellants claim that these two districts were racially gerrymandered in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. <A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A4ED683B301798CC88256E5A00707CF8/$file/9915867.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Judge Kozinski was drawn to replace Judge Fisher. 14113 99 15868 99 15869 99 15870 D.C. Is amended in accordance with the attached amended opinion. Judges Kozinski and Graber have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. Judge Aldisert has so recommended. 14120 The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Was wounded by a rifle shot fired by a correctional officer. To determine whether the rights assured Jeffers by the Eighth Amendment were violated. We must examine
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031194.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court agreed with plaintiffs that defendants' search was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. LOTT claimed to have observed the sale of a large amount of cocaine at a private residence where he had stayed that night as a guest. The informant led Deputy Maldonado and Deputy Fred Brantley to a small house in which he claimed to have seen the drug transactions. The informant is reliable in that [he] has provided information of on at least four occasions that has [led] to at least four arrest[s] and the seizure of illegal drugs. It is known that subjects present at the scene of illegal drug [transactions] . . . commonly have drugs in their possession. Less than 24 hours elapsed between the time at which the confidential informant claimed to have witnessed the criminal activity and the execution of the warrant. Sisters Tiffeny and Latanya Owens were inside of the house with Latanya's two minor children. Although Tiffeny and Latanya suggested in their deposition testimony that they had been required to remove undergarments to facilitate the search which conflicts with Deputy Kight's assertion that she never removes clothing during a search there is no claim before us that the manner in which the search was conducted was itself unconstitutional.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2002/01-10859.opn.html">CLARK V. PUTNAM COUNTY (6/10/2002, NO. 01-10859)<BR></A><BR>
Appellants claim that these two districts were racially gerrymandered in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. <A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/69E8AC83D0DECB7988256ADA0059D86C/$file/9915867.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Judge Kozinski was drawn to replace Judge Fisher. 14113 99 15868 99 15869 99 15870 D.C. Is amended in accordance with the attached amended opinion. Judges Kozinski and Graber have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. Judge Aldisert has so recommended. 14120 The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Was wounded by a rifle shot fired by a correctional officer. To determine whether the rights assured Jeffers by the Eighth Amendment were violated. We must examine
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061795p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Detectives Jeffrey Silvers and Andrea Janvier were patrolling Wilmington. The pedestrian informed the detectives that two men who were later identified as Defendant Tracy Lamar Fisher and Rashee Lamont Hunter had attempted to rob him at gunpoint. Silvers was able to tackle Fisher and take him into custody. Both of which are class E felonies under Delaware law. The PSR recommended a two level enhancement pursuant to USSG § 2K2.1(b)(4) because the firearm was stolen. The District Court found Silvers's testimony credible as it was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200313639.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Alvin Smith was convicted of one count of producing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a)1 and one count of possessing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B).2 The court sentenced him to 188 months in prison and 60 months of supervised release. This court held that purely intrastate possession of child pornography was not converted
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0002p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Beecher Community School District (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-5161.html">TERRAN MICHELE V. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES<BR></A><BR>
With her on the brief were <U>Helene M. Terran argues that the Vaccine Injury Table applied by the Special Master to her claim is invalid because the statutory scheme pursuant to which it was created is unconstitutional. Which was promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa 14(c) and which became effective on March 10. The relevant facts are not in dispute. Julie Terran was born on February 10. Was discharged in good health from the hospital the next day. Julie received her first diphtheria pertussis tetanus (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/257D0388E66DBB9088257074005B1AED/$file/0435155.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which is to propose laws and amendments to the Constitution and enact or reject them at an election independently of the Legislative Assembly.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6DEA7C7711AA444488256E6F005BA923/$file/0235691.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court determined that section 2 was a constitutional exercise of Congress's powers under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Blaine County challenges both of those rulings.1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Is vast and sparsely populated. 009 residents are spread out over 4. The American Indian population is geographically concentrated with 80 percent of the County's American Indians residing on the Fort Belknap Reservation. No American Indian was ever elected to the Blaine County Commission under the at large voting system. Although we agree that the district court's evidentiary rulings were erroneous in one limited respect. We ultimately conclude that this error was harmless. 1 UNITED STATES v. Each commissioner is elected by a majority vote of the entire county. The County moved for summary judgment on the ground that section 2 was unconstitutional because it exceeded the scope of Congress's powers to enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The court found that American Indian voters were sufficiently geographically compact and politically cohesive to elect a County Commissioner of their choice.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/09/01-1503.htm">01-1503 -- U.S. V. PATANE -- 09/17/2002<BR></A><BR>
The district court based its suppression order on its conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to establish probable cause to arrest Patane. BACKGROUND</strong> <p> Patane was indicted for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/10/992798P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Two codefendants were charged with participating in two schemes to bribe a Kansas City. The Government alleged the councilman was an agent of the City of Kansas City. The City was a local government. The statute was constitutional as applied to the facts of the case. Morgan later filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his conviction and sentence asserting § 666 was unconstitutional as applied in his case because
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0462a-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Davis was sentenced to multiple concurrent life sentences. Davis sought to have witness Damaris Jourdan testify as to Jourdan's prior statements. Straub Page 2 the court that Jourdan was a suspect and should consult with a lawyer before testifying. The court stated that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="543"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961814.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The victim alleges that these rapes were motivated by her assailants' discriminatory animus toward women and sues them pursuant to the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. Morrison immediately asked Brzonkala if she would have sexual intercourse with him.
</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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-7107.html">THOMAS M. NYEHOLT V. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS<BR></A><BR>
Argued for respondent.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="541"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0389p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiff Lisa Mills was arrested and had her home searched in Knox County. The police apparently concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the case and the charge against her was later dropped. Plaintiff was searched for contraband at the Knox County Jail. Although the search was conducted by female jailers. Claiming that her constitutional rights were violated when (1) the police searched her residence and arrested her pursuant to a defective warrant obtained through a faulty affidavit and (2) a male jailer saw her bare chest during the search at the jail after her arrest. Before judgment was entered. Plaintiff moved to dismiss a number of the defendants.2 The motion was granted and these defendants were dismissed with prejudice. That motion was denied and plaintiff timely appealed. Despite the fact that he was dismissed below with prejudice as a result of plaintiff's own motion. Plaintiff also names several entities as parties to her appeal that were not named parties to the proceeding below: the City of Barbourville.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="541"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1970.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
<SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="541"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/661355AA530014388825727900824A50/$file/0370674.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The removal order is deemed to be executed. We consider whether this change in regulation is valid. Why this is so is not clear. It's certainly possible to conceive of a system where a removal order remains in force permanently and may be re executed whenever the alien is found to have reentered the country illegally.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="539"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTAxNjktY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-0169-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because we hold that the special condition would have given notice to a reasonable parolee that he should not buy the * The Honorable Richard K. Because no reasonable enforcing officer could have doubted that Scum fell within the terms of the condition. We hold that the special condition was not unconstitutionally vague as applied. A paroled sex offender whose First Amendment rights to sexual material were limited. Circuit Judge: The principal question presented by this appeal is whether a special condition of parole that prohibited the possession of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="539"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200707/04-5313a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="539"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216135.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are compelled to agree with Alabama and must decline the ACLU's invitation. I. BACKGROUND Because the various user appellees and vendor appellees are all represented by the ACLU.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="539"></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-5.gif" ALT="539"></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-5.gif" ALT="539"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1527.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Immigration and Naturalization Service was abolished. Its immigration enforcement function was transferred to the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the newly created Department of Homeland Security. His petition alleged that he was entitled to immediate release because § 1226(c)'s mandatory detention requirement was unconstitutional as applied to him. Gonzalez is a native and citizen of El Salvador. Gonzalez was found guilty of possession of a controlled substance. Was sentenced to two years of 1 (...continued) avoid confusion. Many of the immigration regulations at issue in this case recently were reclassified. Gonzalez was subject to mandatory detention pending removal proceedings under § 1226(c) because he was removable as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony and of a state drug offense. Bond was not available to Mr. He 2 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) provides:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="539"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/00/00-4230.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Brokaw was removed from her parents' home based on allegations of child neglect. Aunt and uncle (who was 1 This case has been treated as a successive appeal and submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). The panel has concluded that another oral argument is unnecessary. The district court held that A.D.'s suit was barred by the Rooker Feldman doctrine because. A.D. was challenging the validity of the state removal proceedings. Brokaw were forcibly removed from their parents' home by a Mercer County Deputy Sheriff and a Mercer County Probation Officer. James Brokaw (who was a Deputy Sheriff for Mercer County). Karen and James allegedly falsely claimed that C.A. and A.D. were victims of child neglect. Is unclear because there was no official record compiled during that meeting. At that time there was no official proceeding pending involving C.A. and A.D. Demanding to know what was going on. One of the men allegedly replied:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="539"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EB285D29949B859E88256F3300761991/$file/9999020.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is hereby amended. This version is identical to that one except for this paragraph. Terri was getting ready to go out to pick up some food at a local restaurant. She called the police to report that her car was missing around 10:00 that night. Reported that Terri was missing at 8:00 a.m. the next morning. Which were wet. Noted that the tires and undercarriage of his car were also wet. Terri was found naked except for a shirt and bra. Which were pulled up over her breasts. Jaw were fractured. Her face and body were severely bruised and much of the skin of her front side was torn up. Michael Morales was Ortega's cousin. Blood was found on the hammer. There was not enough to get a blood type. A wet towel smelling of ammonia was in a wastebasket. Morales was arrested and tried and convicted for rape and murder. So was Ortega. His separate case is not before us. Was also Terri Winchell's boyfriend. Though it was not entirely over when he became Terri Winchell's boyfriend. Rick told Christine that he was crying because he had written Randy Blythe a letter proposing a sexual relationship.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="539"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6285.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Use of a telephone to facilitate the manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. (1) This Order and Judgment is not binding precedent. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> 843(b) (Count 2
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="539"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200315517.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We believe the case is moot and. BACKGROUND The facts in this case are not in dispute. Seay is an outdoor advertising 2 corporation that buys or leases land to construct signs for commercial and noncommercial speech. Mary Esther is a small municipality. The erection of signs in Mary Esther was governed by Article 16 of Mary Esther's Land Development Code (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/58163EA03D29E1D188256A1F005EB22E/$file/9717062.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The pivotal question in this case is whether a city may. Between Tucson and recipients of Civic Events Fund support is such that Tucson was correct in concluding that the requested funding would have fallen on the Establishment Clause side of that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8138B5E4723C6FE988257150005B327E/$file/0455324.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unable to obtain shelter on the night each was cited or arrested. I. Facts and Procedural Background The facts underlying this appeal are largely undisputed. Robert Lee Purrie (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0129a-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs' petition for panel rehearing. We hold that the district court's primary holding was error. I. Until 2000 most first trimester abortions in this country were surgical abortions performed by vacuum aspiration or curettage. This approval was based on clinical trials which involved the oral ingestion of 600 mg of mifepristone followed two days later by the oral ingestion of 0.4 mg of misoprostol.1 Upon examining the results of these trials. The FDA concluded that this regimen was a safe and effective method of medical abortion when employed up through forty nine days' gestation. The FDA labeling and approval letter indicated that the appropriate treatment regimen was to administer 600 mg of mifepristone orally followed by 0.4 mg of misoprostol administered orally two days later and that mifepristone was not to be administered after forty nine days' gestation. This is a widely employed practice known as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1BE1F8F57805F49C88256E5A00707AC5/$file/9717062.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The pivotal question in this case is whether a city may. Between Tucson and recipients of Civic Events Fund support is such that Tucson was correct in concluding that the requested funding would have fallen on the Establishment Clause side of that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0068p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that the district court's primary holding was error. I. Until 2000 most first trimester abortions in this country were surgical abortions performed by vacuum aspiration or curettage. This approval was based on clinical trials which involved the oral ingestion of 600 mg of mifepristone followed two days later by the oral ingestion of 0.4 mg of misoprostol.1 Upon examining the results of these trials. The FDA concluded that this regimen was a safe and effective method of medical abortion when employed up through forty nine days' gestation. The FDA labeling and approval letter indicated that the appropriate treatment regimen was to administer 600 mg of mifepristone orally followed by 0.4 mg of misoprostol administered orally two days later and that mifepristone was not to be administered after forty nine days' gestation. This is a widely employed practice known as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/08/02-3197.htm">02-3197 -- CRUMPACKER V. STATE OF KANSAS DEPT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES -- 08/08/2003<BR></A><BR>
That it was immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. Crumpacker was employed as the Director of Employment and Training of the Kansas Department of Human Resources. Crumpacker complained of the way she was being treated at work and made reference to her gender twice. I have worked exceedingly hard during the past two years to 'fit in with the guys.'
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1775.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: Page 4. Jr. were on brief. Goodwin Procter & Hoar were on brief. Clients' funds which lawyers held for a short term or in nominal amounts were deposited into non interest bearing pooled trust accounts. Banking laws and the ethical obligation of lawyers to maintain clients' funds so that they were immediately available for reimbursement prevented such pooled trust accounts from accruing interest. The Massachusetts IOLTA program was established by amendment to Canon 9. The deposits were nominal in amount or to be held for only a short period of time. The designated charities were Massachusetts Legal Assistance. The parties have not briefed or argued any issues in the context of the 1993 amendment to the IOLTA Rule.3 Although the amendment of the IOLTA Rule affects the process of funds disbursement. The changes are not material to this decision. Was significant. The funds are still disbursed primarily to Massachusetts Legal Assistance with the remainder to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200311/02-1208a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002132.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Virginia legislature amended § 22.1 203 to require that every school division provide a minute of silence in the State's public school classrooms and to direct the Attorney General to defend the statute when it is challenged in court. Code Ann. § 22.1 203 was amended in 2000: In order that the right of every pupil to the free exercise of religion be guaranteed within the schools and that the freedom of each individual pupil be subject to the least possible pressure from the Commonwealth either to engage in. The school board of each school division is authorized to shall establish the daily observance of one minute of silence in each classroom of the division. Where During such one minute period of silence is instituted. Senator Barry responded that his intent was not to force prayer in schools.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-7195a.html">ATCHINSON RICHARD V. DC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200603/05-5156a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Todd A. With her on the brief were Kenneth L. Because we conclude that the District Court correctly held that the Act is neither facially unconstitutional nor unconstitutional as applied to Johnson. Johnson was taken to a hospital because he was found sitting in a puddle eating dirt. He was convicted in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on two counts of unarmed robbery in violation of D.C. While Johnson was on probation. The CSOSA agents did not have a warrant and did not have individualized suspicion that Johnson had committed a crime (other than the two counts of unarmed robbery for which he had been convicted and placed on probation). The agents claimed that Johnson was obligated under the Act to submit his DNA for inclusion in the CODIS database. 3 The Act provides that CSOSA officials
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/09/97-1304.htm">97-1304 -- ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS INC. V. SLATER -- 09/25/2000<BR></A><BR>
We are just one race here. It is American.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19982174.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Marvin Frandsen and Bryan Morris (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/05941c93ad581ec488256b5a0064b1fb/$FILE/0015734.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: OVERVIEW We are asked to decide whether an indigent client in a criminal case may resort to the federal civil rights statute. To challenge the manner in which he was represented by his public defender. We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to Fed. Miranda's claims against the remaining 2234 defendants fail because he attacks polices that are not unconstitutional. Miranda was charged with the following crimes in connection with the death of Manuel Torres: first degree murder with a deadly weapon. Miranda was represented in his capital case by deputy public defender Rigsby. Supplied Rigsby with the names of numerous people who could have testified on his behalf or provided exculpatory evidence. Miranda was equally critical of Rigsby's performance during trial. He was later sentenced to death. Miranda was released from jail. Instituted a policy for the public defender's office whereby resources were allocated to a criminal defendant's case based on the defendant's performance on a polygraph test.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0386p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court held that the FMLA's purported abrogation of Ohio's Eleventh Amendment immunity was unconstitutional as it related to the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19982174.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Marvin Frandsen and Bryan Morris (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/05941C93AD581EC488256B5A0064B1FB/$file/0015734.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: OVERVIEW We are asked to decide whether an indigent client in a criminal case may resort to the federal civil rights statute. To challenge the manner in which he was represented by his public defender. We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to Fed. Miranda's claims against the remaining 2234 defendants fail because he attacks polices that are not unconstitutional. Miranda was charged with the following crimes in connection with the death of Manuel Torres: first degree murder with a deadly weapon. Miranda was represented in his capital case by deputy public defender Rigsby. Supplied Rigsby with the names of numerous people who could have testified on his behalf or provided exculpatory evidence. Miranda was equally critical of Rigsby's performance during trial. He was later sentenced to death. Miranda was released from jail. Instituted a policy for the public defender's office whereby resources were allocated to a criminal defendant's case based on the defendant's performance on a polygraph test.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2002/002525.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Companies argue that the Act is unconstitutional as applied to them pursuant to Eastern Enterprises v. We conclude that the assignments are not unconstitutional as applied. It will be helpful to explain the historical background and context of this dispute. I. THE COAL ACT The Coal Act was enacted in 1992
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="536"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1997/97a1521p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Their applications were ultimately denied on the basis of an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="536"></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-5.gif" ALT="536"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/01/981279P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
After her son Shawn Michael Mettler was shot and killed during a confrontation with Ramsey County Sheriff's deputies. The parties have vigorously disputed some of the facts of this case. Where there are factual disputes. While the deputies were searching one row of garage stalls. Haltiner later said he noticed this person was carrying a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="536"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200313639op2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court with instructions to reconsider our panel decision. We have determined that. I. Alvin Smith was convicted of one count of producing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a)1 and one count of possessing child pornography Section 2251(a) provides: Any person who employs. Shall be punished . . . if such person knows or has reason to know that such visual depiction will be transported in interstate or foreign commerce or mailed. If that visual depiction was produced using materials that have been mailed. 2 and was sentenced to a total of 188 months in prison and 60 months of supervised release. The physical evidence used against Smith was discovered pursuant to a search warrant executed at Smith's mother's home in Tampa. Smith was incarcerated and the target of the investigation was his brother. Who lived at the residence and was suspected of involvement in drug trafficking. The focus of the warrant was drugs and drug paraphernalia.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="536"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept98/98-2042.man.html">GREEN V. MORTHAM (9/24/1998, NO. 98-2042)<BR></A><BR>
Appellant Henry Green challenges the constitutionality of Florida's alternative qualifying fee and signature petition requirements for ballot access in a Congressional primary election.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="536"></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-5.gif" ALT="536"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept98/98-2042.man.html">GREEN V. MORTHAM (9/24/1998, NO. 98-2042)<BR></A><BR>
Appellant Henry Green challenges the constitutionality of Florida's alternative qualifying fee and signature petition requirements for ballot access in a Congressional primary election.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="536"></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-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200410279.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Buying or selling a minor with knowledge the minor will be portrayed as engaging or appearing to engage in sex acts. § 943.0435(1)(a)(1).1 Further. Anyone moving to Florida who has been convicted of similar crimes or has been designated as a sex offender in another state will also be considered a sex offender in Florida. § 943.0435(1)(a)(2) (3). The sex offender must
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4C2FE62749488A3E8825720C006FB770/$file/0515667.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Have since dismissed their claims. 1 17676 ACLU v. The ordinances that are the focus of Plaintiffs' complaint were adopted as part of the City's effort to revitalize the downtown area of Las Vegas: In the early 1990s. Downtown Las Vegas was suffering from an economic downturn. The area was seen as sleazy and unsafe. Downtown casinos were unable to compete with the glitzy Las Vegas Strip. Key economic factors showed that the area was in decline. Were closed off to automotive traffic. The street and sidewalk were torn up. Various underground infrastructure eleFSELLC is a private company charged with operating the Fremont Street Experience in downtown Las Vegas. The Fremont Street Experience is described in detail below. 2 ACLU v. CITY OF LAS VEGAS 17677 ments were installed. The street was decoratively repaved as one large promenade. As the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0025p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Should have determined the fact that deaths resulted from the fire that he set. Kumar argued that the deaths in the hotel fire were irrelevant to the arson offense to be considered by the jury and thus that evidence of the deaths was barred by Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 402. The district court noted the split of authority as to whether the issue of death was an element of the aggravated arson offense or a mere sentencing enhancement. The court determined that death was not an element and noted that because
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/07432B45A25F9CF388256E5A00707CDC/$file/9956472.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Massanari is substituted for his predecessor. Rice is an 13441 unpublished disposition. Is available on Westlaw#FC# and LEXIS#FC#. It is marked with the following notice:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2002/022524.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This civil action was brought in the District Court for the District of New Jersey by a consortium of media groups seeking access to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200116723.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is constitutional as enacted by the Florida legislature and as subsequently enforced. Florida courts have defined the term
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0280p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Although both of these grounds were inapposite. The district court's dismissal is therefore AFFIRMED. Is a tract of land owned by the state and maintained by Eastern Kentucky University as a wildlife refuge and research facility. The Woods are designated a National Natural Landmark as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-2000.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. Hubert Hartley were tried separately in the Maine Superior Court in 1992 on charges of murdering two men. Each was acquitted. Lombard and Hartley were indicted as co defendants in the federal district court in Maine on federal firearms and other charges arising out of the murders. He was convicted. The resulting Guidelines sentence was a mandatory term of life in prison. Which Maine law would not have required even had defendant been convicted of the murders. Lombard thus received a life sentence based on the federal court's finding that it was more likely than not that Lombard had committed the murders of which he had been acquitted. The sentencing judge was greatly troubled but felt as a matter of law that he had no authority to do otherwise under the Guidelines. Finding that this is a case in which the life 2 2 sentence enhancement is the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2001/989009r.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was sentenced to death on the vote of a Delaware state jury in December 1982. It is not because there has been undue delay at any stage but because the case raises legitimate questions that go to the constitutionality of the original trial and sentencing. It was necessary to complete a series of proceedings in both state and federal court. Placed a bottle of beer on the counter and announced the store was being robbed. Who was then hopping up and down. As Riley and Baxter were proceeding to the door to leave. Williams were indicted on charges of felony murder. Baxter pled guilty to first degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment in exchange for his testimony against Riley. The murder and weapon charges against Williams were also dropped in exchange for his testimony against Riley. He was subsequently convicted of the robbery and conspiracy charges. Riley was represented at trial by appointed counsel. His pretrial motions for co counsel and funds for a private investigator were denied. The prosecutors in Riley's case were James Liguori and Mark McNulty.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3AE08EE375DF613B88256AD1005BFD3B/$file/9956472.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Massanari is substituted for his predecessor. Rice is an 13441 unpublished disposition. Is available on Westlaw#FC# and LEXIS#FC#. It is marked with the following notice:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0185p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We do so in the interests of state and federal judicial comity and because the facts of the case at bar are amenable to a limited holding. 85 Ohio St. 3d at 274. The statistics and the rationale underlying both those MBE programs are the same. The constitutionality of the overall MBE scheme was before the state court. As it was before the district court. A federal court owes no duty to abstain in deference to a state court when a federal constitutional question is at issue. Even if the Ohio Supreme Court could have avoided the federal constitutional question in Ritchey by a decision on state law grounds. That Ritchey is not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3750.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The business is licensed only in Mr. Is a municipal corporation with a Board of Trustees. The Village President is Paul Lohmann. Rasche was a principal organizer of a petition drive to require a referendum concerning the purchase of the course. Rasche's interest in this litigation is sufficient to give her standing to appear as a litigant in this action. Rasche was the leader and initiator of the petition drive to obtain a referendum on that proposal. The waterworks bond ordinance was defeated by the Village of Beecher voters in an election held on March 21. The Village Board of Trustees was concerned about the appearance of Route 1. It defines a sign as one that is affixed on land or a structure thus arguably excluding. The signs of the Rasches and seven other businesses were discussed. At the time it was purchased in 1978. The Rasches' sign was portable. A sign is defined as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D275403CD037CBBB88256C2900726A67/$file/0055532.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will refer to the student plaintiffs individually. Plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to damages under California Civil Code § 52 (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199812/98-1019a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Jonathan S. With him on the briefs were Daniel M. With him on the briefs were Peter D. Were on the briefs for intervenor United States of America. McKenna were on the brief for intervenor U S WEST. Muench were on the brief for intervenor Ameritech Corporation. Bell South claimed that s 274 was an unconstitutional bill of attainder. Are singled out by name. Is an unconstitutional bill of attainder and. Contesting both the FCC's finding that BellSouth is foreclosed from petitioning to provide service under s 271(c)(1)(B). It is a rational and nonpunitive congressional enactment that serves to open tele communications markets. Which it was surely free to do. We also find that the FCC was correct in concluding that BellSouth is foreclosed from petitioning to provide service under s 271(c)(1)(B). Because BellSouth has failed to demon strate that no
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1688.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nolen was entitled to absolute qua sijudicial immunity and that Mr. Nolen was entitled to 2 No. 01 1688 qualified immunity. It is the unanimous opinion of the court that Mr. Nolen is not protected by absolute quasi judicial immunity. It is the opinion of the majority of the panel that Mr. A third member of the panel is of the opinion that Mr. Nolen is not entitled to qualified immunity on that claim. Snyder alleged that he was estranged from his wife. That his wife was in sole possession of his non marital property. That he was incarcerated in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections. That his assets were at substantial risk because his wife had indicated to Mr. His actions in `whiting out' [the] same was an `impermissible encroachment of judicial authority.'
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb99/96-4577.ma2.html">LYES V. CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH (2/11/1999, NO. 96-4577)<BR></A><BR>
The first is whether women are a protected class for 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) purposes. So that a sex based conspiracy against women is actionable under that provision. We hold that they are and it is. At least where they involve state action.</P> <P> The second issue concerns the test applicable for deciding whether the employees of two employers are to be aggregated for determining if the minimum number of employees exist for Title VII coverage. In which the employers are always private entities. Is not applicable to those Title VII cases in which the employers are state and local government entities. One which presumes public entities that are separate under state law will not be aggregated for Title VII purposes. By showing either: 1) that the state's purpose for separating the entities under state law was to evade Title VII. Or 2) that the entities are so closely related with respect to the fundamental aspects of employment relationships that the presumption in favor of the state law's denomination is clearly outweighed.</P> <P> Applying that test to the public entity that employed the plaintiff in this case.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/65F252E2DE963B3588256D9D0069D9B5/$file/0035924.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb99/96-4577.ma2.html">LYES V. CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH (2/11/1999, NO. 96-4577)<BR></A><BR>
The first is whether women are a protected class for 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) purposes. So that a sex based conspiracy against women is actionable under that provision. We hold that they are and it is. At least where they involve state action.</P> <P> The second issue concerns the test applicable for deciding whether the employees of two employers are to be aggregated for determining if the minimum number of employees exist for Title VII coverage. In which the employers are always private entities. Is not applicable to those Title VII cases in which the employers are state and local government entities. One which presumes public entities that are separate under state law will not be aggregated for Title VII purposes. By showing either: 1) that the state's purpose for separating the entities under state law was to evade Title VII. Or 2) that the entities are so closely related with respect to the fundamental aspects of employment relationships that the presumption in favor of the state law's denomination is clearly outweighed.</P> <P> Applying that test to the public entity that employed the plaintiff in this case.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200404/03-5163a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200111314.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appellant pled nolo contendere in Florida state court to second degree murder and was sentenced to 85 years' imprisonment. Appellant was extradited to Florida to serve the remainder of his original sentence. Concluding Appellant was procedurally barred from relitigating issues that had already been raised in his mandamus petition and denying Appellant's remaining claims on the merits. Since he alleges he is in custody pursuant to a state judgment in violation of his constitutional rights. His appropriate avenue for relief is under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTAxNjgtcHJfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-0168-pr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(2) that plaintiff's suit is not barred by the rule of Preiser v. Which is incorrect in certain respects. The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the official caption accordingly. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 district court defines the contours of that right. That
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="530"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2001/00-14137.ma2.html">BUTLER V. ALABAMA JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMM'N (8/15/2001, NO. 00-14137)<BR></A><BR>
We conclude that some of the claims are moot and that the district court should have abstained from deciding the remaining claims.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="530"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1997/97a1597p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Poritz was the Attorney General for the State of New Jersey when this suit was instituted. Poritz resigned as Attorney General and was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New Jersey. Peter Verniero was appointed the Attorney General. Peter Verniero is automatically substituted as a party plaintiff for Deborah T. We disagree and will affirm the district court's dismissal of the complaint. Who was then eight and one half months pregnant. Was admitted to the Jersey Shore Medical Center to give birth to her child. Alexander's baby were taken only fourteen minutes prior to delivery by cesarean section. The child was stillborn.2 An autopsy was performed. A death certificate was issued showing the date of the child's birth as July 15. The birth certificate noted the child's name was Kaylyn Elissa Alexander and that she was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="530"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199711/97-1036b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on the brief. Holmes were on the brief for intervenor Government of Canada. Truitt were on the brief for amicus curiae Gouvernement du Quebec. Bechky were on the brief for amicus curiae Government of Mexico. Jarman was on the brief for amicus curiae Customs and International Trade Bar Association. I. Background Any private party that falls within the definition of an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="530"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2001/00-14137.ma2.html">BUTLER V. ALABAMA JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMM'N (8/15/2001, NO. 00-14137)<BR></A><BR>
We conclude that some of the claims are moot and that the district court should have abstained from deciding the remaining claims.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="530"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199711/97-1036a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on the brief. Holmes were on the brief for intervenor Government of Canada. Truitt were on the brief for amicus curiae Gouvernement du Quebec. Bechky were on the brief for amicus curiae Government of Mexico. Jarman was on the brief for amicus curiae Customs and International Trade Bar Association. I. Background Any private party that falls within the definition of an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="530"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200403/03-5114a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="530"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2475.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have substituted the Attorney General for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="530"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19939345.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
90 L.Ed.2d 735 (1986) (plurality opinion) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011726.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0259p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Arguing: (1) the School District was not entitled to immunity on Pendergrass's state law claims because Ohio's Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act violates the Ohio constitution. (2) the district court should have granted her motion to admit reports of abuse by other teachers as a sanction. Cleveland Municipal School District Page 2 (3) the School District was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on her § 1983 claim of failure to train or supervise. Although Gibbs was given assignments to teach in an elementary school. A criminal background check demonstrated that Gibbs did not have a prior criminal record. The orientation was conducted for a shorter duration on an individual basis. Though there is nothing in the record which describes this training. Gibbs attended a group orientation before she was hired. The Manual explained that substitute teachers were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7F7F66434ED9D1A8882571ED00574EE3/$file/0455819.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because we conclude that the ordinance is not unconstitutional in every conceivable application and is not unconstitutionally vague. The ordinance reads:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0323p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Arguing that the district court should have vacated not only his sentence. Petitioner was convicted of hiring James Earl Darby to murder Archie Moore in violation of Ohio Revised Code §§ 2903.01(A) and 2929.04(A)(2). Berry later told some friends that she was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/10/99-5186.htm">99-5186 -- WALKER V. GIBSON -- 10/11/2000<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></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-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1161.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Was on brief. Were on brief. III.</P> <P> The notice requirement is waived if</P> <P> (a) The attending abortion provider certifies in the pregnant minor's medical record that the abortion is necessary to prevent the minor's death and there is insufficient time to provide required notice. Or</P> <P> (b) The person or persons who are entitled to notice certify in writing that they have been notified.</P> <BR WP=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan96/94-6343.man.html">DOLIHITE V. MAUGHON<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Dolihite v. We hold that they are entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.<p> On February 17. David was not admitted to Eufaula until almost a year later. He was fifteen years old. Although he was resuscitated. Discovery was completed. We have jurisdiction.ately indifferent to a pretrial detainee's medial needs). Also noting that the limitation imposed by <i>Johnson</i>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/08/963746P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1 to whom we will refer collectively as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan96/94-6343.man.html">DOLIHITE V. MAUGHON<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Dolihite v. We hold that they are entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.<p> On February 17. David was not admitted to Eufaula until almost a year later. He was fifteen years old. Although he was resuscitated. Discovery was completed. We have jurisdiction.ately indifferent to a pretrial detainee's medial needs). Also noting that the limitation imposed by <i>Johnson</i>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></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-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2002/01-14872.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. BALLINGER (11/21/2002, NO. 01-14872)<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5CA19A1CA157C7B388256C62007C7A8C/$file/0135762.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
§ 2737 is an unconstitutional bill of attainder and denies SeaRiver due process and equal pro 6 SEARIVER MARITIME FINANCIAL HOLDINGS v. We hold that § 2737 is not an unconstitutional bill of attainder because it does not punish SeaRiver. Nor is § 2737 inconsistent with the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection because there is a rational basis for Congress to have concluded that excluding the Exxon Valdez from Prince William Sound would further the legitimate purpose of protecting the Sound's environment from future oil spills. It was constructed at a cost of $125 million for the purpose of carrying oil from the Alaska North Slope to United States oil refineries. It is undisputed that the ship ran aground as a result of the actions of its master and crew. Congress recognized that Prince William Sound is an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032173p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Individuals on probation and supervised release who have committed certain qualifying offenses. While Paul Sczubelek was on supervised release. Sczubelek appealed on the grounds that the collection of a DNA sample is an unconstitutional search in violation of the Fourth Amendment and also in violation of the separation of powers doctrine. We conclude first of all that this case is not moot. While Sczubelek was still serving his term of supervised release. The court issued a summons based on a violation of a condition of his release and the delay between the expiration of his term and the adjudication of the violation is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7AA2994642A98D3A88256F9A0080C1A3/$file/0335608.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The DOC's ban on non subscription bulk mail and catalogs is not rationally related to a legitimate penological interest and is therefore unconstitutional. The prison officials are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate clearly established law. The prison officials are not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated clearly established law. I Prison Legal News is a Washington nonprofit corporation that publishes and distributes publications regarding legal issues of interest to inmates. Including 120 who are inmates in Washington's state correctional facilities. Is an inmate in a Washington state correctional facility. The prison officials are policymaking employees in the DOC. This is the fourth case since 1996 brought by PLN against the DOC. The previous cases are Miniken v. The directive prohibits inmates from receiving
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/11/96-7082.htm">96-7082 -- CLANTON V. COOPER -- 11/17/1997<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200114872.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200015158.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A. Justices of the Georgia Supreme Court are elected by popular vote.1 Ga. Monitors these judicial elections for compliance with Canon 7(B) of the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct.3 Canon 7(B)(1)(d) provides that candidates for any judicial office that is filled by public election between competing candidates shall not use or participate in the use of any form of public communication which the candidate knows or reasonably should know is false. Or which contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law or omits a fact necessary to make the communication considered as a whole not materially All superior court and state court judges are also elected by popular vote. The JQC was created by constitutional amendment in 1972. It was vested with the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E58B9523D0E9679C88256EAC00577514/$file/0235675.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Kevin Anderson was convicted in 1993 of first degree rape and sodomy under Oregon laws that prohibit having sexual intercourse with a person
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></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-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0004p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because we find that a reasonable person in the officers' position would not have known that his conduct violated a clearly established right. He claimed to have ownership documents. Plants advised the Defendants that she
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="528"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2002/01-14872.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. BALLINGER (11/21/2002, NO. 01-14872)<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6322.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were attributable to Mr. Wilson to 360 months' (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. 1291. Wilson was indicted in six counts by a grand jury sitting in the Western District of Oklahoma. Were attributable to Mr. The court also imposed an identical alternative sentence of 30 years' imprisonment in the event the Guidelines were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.(1) Mr. Whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the district court's imposition of an alternative identical sentence. We conclude that the district court committed constitutional Booker error but that the error is harmless. He points out that his indictment did not charge a particular quantity of cocaine base and that 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(C) provides that if a person is charged with distributing cocaine base (a Schedule II drug) and no drug quantity is charged. The district court's error in sentencing him to more than 20 years' imprisonment is reversible error.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1996/96a1253p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Hutchinson was a member of the panel which heard this appeal. Holding that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker Feldman doctrine and also that it should abstain under Younger v. We will accordingly reverse and remand for further proceedings. I. FOCUS is a Pittsburgh. Pennsylvania unincorporated association consisting of some fifty birth and foster parents whose goal is to make the Allegheny County Children and Youth Services (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2004/033714p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Has been incarcerated for 39 years in a Pennsylvania penitentiary for his conviction in 1969 of the first degree murder of twelve year old Edith Connor.1 He was sentenced to life imprisonment. Thomas was arrested on October 15. That conviction was vacated in 1967 upon discovery that the Commonwealth's lead witness. He was again convicted in 1969 for first degree murder based entirely on the testimony of Dr. It is reasonable to infer that Thomas's successful appeals to the Commonwealth Court incurred the ire of the Board. Who once more unanimously recommended his release and noted that he was in compliance with treatment programs. Post release support networks were in place. New to this third denial was the Board's classification of Thomas on the Guidelines form as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1169.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Novitsky was exiting the vehicle. Novitsky was indicted on one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 and. Novitsky was in fact intoxicated.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B96D114062F233AA882570D60004FB71/$file/0455285.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It is constitutionally doubtful that Congress may authorize imprisonment of this duration for lawfully admitted resident aliens who are subject to removal. The case is distinct from Demore v. Two years and four months of process is not expeditious. Is a year or more. [3] We remand to the district court with directions to grant the writ unless the government within 60 days of this order provides a hearing to Tijani before an Immigration Judge with the power to grant him bail unless the government establishes that he is a flight risk or will be a danger to the community. I write separately because I believe that we have a duty to give more guidance to the agency and to the court below so that they can carry out their respective mandates. His detention is not the result of a criminal conviction. Nor is it because he faces imminent removal. The only reason that Tijani is being detained is because the government may be able to prove he is subject to removal. Tijani contends that his indefinite detention for such a reason is not constitutionally permissible.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTM4ODctcHJfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3887-pr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that the constitutionality of New York's DNA statute is properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/55878096EDFC3D768825723E005ED46B/$file/0417033.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The initiative is adopted. The Nevada Constitution is amended. Thousands of signatures were disqualified because they did not satisfy two non signature requirements. Only the former of which is before this court on appeal. It would have done so had the Committee prevailed on its three challenges. The Committee's injury was therefore redressable when the Committee filed suit. As in the other election cases we have decided. The challenged action here is too short in duration to enable full litigation on the merits. There is a reasonable expectation that the Committee will again be subject to the challenged 13 Counties Rule. HELLER 19293 Counties Rule is unconstitutional.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200310795.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiff Guirlaine O'Rourke was the office manager for her husband's medical office. Sylvester Brown was a probationer who sometimes performed
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0130p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Tobacco and Firearms (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2618.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Parties No. 02 2618 The plaintiffs in this case are Alliant Energy Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2713.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. PSC</SPAN> were on brief. They are joined by an intervenor. Two questions of statutory interpretation one critical to the resolution of these appeals and another of potential significance were not addressed below. We do not have a fully developed record to assist us in their resolution.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="523"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8C634C77CA7EC26288256F2B005855BB/$file/0335294.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Insisting that a biased jury that was convened for a trial in an improper venue convicted him after considering impermissible hearsay evidence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291. MOORE 14433 I We set forth first John Casey's testimony about how his wife was shot and died. Rosemary Casey was shot by a bullet fired from John Casey's semiautomatic .30 06 caliber hunting rifle. John Casey decided to oil his rifle by spraying Break Free oil down the barrel because the barrel was rusty. After placing a piece of cardboard and some rags over a garbage can which served as a makeshift workspace he planned to use to clean the gun John Casey moved the slide on the rifle back and no shell ejected or was visible. John Casey told the jury that while he held a rag over the rifle's action (to catch the cleaning solvent as it was forced through the barrel). His key defensive testimony was that he then unintentionally touched the trigger. She was later flown to Seattle for treatment but. Made it impossible for him to have a fair trial there.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="523"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr99/97-8726.man.html">JOHANSEN V. COMBUSTION ENG'G, INC. (4/1/1999, NO. 97-8726)<BR></A><BR>
All parties have appealed.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> In the 1920's. Graves Mountain was essentially a big. One of the minerals in the tailings was pyrite. The two suits were consolidated. Property owners' claim was that the streams looked and smelled bad. Or any other economic loss.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="523"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr99/97-8726.man.html">JOHANSEN V. COMBUSTION ENG'G, INC. (4/1/1999, NO. 97-8726)<BR></A><BR>
All parties have appealed.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> In the 1920's. Graves Mountain was essentially a big. One of the minerals in the tailings was pyrite. The two suits were consolidated. Property owners' claim was that the streams looked and smelled bad. Or any other economic loss.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="521"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012280.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 13
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="521"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug95/94-1016.html">GEHL GROUP V. KOBY<BR></A><BR>
We conclude that Plaintiffs have failed to establish that Defendants abridged their constitutional rights. I. BACKGROUND The FOP is a private national association of law enforcement personnel that engages in a variety of activities to promote the interests of its members. Northern Colorado Lodge No. 3 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="521"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/11/97-7115.htm">97-7115 -- DANIELS V. GLASE -- 11/03/1999<BR></A><BR>
Concluding that there were disputed issues of fact with respect to both the official capacity action and the Sheriff's claim of qualified immunity. <p> Because denials of summary judgment are not ordinarily immediately appealable. Because denials of qualified immunity in a summary judgment context are immediately appealable only in certain situations. We directed the parties to provide supplemental briefing on whether we have jurisdiction over this appeal.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="521"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200306/02-5142a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="521"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1440.html">FLORIDA SUGAR MARKETING AND TERMINAL ASSOCIATION, INC., V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were <u>Terence P. With him on the brief were <u>David W. Of counsel on the brief was <u>Richard McManus</u>. The appeal was submitted for our decision following oral argument on April 7. The tax is imposed on the shipper and liability attaches at the time of unloading. Those payments are the subject of this appeal.</p> <p ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="521"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/01-2155.htm">01-2155 -- WESSEL V. ALBUQUERQUE -- 08/13/2002<BR></A><BR>
Attorney fees. <p> The district court granted the nonmembers leave to supplement their complaint to set forth additional events which were a continuation of conduct alleged in the original complaint. Holding that the Union's fair share notice was unlawful and violated the nonmembers' constitutional right to disclosure of sufficient information to gauge the propriety of the Union's fee. They are: (1) whether the 1996 City of Albuquerque Fair Share Resolution provides legislative authorization for the collection of fair share fees. (2) whether a union's notice to nonmembers of a fair share fee payment's basis is constitutionally inadequate if the notice does not include a full audit of the union's schedule of chargeable and nonchargeable expenses. (3) whether the district court abused its discretion in refusing to enter a permanent injunction against future unlawful fair share notices and in determining that a refund of the entire fair share fee was not required where plaintiffs had received a refund of all fair share amounts improperly charged to them.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ABB5449C604ABF178825729E007626A3/$file/9899003withgraphic.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Note 3 (after the en banc court is chosen. The judges on the panel decide whether there will be oral argument). 3113 3114 COMER v. A three judge panel of our court remanded for the District Court to determine (1) whether Comer is competent to waive further proceedings and (2) whether he has chosen to do so voluntarily. The District Court found that Comer is competent and his decision to waive further proceedings voluntary. We review the District Court's finding that Comer is competent for clear error. That we review de novo the District Court's determination that Comer's decision to waive further proceedings is voluntary.1 Accordingly. 400 (1993) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/09/98-2215.htm">98-2215 -- CISNEROS V. WILSON -- 09/11/2000<BR></A><BR>
Holding that Plaintiff could not prove: (1) that she was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2001/00-12827.man.html">WILSON V. JONES (5/23/2001, NO. 00-12827)<BR></A><BR>
Who was detained at the Shelby County Jail after being arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. Because we hold that Defendant Sheriff James Jones is entitled to qualified immunity. Wilson was taken to the Shelby County Jail. She was required to remain until the following morning. Because the Shelby County Jail does not have separate facilities to hold temporary female detainees. Wilson was placed in a cell within the general female population of the jail.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1249.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Almost eight hours passed between the time when he first reported feeling sick and when he was finally taken to a doctor. Is a federal prisoner housed at the United States Penitentiary. Was convicted on November 28. Is currently serving a 262 month sentence. Kikumura's cell at 2:50 p.m. and observed that he
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D3E88955B3DB7FB6882570FF00825FD7/$file/0335858.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Thereby extinguishing Plaintiffs' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims.1 Plaintiffs at pertinent times were tenants of boardinghouses inspected by public health officials and secured by Seattle police. Lee at pertinent times were employees of the Seattle King County Department of Public Health. Defendant Kerlikowske was Chief of Police for the City of Seattle during the events underlying this case. Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred by granting Defendants' motions for summary judgment and that Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the search underlying this case violated the Fourth Amendment. Plaintiffs argue that they were entitled to prevail on the undisputed facts. We agree that the material facts are not in dispute. We consider the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs to the extent there is any factual dispute. Plaintiffs were detained by the Seattle police unreasonably and thus unconstitutionally. Plaintiffs argue that if they are not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7E6D73AB35929DB088256C08005A8578/$file/0099000.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
WOODFORD At the penalty phase of a trial in which a death sentence is at stake. We are confronted here with the issue of whether. Directing the jury to consider any circumstance
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/11/012574P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The jury was given a single charge for both federal and state claims. Hill was arrested for public intoxication while walking home from a bar in Nevada. Her blood alcohol content was measured at .306 g/dL. Michael Miller and Jennifer Holmes were on duty at the jail when a police officer. Who is not a defendant in this action. Hill was uncooperative during the booking process. Written jail policy states that prisoners placed in the padded cell are not allowed to wear normal clothing but instead must wear a paper gown or nothing at all. Hill claims that she was not offered the gown and that Miller observed her remove her clothing. Hill was naked while in the padded cell. She was quiet. Miller and Holmes claim that they were concerned that Hill was going to hurt herself. The defendants claim that the decision was made for Hill's safety and that they decided to make the move at that time in part because the transfer required a greater number of guards than were on duty for each shift. The practice was to do so without regard to the prisoner's state of dress.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0768117AF3AA6FDE88256E5A00707B75/$file/9830149.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: It was. What this means in practical terms is that. As the actions of one sovereign have encroached on the prerogatives of the other. Because the beneficiaries of these competing sovereignties are the citizens of the United States. The general government will at times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments. These will have the same disposition towards the general government. . . . If [the people's] rights are invaded by either. We have grown accustomed to relying on the federal government to protect our liberties against the excesses of state law enforcement. While state prosecutions of federal officers are less common. If federal agents are to perform their duties vigorously. The officers were armed but wore no visible law enforcement identification. They were still on the property at about 10:20 a.m. When they were detected by a party consisting of Kevin Harris. Samuel was shot twice. If the very first shot that was fired was Harris' mortal wound to Deputy Marshal Degan.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTIwODQtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-2084-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Board of Police Commissioners (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/03/953862P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendants. * * * * * * * * * * * * * Appellee's Petition for Rehearing has been considered by the court and is granted. vacated. Are March 17. Patrick McMorrow's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 McMorrow while he was claim against them. On appeal the officials argue that the law was not clearly established. That they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. McMorrow was charged with gross sexual imposition for raping a woman. He was required to attend the Sexual Offender Treatment Program at the North Before McMorrow could attend the program he had to admit that he committed the crime for which he was convicted. McMorrow refused to admit that he committed the crime for which he was convicted. These issues are not now before us. The magistrate judge determined that it was clearly established that it was a violation of McMorrow's constitutional right against self incrimination to require him to admit his crime before allowing him to attend the sex offender program. The officials argue that McMorrow's claim should be dismissed as they are entitled to qualified immunity.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2002/01-13317.opn.html">FOR YOUR EYES ALONE, INC. V. CITY OF COLUMBUS (2/6/2002, NO. 01-13317)<BR></A><BR>
Because we conclude that there was no pending state criminal action before proceedings of substance on the merits had taken place in federal court. We hold that </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BCF336EBF7A5753488256D5100821E1A/$file/0055585.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: At the heart of this case is a disappointed litigant's attempt to obtain in federal court the very relief denied to him in state court. Is the functional equivalent of an appeal of the state court decision. A result that is inconsistent with the Rooker Feldman doctrine. A federal district court is without subject matter jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the judgment of a state court. The case was transferred to then Superior Court Judge William Rylaarsdam. Bianchi's appeal was assigned to a panel that included nowJustice Rylaarsdam. At the time Bianchi's case was assigned to be heard before the appellate panel. Once the motion is made. The judge is automatically disqualified. No assessment of prejudice is undertaken. 1 BIANCHI v. Claiming that Justice Rylaarsdam's presence on the panel violated his federal and state constitutional right to due process and was contrary to California procedural rules. Bianchi sought to have the Court of Appeal vacate its opinion and reassign his appeal to a different panel.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021215.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 7 the word
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4659C20C60E6ACE088256D4F006E6D4E/$file/0150293.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Benjamin Sanchez also were on the briefs. 8530 UNITED STATES v. Argued the case for the United States and was on the brief. Were on the brief. Bernardo Pandeles Valencia (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2001/98-2709.ma4.html">ADLER V. DUVAL COUNTY SCH. BD. (5/11/2001, NO. 98-2709)<BR></A><BR>
The Court vacated our decision and remanded it for further consideration in light of </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/01/953862P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Less McMorrow claims that the restrictive confinement from McMorrow while he was imprisoned in North |
