Search the opinions of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal
use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"
This collection has many hidden limitations. To find out what you're really searching, see the
disclaimer .
Did you mean construction architect?
Your query construction architect.
returned 194 results.
Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to
consider using additional terms to narrow it.
 |
MASS. BAY V. U.S.
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
The Stroud Group expelled the Riese Group from SALT due to alleged poor construction and financial The general contractor for the Lexington Project actually was Gibraltar Companies of Tennessee. Is not material. Violations of the North Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
They concede that the cross appeal will be moot if this court affirms the district court's dismissal and summary judgment decisions. The cross appeal is therefore moot. The specific allegations pertinent to our discussion are found in paragraphs 9 through 32 of the First Amended Complaint. Sheet Metal Workers Local 36 is a member of the St. The Specification stated that all subcontractors were covered by the terms and conditions of the General Contract. One of the companies who submitted a bid for the School Project was Wachter. K.C.'s mechanical subcontracting bid was the lowest responsible mechanical subcontractor bid submitted to Wachter for the School Project. Inc.) were not signatory to an AFL CIO collective bargaining agreement. The bids for the School Project were publicly opened and read aloud on the morning of June 24. Wachter was the low bidder. When Wachter learned that it was the low bidder. The School Board was scheduled to hold a meeting at which it was to vote on the award of the contract for the School Project.
|
|
PECK V. HORROCKS ENGINEERS, INC.
We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. BACKGROUND Zachery Peck was killed on July 28. Zachery was an employee of K &. Horrocks is an engineering firm. The pipeline was installed by pipe layers into a 5'4
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We will reverse and remand to the district court for further proceedings. We will limit the triable issues on remand to a determination of: (1) the definition of
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
State: 4.4 4.4.1 RESOLUTION OF CLAIMS AND DISPUTES The Architect will review Claims and take one or more of the following preliminary actions within ten days of receipt of a Claim: (1) request additional supporting data from the claimant. The Architect will prepare or obtain appropriate documentation. The Architect will notify the parties in writing that the Architect's decision will be made within seven days. The parties were required to engage in the dispute resolution process through the Architect as provided in Section 4.4. Considering that the Contract is poorly drafted.
|
|
HIBISCUS ASSOCS. V. BOARD OF TRUSTEES
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Hibiscus Assocs. v. HAL and the Guarantors are the plaintiffs in this action. That was negotiated in 1988. MIG is the Pension Fund's investment advisor and manager. HAL was only required to make interest payments on the balance of the loan. The amount of the Guarantors' liability during the construction loan period was $10.6 million (the full amount of the loan). HAL was required to make payments on both the principal and interest of the loan. The Guarantors' liability was to be reduced to $2.12 million. The construction loan period was to last two years. On the second anniversary of the Closing Date) and provided (i) no Event of Default has occurred and no event is occurring which. (iii) all conditions regarding the Construction Loan have been satisfied. Accrued interest and all other sums due under the Loan on the Maturity Date.<p> <p> Loan proceeds were to cover the cost of the land and construction as described in a detailed construction budget provided in the Loan Agreement.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="759"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-5071.html">MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff <a name=QuickMark></a>appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="759"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr95/92-2387.opa.html">HIBISCUS ASSOCS. V. BOARD OF TRUSTEES<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hibiscus Assocs. v. HAL and the Guarantors are the plaintiffs in this action. That was negotiated in 1988. MIG is the Pension Fund's investment advisor and manager. HAL was only required to make interest payments on the balance of the loan. The amount of the Guarantors' liability during the construction loan period was $10.6 million (the full amount of the loan). HAL was required to make payments on both the principal and interest of the loan. The Guarantors' liability was to be reduced to $2.12 million. The construction loan period was to last two years. On the second anniversary of the Closing Date) and provided (i) no Event of Default has occurred and no event is occurring which. (iii) all conditions regarding the Construction Loan have been satisfied. Accrued interest and all other sums due under the Loan on the Maturity Date.<p> <p> Loan proceeds were to cover the cost of the land and construction as described in a detailed construction budget provided in the Loan Agreement.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="756"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/08/981243P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The unapproved plans were modified during construction without the approval of DIA. The ADA provides that unless a facility is two stories or less. That are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. Except where an entity can demonstrate that it is structurally impracticable to meet the requirements of such subsection in accordance with standards set forth or incorporated by reference in regulations issued under this subchapter. Is silent with respect to who is liable under section 303 for a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="749"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/01/041200P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was hired by the City as construction manager for four of the projects: City Hall. Kraus Anderson was responsible for overseeing the work of the contractors who were hired by the City. Was hired by the City as concrete contractor for the four construction projects Kraus Anderson was managing. No contracts were formed between KrausAnderson and Cameo. The conditions provide that each contract is the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011369.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lines 5 6 and line 8 the references to the Ninth Circuit are corrected to read Second Circuit in the case of Davis v. A schematic building footprint is a drawing of a proposed building that shows the building shape in relation to the property on which it will be constructed and reflects the exterior elevations for the proposed building. 2 failed to execute this proposed agreement. While the Zoning Exception application was pending before the Zoning Board. It stated that:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="734"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0137n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Slim Fast argues that summary judgment is inappropriate because the contract at issue is ambiguous and because a reasonable person could conclude the defendant violated its professional duty. I This is a diversity case about the construction of a floor in Slim Fast's warehouse in Covington. That design was used to solicit bids from contractors. Linkous Construction Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="734"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19958572.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction Eby provided a payment bond for the construction project which was underwritten by FIC and FDCM. 1 because the order granting partial summary judgment did not dispose of all of the issues raised in the complaint and it had not been certified for immediate review in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b).2 Later. After its work was completed. An immediate appeal is proper when the court directs that its judgment be deemed final in accordance with Rule 54(b). Rule 54(b) permits
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/89A87CAF2398CDE988256E5A00707CED/$file/9956221.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is hereby ordered amended as follows: 13903 Slip Op. at 10115: In the first sentence of the first paragraph. The United States argue that to the extent Title III of the ADA is ambiguous with regard to who can be liable for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1995/94a0928p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Valhal and Sullivan have both filed appeals from the order of the district court denying Sullivan's motion for partial summary judgment and granting Valhal's motion for partial summary judgment. The district concluded that the disputed clause was part of the contract but that it violated public policy and was therefore unenforceable. We will reverse. I. Factual and Procedural Background Valhal is a New York corporation which specializes in the management and development of real estate. Is a Pennsylvania corporation specializing in architectural. A document entitled
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D9DE22E2BB28AC4C88256AD400109090/$file/9956221.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is hereby ordered amended as follows: 13903 Slip Op. at 10115: In the first sentence of the first paragraph. The United States argue that to the extent Title III of the ADA is ambiguous with regard to who can be liable for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="707"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june96/95-8572.opa.html">ALLGOOD ELECTRIC CO. V. MARTIN K. EBY CONSTR. CO.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Allgood Electric Co. v. After its work was completed. What appears to be photocopies of these documents.<p> The payment applications identified the project and were addressed to Eby. Each application specified that it was for work performed by Allgood for a certain period of time and stated that. Relinquish all claim or rights of lien which the undersign [sic] may now have upon the premises above described except for claims for right of lien for contract and/or change order work performed to extent [sic] that payment is being retained or will subsequently become due.<p> <p> (R1 35. Appeared on the applications.<p> The completion certificate made a part of the record by Eby was addressed to the Georgia State Financing and Investment Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="707"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june96/95-8572.opa.html">ALLGOOD ELECTRIC CO. V. MARTIN K. EBY CONSTR. CO.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Allgood Electric Co. v. After its work was completed. What appears to be photocopies of these documents.<p> The payment applications identified the project and were addressed to Eby. Each application specified that it was for work performed by Allgood for a certain period of time and stated that. Relinquish all claim or rights of lien which the undersign [sic] may now have upon the premises above described except for claims for right of lien for contract and/or change order work performed to extent [sic] that payment is being retained or will subsequently become due.<p> <p> (R1 35. Appeared on the applications.<p> The completion certificate made a part of the record by Eby was addressed to the Georgia State Financing and Investment Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982701.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: We are presented with the question of whether
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="698"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1489.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C. were on brief for appellants. P.C. were on brief for appellee. Massachusetts trash to energy plant.1 The cranes are used 1Harnischfeger has designed and manufactured overhead cranes since 1906 and has built more than 24. Overhead cranes such as those built by Harnischfeger are generally considered heavy duty machinery for specific production purposes and used by many industries to lift and move heavy objects. 2 2 to move trash into trash feed hoppers where the trash is burned and steam is generated and converted into electricity. Harnischfeger was not involved in the design or construction of the RESCO facility. Snow was working at the Saugus facility. Alleging the crane was unsafe due to Harnischfeger's failure to equip the trolley with wheel guards and rail sweeps. Or (2) substantial completion of the improvement and the taking of possession for occupancy by the owner.3 Id.4 The district court found Harnischfeger was included in the class of actors protected under the statute and granted the summary judgment motion.5 3Massachusetts courts have construed the statute to apply to implied breach of warranty claims where the underlying cause of action is the same as the tort claim.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1997/97a1578p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-3223.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Claiming that it was entitled to these funds as liquidated damages because of Hutton's delays. 500.00 in liquidated damages to which the City was entitled. (2) that the contract's liquidated damages provision was enforceable. (4) that Hutton was not entitled to prejudgment interest on its damages. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm. Contract and Performance The contract between Hutton and the City is dated March 28. The engineer designated for the project was Allgeier. Rather than specifying when construction was to begin. In no event will the Commencement Date be later than * (See Special Conditions) calendar days after date of approval of the Contract by the [City]. That [Hutton] will not be required to perform any construction on such days when in the judgment of the Engineer snow. The time of completion set out above will be extended if [Hutton] makes a written request therefor to the [City] . . . . Provided that it submitted requests for extensions in writing: <hr> The time for Completion of Construction shall be extended for the period of any reasonable delay which is due exclusively to causes beyond the control and without the fault of [Hutton].
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="682"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/67E2315E526009AD882570F2007CBD6A/$file/0416677.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on the briefs. Was on the brief. Circuit Judge: We must decide whether an architectural firm is entitled to a preliminary injunction prohibiting a client from using its LGS ARCHITECTS v. The licensing agreement is based upon the language of the American Institute of Architects' Standard Form of Agreement for Residential Projects. It provides that [a]ll architectural documents prepared by Architect pursuant to this contract are instrumentalities of the Architect's services and are Architect's property solely for use by the Client on this project and no other. Any other use of such architectural documents is prohibited unless the Client first obtains express written authorization from Architect. C. These provisions are also applicable to the parties'
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="682"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1452.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C.</SPAN> were on brief for appellants and cross appellees</SPAN> <BR WP=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6231.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We must determine whether a contract between two defendant general contractors and a plaintiff subcontractor requires the general contractors to pay the subcontractor for the work the subcontractor performed only if the general contractors are first paid on their own contract with the project owner. (2) this clause is enforceable under both Texas and New Mexico law. Because Defendants have not been paid by project owner PathNet. The parties' agreement was embodied in a written contract (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200203/00-7279a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Alyza D. Baker were on the brief for appellee The Government of the United Arab Emirates. Concluding that District of Columbia law bars such claims by architects who (like Sturd za) have no D.C. architecture license. Concluding that foreign governments are not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-7279a.html">ELENA STURDZA V. UNITED ARAB EMIRATES<BR></A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Alyza D. Baker were on the brief for appellee The Government of the United Arab Emirates. <span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-7279b.html">ELENA STURDZA V. UNITED ARAB EMIRATES<BR></A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Alyza D. Baker were on the brief for appellee The Government of the United Arab Emirates. <span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="667"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200203/00-7279b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Alyza D. Baker were on the brief for appellee The Government of the United Arab Emirates. Concluding that District of Columbia law bars such claims by architects who (like Sturd za) have no D.C. architecture license. Concluding that foreign governments are not
</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/2004/03/03-8034.htm">03-8034 -- GREATER YELLOWSTONE COALITION V. FLOWERS -- 03/02/2004<BR></A><BR>
The property is part of a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="621"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982158.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Harbor Court Associates and Murdock Development Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="612"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/320791AEDD98BC1288256E5A00707D2F/$file/9856017.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
To
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="612"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DA6D78EB3044DFA488256AF500560956/$file/9856017.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
To
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-50549.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Two paragraphs of these agreements are at the center of the parties' dispute: IX. Other documents prepared by the Architect for this project are the instruments of the Architect's service for use solely with respect to this project and the Architect shall be deemed the author of these documents and shall retain all common law. Copy or cause to have copied. Except that the stated base architectural fee for one of the projects was $250. After all five projects were completed. In WHA sued several related Trammell Crow entities. refer to all the entities collectively as TCR. 3 1 We will designing The North Bend. Construction Documents for Trammell Crow Residential utilizing plans which are copyrighted property of Womack+Hampton Architects. An agreement was reached between Womack+Hampton Architects. Trammell Crow Residential and Chiles Architects allowing him to utilize our designs on that development for a Use Fee which is common in this industry.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-50859.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Two paragraphs of these agreements are at the center of the parties' dispute: IX. Other documents prepared by the Architect for this project are the instruments of the Architect's service for use solely with respect to this project and the Architect shall be deemed the author of these documents and shall retain all common law. Copy or cause to have copied. Except that the stated base architectural fee for one of the projects was $250. After all five projects were completed. In WHA sued several related Trammell Crow entities. refer to all the entities collectively as TCR. 3 1 We will designing The North Bend. Construction Documents for Trammell Crow Residential utilizing plans which are copyrighted property of Womack+Hampton Architects. An agreement was reached between Womack+Hampton Architects. Trammell Crow Residential and Chiles Architects allowing him to utilize our designs on that development for a Use Fee which is common in this industry.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/05/061695P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Rambo is an architectural firm and an educational facilities consultant based in Nebraska. South Tama is a school district in Eastern Iowa. South Tama was considering building a new school. Contacted architectural firms to ask whether they were interested in conducting a study to determine what would be necessary to put South Tama's existing buildings in condition to provide its students with a quality education for the next thirty to fifty years and to determine what new construction might be needed. South Tama maintains that the parties agreed only that Rambo would prepare the study and assist the school district in passing a bond issue to fund a new school building that was included in the study. We note that the agreement here is as far from a model of clarity as any that we can recall ever having reviewed. 2 was signed by the parties. Attachment B was a standard form contract between an architect and an owner. After explaining what was included in the study (Phase One). Definitions of these services and 3 other terms and conditions integral to this Agreement are provided in Attachment B.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jun2004/Jun22/03-50859.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Two paragraphs of these agreements are at the center of the parties' dispute: IX. Other documents prepared by the Architect for this project are the instruments of the Architect's service for use solely with respect to this project and the Architect shall be deemed the author of these documents and shall retain all common law. Copy or cause to have copied. Except that the stated base architectural fee for one of the projects was $250. After all five projects were completed. In WHA sued several related Trammell Crow entities. refer to all the entities collectively as TCR. 3 1 We will designing The North Bend. Construction Documents for Trammell Crow Residential utilizing plans which are copyrighted property of Womack+Hampton Architects. An agreement was reached between Womack+Hampton Architects. Trammell Crow Residential and Chiles Architects allowing him to utilize our designs on that development for a Use Fee which is common in this industry.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jun2004/Jun22/03-50549.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Two paragraphs of these agreements are at the center of the parties' dispute: IX. Other documents prepared by the Architect for this project are the instruments of the Architect's service for use solely with respect to this project and the Architect shall be deemed the author of these documents and shall retain all common law. Copy or cause to have copied. Except that the stated base architectural fee for one of the projects was $250. After all five projects were completed. In WHA sued several related Trammell Crow entities. refer to all the entities collectively as TCR. 3 1 We will designing The North Bend. Construction Documents for Trammell Crow Residential utilizing plans which are copyrighted property of Womack+Hampton Architects. An agreement was reached between Womack+Hampton Architects. Trammell Crow Residential and Chiles Architects allowing him to utilize our designs on that development for a Use Fee which is common in this industry.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-5162a.html">VULCAN ARBOR HILL V. REICH ROBERT<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1994/94a0750p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which the Salvation Army was holding. Were part of the estate in bankruptcy. We will reverse the order directing turnover to the Bank. We will therefore remand this issue to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings in this regard. Which was incorporated by reference into the bonds.[fn1] In March 1989. Modular also executed a Uniform Commercial Code Financing Statement which was filed on April 20. Modular commenced work on the Salvation Army project but was unable to complete all of its obligations under the contract. A Trustee was appointed. First Indemnity contends that the unpaid contract proceeds and retainage held by the Salvation Army were not properly characterized as accounts receivable owing to Modular so that the Bank's superpriority lien would apply to them. The Salvation Army was not obligated to make final payment to Modular until:
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/02/962353P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
One of which was held by RTC Mortgage Trust (RTC). It is therefore not necessary for us to consider the relative priority between the deeds of trust. 24 Home Savings and is now the obligee under the deed of trust. Which has since been purchased The loan was secured by a First Continental. 2. reviewed each draw request and was able to object to any draw request. The record shows RTC was aware that Ward was the general contractor for the project. RTC was kept abreast of the construction progress by a representative of Exec Tech. Particularly relevant to this appeal is how funds were disbursed for the project. Ward was The last draw request approved by RTC was submitted on December 9. In it Ward stated that the construction was 100% complete. received. also required to sign a lien waiver concurrently with any payment it Ward signed lien waivers for each payment received under the first ten draw requests. 3 The present dispute centers on Ward's last request for payment. This work on the changes was completed before December 9.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6276.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (Mivon) was (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Which was pledged to Summit as security. We have jurisdiction under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Any previously existing contract concerning the work contemplated by the Contract Documents is hereby revoked.
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7B80D73BD652E2BA88256AA000565134/$file/9956221.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: We must decide whether an architect can be held liable for designing a movie theater which is not in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. 10111 I The Market Place Cinema (
</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=03-6157.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiff appellant Jason Durham was severely burned after becoming entangled in linoleum webbing being drawn onto a hot oil drum. That the base coating line is
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1976.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On page 10. Cullen & Resnick were on brief for 604 Columbus Avenue. Gottlieb were on brief for Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. *Of the Third Circuit. This is a case involving a failed loan transaction that well illustrates Polonius' advice. Among which were the property owned by the Trust itself and properties of the Trust's principal beneficiary. Of which Millicent Young was sole beneficiary. The Young Family Trust was a named plaintiff in the adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy and district courts below. The Bank was declared unsound by Massachusetts banking officials. The FDIC was appointed 7 receiver. In February 1991 was substituted as defendant appellant in the district court. That the FDIC was entitled to raise the defenses available to it under the doctrine of estoppel established in D'Oench. The district court vacated that part of the bankruptcy court's judgment that was premised on the secret agreement by one of the Trust's principals to provide kickbacks to a Bank officer.
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CE493E92C8AF711088256E5A00707C26/$file/9956221.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: We must decide whether an architect can be held liable for designing a movie theater which is not in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. 10111 I The Market Place Cinema (
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/08/062433P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Factual Background HOK Sport is a subsidiary of Hellmuth. Krause is the president and chief executive officer of Kum & Go. The Menace is a minor league soccer club located in Urbandale. The City of Urbandale would have owned the stadium and received a nominal rent payment. Would have operated the stadium as a for profit business. Would have paid rent to Calcio. TSF was to
</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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1432.html">SEAL-FLEX, INC. V. ATHLETIC TRACK AND COURT CONSTRUCTION<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were William J. Of counsel was Richard W. Inc. is the assignee of U.S. Mats constructed according to the claimed method are often used as running tracks. First applying a liquid latex binder to the previously spread rubber layer in sufficient quantity to coat substantially all rubber particles of said layer then air drying said applied mixture until substantially no liquid is visible. Air drying the binder followed by the spreading of a uniform layer of rubber over the preceding layers until the approximate desired thickness for the mat is achieved. <p> <p> (emphasis added).<p> <p> According to this method. Each of its shareholders is licensed to practice this patented process. <p> AT&. The counterclaim sought a declaratory judgment that the patents were invalid. CC maintained that the Eaton Rapids method was not its customary track construction method. CC uses a material to perform the identical function and that the material used for performing that function was the same as or equivalent to the corresponding materials disclosed in the specification. <p> At the conclusion of the liability trial.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-7129a.html">BURKA PAUL S. V. AETNA LIFE INS CO<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2237.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for petitioner. Were on brief for respondents. Will & Emery on brief for The American Consulting Engineers Council. Standard of Review Standard of Review We review the Commission's decision to determine whether its factual findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Whether its legal conclusions are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011676.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Although the subsidiary was neither incorporated in West Virginia nor licensed as a general contractor in North Carolina when RCDI Construction Management and Dr. It was a licensed general contractor in North Carolina at the time of the assignment and throughout the time that it acted as general contractor pursuant to the assignment. When the hotel was near completion. Spaceplan was neither a party to this litigation nor named as a party released from all claims in the settlement agreement. The tortious interference and unfair competition claims were premised on Spaceplan's recommendation to Dr. The negligence claim was based on allegations that Spaceplan failed to take steps to remedy the water damage for several months. Reasoning that there was no valid contract because RCDI Construction Management was not a licensed contractor when it entered the contract. This defect was not cured by the licensing of its subsidiary and assignee. Noting that recovery on a tortious interference claim effectively would allow unlicensed contractors to circumvent the rule prohibiting them from enforcing contracts that are both illegal and invalid as against public policy.
</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/98E0CAB5297A6F5A88256EE6007A5E64/$file/0235992.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
As there was no collapse and thus no coverage. Attached to the steel frames are wooden exterior wall framing studs covered by exterior grade gypsum sheathing. The buildings' exterior siding is a polystyrene foam wall system called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0900n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Plaintiffs say the Defendants designed and constructed residences that were not accessible to handicapped persons as required by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/032177.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
BEACH CLUB II 3 ers association is not a party to the general contract. The general contractor is not a third party beneficiary of the master deed and is not otherwise entitled to invoke its arbitration clause. Because the arbitration provisions and legal issues are identical in the three cases before us. The facts are as follows. Is not a party to the deed. Nor is it referred to anywhere in the deed's provisions. Griffin alleged that the Association was subject to mandatory arbitration based on provisions in the general construction contract and The Beach Club master deed. Griffin argues that the Association is compelled to arbitrate its negligence and breach of warranty claims under two separate arbitration provisions. Griffin asserts that it is a third party beneficiary of the master deed. Griffin says in the alternative that the Association is equitably estopped from avoiding the master deed's arbitration provision. A. Griffin's main argument is that the arbitration clause in the general contract is enforceable against the Association through the doctrine of R.J.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1976.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1994 is amended as follows: On the cover sheet. Harsch were on brief for appellants. Nystrom and Kirkpatrick & Lockhart were on brief for appellees Dante E. Were on brief for appellees Federal Highway Administration. '
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199807/97-1274a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nagin were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Jr. were on the brief for intervenor American Airlines. Were on the brief for intervenor Dade County Flori da. Salinger were on the brief for amicus curiae Airports Council International North America. 1997) [hereinafter
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199810/97-1274b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nagin were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Jr. were on the brief for intervenor American Airlines. Were on the brief for intervenor Dade County Flori da. Salinger were on the brief for amicus curiae Airports Council International North America. 1997) [hereinafter
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may96/93-4634.ma2.html">MOTORCITY OF JACKSONVILLE V. SOUTHEAST BANK<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Motorcity of Jacksonville v. Southeast orally assured Motorcity that its personnel were experienced with floor plan financing and that
</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//may96/93-4634.ma2.html">MOTORCITY OF JACKSONVILLE V. SOUTHEAST BANK<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Motorcity of Jacksonville v. Southeast orally assured Motorcity that its personnel were experienced with floor plan financing and that
</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=03-1460.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Harrington</SPAN> was on brief for appellants. <P> <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200506/04-7059a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
On the brief was Phyllis J. On the brief was Matthew G. Circuit Judge: Plaintiff's notice of appeal in this case was premature. Filed while claims were still pending against one of three defendants. No new notice of appeal was filed. Here the nonfinal decision would have been appealable if followed by entry of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Accordingly we conclude that we have appellate jurisdiction. As each phase of the project was completed. Outlaw was a very hands on owner. Explaining it was bound contractually only to J.B. Informing the court that the notice of appeal had been filed and stating that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200313540.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court dismissed Dadeland's claim for two primary reasons: (1) Dadeland did not satisfy the conditions precedent for bringing a bad faith claim and (2) Dadeland was barred from bringing this claim under principles of res judicata because Dadeland could have included this claim in its prior arbitration proceedings against the Sureties. Because we find that this case turns on important questions of state law for which there is no controlling precedent. Miami Dade County owns the property and is the lessor of the land on which the project is situated. Dadeland is the obligee. Walbridge is the principal. The defendant insurance companies are the Sureties. The Sureties are obligated to take certain steps to ensure that the construction is completed. The project was completed. After the project was opened and the tenants had moved in. Dadeland's consulting engineer advised the plaintiffs about certain construction defects and urged them to have the project inspected. Which set forth a timetable of tasks that Dadeland was required to perform to bring the project into compliance with the building code.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022392.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Bowser Morner was to design a coal slurry impoundment for Lone Mountain's facility. Were briefed and argued in August of 2001. The court found that Lone Mountain was time barred from bringing this action pursuant to a contract statute of limitations. Noting that the District Court had ruled that all claims were controlled by the contract statute of limitations and had not addressed the additional claims of negligence. The District Judge reiterated his holding that there was
</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.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992257.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Claiming that the debt Richard Pleasants owed them was nondischargeable. The Kendricks were planning an addition to their home. Pleasants erroneously represented that he was an architect who was educated at the University of Virginia School of Architecture. The Kendricks discovered that Pleasants was not a licensed architect and had not attended the University of Virginia School of Architecture. Seeking to have their claim against Pleasants deemed nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). Five witnesses reported that when Pleasants was introduced as an architect. There was also testimony about the deplorable condition in which Pleasants' delays and faulty designs had left the Kendrick home. He noted that the master bedroom roof could have collapsed when loaded with snow. Pleasants first argues that § 523(a)(2)(A)'s
</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.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5017.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Arguing that it was entitled to the full $3. We affirm the denial of MBTA's motion to disqualify because the Court of Federal Claims did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the trial judge's adverse legal rulings and courtroom remarks reflecting disagreements with MBTA's legal arguments were an insufficient basis for recusal. The factual background was explained in our prior opinions and will not be repeated in similar detail here. Which is owned by MBTA. After the Construction Agreement was executed. The project was completed 956 days late at a cost of approximately $69 million. FRA was not a party. This case was stayed pending resolution of the White Litigation. The stay was lifted after that lawsuit settled. The Court of Federal Claims held that MBTA was not entitled to any damages. What would have been a reasonable or financially advantageous settlement in light of the original claim for $23.6 million. Would have paid beyond the $1.8 million actually paid on behalf of the A/Es alone.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19942307.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Standards are arbitrary and capricious for four different reasons. We hold that the manufacturers' arguments are without merit and deny their request that we set aside the regulations and that we remand to the agency for further proceedings. The purposes of the Manufactured Housing Act are to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1999/987408.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The major issue is whether under the Sentencing Guidelines interest owed on a defaulted loan obtained by fraud may be included by the court in calculating the amount of the victim's loss. 718.85 was principal and $1. 983.89 was interest. Interest on the defaulted loan should not have been included in calculating the victim's loss. Both of which were attended by Sushil and Subodh. Chaudhury signed a side agreement in which Building Technologies agreed to have Eaglemark. The land was to be used as the nursing home site. The mortgage on the property was in Subodh and Vinod's name. The falsified agreement stated that the purchase price was $264. Sushil submitted two financial statements for V Care that were signed but not prepared by a certified public accountant. Construction was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june95/94-2307.opa.html">FLORIDA MANUFACTURED HOUSING ASSOC. V. CISNEROS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Florida Manufactured Housing Assoc. v. (3) that the new wind standards are arbitrary and capricious for four different reasons. We hold that the manufacturers' arguments are without merit and deny their request that we set aside the regulations and that we remand to the agency for further proceedings.<p> <b>I. The purposes of the Manufactured Housing Act are to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june95/94-2307.opa.html">FLORIDA MANUFACTURED HOUSING ASSOC. V. CISNEROS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Florida Manufactured Housing Assoc. v. (3) that the new wind standards are arbitrary and capricious for four different reasons. We hold that the manufacturers' arguments are without merit and deny their request that we set aside the regulations and that we remand to the agency for further proceedings.<p> <b>I. The purposes of the Manufactured Housing Act are to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1994/94a0829p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude that the district court correctly determined there was no existing lease with which the mortgagee could have tortiously interfered. No lease existed between WALP and Schulman because the draft leases on which all of the negotiations between Schulman and WALP were based explicitly required execution by the landlord. Schulman's alternate claim for interference with a prospective contractual relation between himself and WALP fails as a matter of law because Morgan and Widener were acting in good faith to protect their legal and financial interests as mortgagee of the premises Schulman sought to lease from WALP. We will affirm the district court's order in all respects. Jeffrey Kelter (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1373.html">HILGRAEVE CORPORATION V. SYMANTEC CORPORATION<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1359.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
On the brief were Peter D. With him on the brief was Michael J. Who was also the Project Manager (PM) during the performance period. The ROICC did not have actual express or Resident Officer in Charge of Construction and Resident Officer in Charge of Contracts are used interchangeably in the record. 1 implied authority to direct the contractor to perform compensable contract changes. We affirm the Board decision on claim 3 because that claim is independently sustainable based on a differing site condition. 37 to the Board to determine whether the ROICC's directives on these claims were ratified.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jul1998/98a1904p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The appellant did not object to the condition at the time it was imposed. Is the owner and developer of the shopping center. D'Andrea was not a party to the underlying construction contract. The architect for the project.2 The case was assigned to a United States magistrate judge for pretrial and discovery matters. The magistrate judge warned that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054425p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Appellants are home and business owners who were issued criminal citations by the City of Bradford. 2 which have now been amended. Violate the First Amendment because they are impermissibly content based. Are in fact content neutral and permissible under the First Amendment based in part on our holding in Rappa v. We will affirm the holding of the District Court. Fred Pysher are residents of the City of Bradford. The properties at issue are Riel's residence. Riel's and Thompson's signs were handmade cardboard and plywood signs containing criticisms of City officials. Some of the signs included:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1679.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That was under construction. The lease was to run for 10 years. In fact the work was not complete until August 19. BEM claims that the removal of the case to federal court was improper. That the arbitrators' awards were improper and should not have been confirmed. Removal was proper only if the amount in controversy exceeded $75. Before the case was removed. When it was still in state court. Deliberately to avoid raising the issue is improper. Lawyers who practice in federal court have an obligation to assist the judges to keep within the boundaries fixed by the Constitution and Congress. It is precisely to impose a duty of assistance on the bar that lawyers are called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1628.html">THOMAS E. WHITE V. EDSALL<BR></A><BR>
Argued for appellee.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/07/951824P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Maddox was forced to sue Benham and Dynalogic for breach of contract. Maddox also sued The two misrepresentation counts were dismissed by the trial court. Benham and Dynalogic each counterclaimed against Maddox for monies that they alleged were due them on their respective contracts. Each proposal increased in The proposals costs and complexity to meet changing requests made by EEI. and Benham personnel. concept. were the combined product of Craig. Benham was to The terms of this oral contract were memorialized by Clete Schierman. TBG [Benham] is to develop a final lump sum engineering cost. This chronology was offered at trial as Under a design/build contract. Testified that the only way Maddox would have bid on the project was to rely on the estimates of Benham because Benham possessed all of the design information. provided by Benham. Was for a fixed price of $10. This contract was retroactively dated
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="487"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962766.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Our review is de novo. Our analysis is limited to the facts alleged in the complaint. Carlos DelValle and Sandra Bradley were key members of the Saxelbye team that put together a multi phase proposal including architectural design and construction administration services. Saxelbye was selected and began work in early October 1994. Were characterized by Saxelbye in a cover letter as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept98/97-7005.man.html">METRO. LIFE V. LOCKETTE (9/24/1998, NO. 97-7005)<BR></A><BR>
Petitioner lodged this appeal.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/09/963004P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Arkwright Mutual Insurance Company and Insurance Company of North America were Melroe's property insurers at the time of the explosion. the negligence They brought this subrogation action in their own names against Gwinner delivering Oil Company and Gwinner to Propane. Defendant Commonwealth Petroleum Company is the parent company of Gwinner Propane and was named as a defendant for its alleged negligent training and supervision of Gwinner Propane's employees. of the fault for the loss to Melroe. I. Melroe is a large industrial company which manufactures
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept98/97-7005.man.html">METRO. LIFE V. LOCKETTE (9/24/1998, NO. 97-7005)<BR></A><BR>
Petitioner lodged this appeal.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19977005.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Abstention from the exercise of federal jurisdiction is the exception. Is an extraordinary and narrow exception to the duty of a District Court to adjudicate a controversy properly before it. The order in which jurisdiction was obtained by the concurrent forums. No one factor is necessarily determinative. A carefully considered judgment taking into account both the obligation to exercise jurisdiction and the combination of factors counselling against that exercise is required. Only the clearest of justifications will warrant dismissal.'. Is abuse of discretion. The court apparently overlooked the fact that Moses Cone is on all fours with the case at hand and. Was not a party to that agreement. He was amenable to suit by the hospital. The issue whether the controversy was arbitrable was also before the state court. Addressing what appears to have Moreover. We have twice recently had cause to address this very issue. This case is so close to [Moses Cone] . . . that the district court abused its discretion in abstaining.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19977005.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
II. [2 7] Abstention from the exercise of federal jurisdiction is the exception. Is an extraordinary and narrow exception to the duty of a District Court to adjudicate a controversy properly before it. The order in which jurisdiction was obtained by the concurrent forums. No one factor is necessarily determinative. Is abuse of discretion. We note that our decision in this case would be the same under either standard. 2 2 1 obligation to exercise jurisdiction and the combination of factors counselling against that exercise is required. Only the clearest of justifications will warrant dismissal.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1504.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Joseph Diamante. That infringement under the doctrine of equivalents is barred by prosecution history estoppel. Since we hold that a reasonable jury could have concluded that PODS did not own the asserted copyright. BACKGROUND I PODS and Porta Stor are both storage and moving companies that operate by delivering storage containers to customers. PODS is the assignee of United States Patent No. 6. Claim 1 also requires that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="469"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTU5NjgtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5968-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That motion was granted. The District Court properly dismissed claims based on plaintiffs' theories that the preliminary agreement is enforceable as to the ultimate contractual goal and that it forms a joint venture. Is CEO of Plaintiff Appellant Jeffrey M. Is owner and President of Defendant Appellee Tracto Equipment. We hold that the grant of summary judgment as to Tracto was premature and therefore vacate that portion of the District Court Order. While the preliminary agreement is not enforceable as to the ultimate contractual goal contemplated in the document. It is enforceable as an obligation between the parties to negotiate in good faith within the framework of the agreement. 04 5968 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 In March 2000 the Jay Street Property was in use as a parking lot and was subject to zoning limitations that made it unsuitable for substantial commercial or residential development. Cara is to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="469"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0025n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
They were sufficiently original to merit copyright protection. That the defendants were not licensed to use these drawings. That the defendants' use of the drawings was not permitted by the fair use doctrine. That the individual defendants are subject to vicarious liability for the infringement. The district court held that the drawings were not sufficiently original to be protected by copyright and that. The defendants were entitled to their use under the terms of the plaintiff's contract with a third party. Because we conclude that the district court correctly determined that the defendants' use was permitted by contract. Grusenmeyer was selected for the project. Jeffrey Grusenmeyer testified that these drawings and files were created
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="469"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2002/011750u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Thus will reverse the district court's judgment dismissing Route 18's claims and remand the case for further factual development. We recount the facts and the procedural history of the case only as they are relevant to the following discussion. Inc. jointly marketed a [r]oofing system which system was installed on the property known as the Route 18 Shopping Center.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="460"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200010784.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Associated attacks the district court's holding that its claim for delay and inefficiency damages was barred because it failed to give Eby timely notice of its intent to seek those damages. Associated also argues that the district court should have awarded it interest on the final or
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="460"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2001/00-10784.opn.html">ASSOCIATED MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS V. MARTIN K. EBY CONSTR. CO. (11/9/2001, NO. 00-10784)<BR></A><BR>
Inc. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="460"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1602_012.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He submits that the court abused its discretion in determining that his federal and state actions are parallel proceedings and that his case presents an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="460"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2001/00-10784.opn.html">ASSOCIATED MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS V. MARTIN K. EBY CONSTR. CO. (11/9/2001, NO. 00-10784)<BR></A><BR>
Inc. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="454"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/031845p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were telling architects that the partitions of Santana Products. They contended that they could not be held liable for Santana's claims because they were merely petitioning the government about a safety matter. An action which was protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Arguing that the claims were barred either by the statute of limitations or the doctrine of laches. We will affirm the District Bobrick Corporation is the parent company of Bobrick Washroom Equipment. We will refer to them collectively as Bobrick. 4 1 Court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Santana's Sherman Act § 1 claim and its tortious interference with prospective contract claim.2 However. Because we conclude that the Lanham Act claim is barred by the doctrine of laches. We will reverse the granting of summary judgment on that claim. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The following facts are taken primarily from the District Court's very thorough opinion.3 A. The Toilet Partition Industry Santana and Bobrick manufacture toilet partitions.4 Toilet partitions are made of different materials.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="439"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A737B5D02249680988256E5A00707A2B/$file/9856940.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that the appellants have standing to challenge the adequacy of the Navy's Environmental Impact Statement under NEPA. Have not established taxpayer standing sufficient to bring their state law claims in federal court. The Naval Station is located on Terminal Island in the Port of Long Beach. Several of the buildings on the Naval Station were designed by Los Angeles architect Paul R. At the time the complaint in this case was filed. Which is protected by the Migratory Bird Act of 1918 and has been classified by the California Department of Fish and Game as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="439"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/31F0472AE8A769E588257013007DAC1B/$file/0235971nographic.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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'
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="439"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1786_020.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="439"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200416230.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Beaulieu is a practicing attorney with a law office in the City of Alabaster. Her office building is located in the central business district. Beaulieu was served by the City of Alabaster's code enforcement officer with written notice that she had violated the City's sign ordinance. This is the City's appeal from the district court's judgment in her favor. It was a stand alone. Informing her that the campaign sign was in violation of section 15.2(E)(1) of the City's sign ordinance. Brandenberg was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="439"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1465.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nigaglioni and McConnell & Valdes were on brief for plaintiff. Ojeda Colon were on brief for defendants. Was on brief for appellee Insurance Company of North America. Gonzalez & Rodriguez were on brief for third party defendant. This breach of contract case is a product of the renovation and expansion of the Ambassador Plaza Hotel and Casino (formerly a Howard Johnson Hotel) in San Juan. Plaintiff appellant Taber Partners I is the owner of the hotel. Its two partners are A. Inc. was the general contractor. The
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="439"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2318.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Were on brief. This is a diversity suit brought by Albert M. Was killed in a skiing accident that took place on January 31. The plaintiffs' claims against all the defendants were consolidated for trial.1 At the close of all the evidence. The relation of White . . . was subordinate. Subordinate in a way that was perfectly understandable on this evidence for a contractor to function. You're dealing with a particular kind of construction project with an expert architect/designer who is largely directing the[] efforts. There's no showing that there was brought to [White's] attention at any time any reasonable suggestion of danger by creating this particular condition even if [White] could be charged with creating it. I will grant the motion for directed verdict for White. Their case against Wachusett Mountain Associates and O'Brien went to verdict. 2 The yardstick by which we must gauge the assigned error is well hewn: When directed verdicts have been granted. We have had the benefit of excellent briefs on both sides.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="439"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200611/06-1001b.pdf">N:\06-1001 - WEISS V. SEC\WEISS - APPROVED 061115.WPD<BR></A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Ira L. With him on the brief were Brian G. Weiss was serving as bond counsel for a school district. The issue in Weiss's petition for judicial review is whether substantial evidence supports the SEC's decision. Statutory and regulatory restrictions are designed to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="439"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022104.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Is a successor to G.M. We will refer to these entities as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="439"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FEAC71F3B6100023882569EA00621DD3/$file/9856940.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that the appellants have standing to challenge the adequacy of the Navy's Environmental Impact Statement under NEPA. Have not established taxpayer standing sufficient to bring their state law claims in federal court. The Naval Station is located on Terminal Island in the Port of Long Beach. Several of the buildings on the Naval Station were designed by Los Angeles architect Paul R. At the time the complaint in this case was filed. Which is protected by the Migratory Bird Act of 1918 and has been classified by the California Department of Fish and Game as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/12/99-7143.htm">99-7143 -- SMITH V. MASSEY -- 12/19/2000<BR></A><BR>
1291 and affirm. <p> <center>I.</center> <p> The following is a summary of the underlying facts. Allegedly had made threats to have him killed. <p> As the group drove away from the motel. Present at the house were Smith and his wife Robyn. Five of these gunshot wounds were fatal. The knife wound was also potentially fatal. <p> <u>Smith v. 483 U.S. 1033 (1987). <p> Smith and her son Greg were charged in the District Court of Sequoyah County. The cases against Smith and her son were severed for purposes of trial. The jury found the existence of two aggravating factors: (1) the murder was especially heinous. Smith was formally sentenced by the state district court on December 29. Which was denied after an evidentiary hearing. The denial of post conviction relief was affirmed by the OCCA. <u>Smith v. The magistrate court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether Smith was advised by trial counsel of a potential conflict of interest arising out of counsel's representation of both Smith and her son and.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0285p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Arguing that the district court applied the wrong legal standard in reaching its conclusion that Olson's design and construction drawings were not substantially similar to Tiseo Architects' design and site plan drawings. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Olson determined that he was unable to work on the project at that time. They may have given him
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1553.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Jody L. Of counsel was Jacob D. With him on the brief was Bradley D. The documents describing the procurement obligations for California public projects state that when a product is referenced in a RFP by the manufacturer's name. All standard materials and features of that product are deemed to be inherently specified. Process or specified patent or proprietary name and/or by name of manufacturer is indicated. Inc. is not a party to this appeal. 04 1553 2 and/or process desired.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971347.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
*This opinion was prepared by Circuit Judge Donald S. Who died before it was filed. The opinion is accordingly filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). What are the bounds of a district court's discretion to dismiss a declaratory judgment action in the absence of a parallel state court proceeding. Because we refuse to fashion a per se rule requiring a district court to entertain a declaratory judgment action when no state court proceeding is pending. Because we are further satisfied that the demands and policies of our case law support the district court's determination. Because the Project was state owned.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1955.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LLP</SPAN> were on brief. Butterfield</SPAN> was on brief. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1995/95a1072p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1994/94a0845p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Before us is the City of Philadelphia's appeal from the orders of the district court dated September 24. This is one of a series of appeals taken by the City from related orders arising out of a consent decree and various revisions entered into between the City and the plaintiffs. To ameliorate the severe overcrowding and harsh conditions in the Philadelphia prisons.[fn1] Although this appeal was argued at the same time as the other appeals. The court disposes of this appeal initially for reasons that will become clear hereafter. I. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE AND THE CONSENT DECREES The complaint in this case was initially filed in 1982 by a group of inmates suffering from alleged overcrowding at Holmesburg Prison. The plaintiff class was expanded to include all past. The allegations of overcrowding were expanded to apply to the Philadelphia prison system as a whole. There is also pending a somewhat parallel action in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas which found. FACTS LEADING TO THIS APPEAL The City decided in late 1992 to double the capacity of the new facility it was required to construct by the 1991 Consent Decree from 1000 to 2000 beds.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2305.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellees Bounds Dá. Was on brief for appellee Municipal Revenue Collection Center.</SPAN></P> <BR WP=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991175.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
By the time this action was commenced. The exterior appearances of AHM's facilities are somewhat similar. Each is a rectangular building with a simulated tower. The roofs reflect different architectural styles and are constructed of dissimilar materials. Booth seating is located generally on one side of the island or peninsula. Stool seating is located on the other. Numerous television monitors and video games are present. As are pool tables. They are not identical. The menus are extensive. More than 20 types of beer are served on tap. Marketing data indicate that customers dining with their families are AHM's most frequent guests. Inc. was preparing to open a facility in Raleigh named the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1440.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. This schism involves the interplay between a state assault statute and a federal law barring misdemeanants who have committed crimes of domestic violence from possessing firearms. The crux of the controversy is whether
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr2000/981937.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Individual appellants are Robert D. We will affirm. The factual background of this protracted dispute is detailed in the district court's comprehensive opinion. We will only briefly summarize the factual and procedural history of this dispute insofar as it is helpful to our discussion. The UDAG Program was created by a 1977 amendment to Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="378"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1905.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. Both of which were intended to help curb the escalating societal problems associated with domestic violence. A recently enacted federal law makes it a crime for a person who is subject to a judicial anti harassment or anti stalking order to possess firearms that have been shipped or transported in interstate commerce. He was subject to a state court restraining order. Whose only potential predicate offense is a misdemeanor conviction under a general assault and battery statute. Which characterizes a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="378"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C22C6168E456491788256E5A00707BE9/$file/9935874.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The issues before us are jurisdictional. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The court found that: (1) the case was moot because the Tribe BIA contract had been completed and the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="378"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-7259a.html">YWCA V. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA<BR></A><BR>
Sandza argued the cause for appellees.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="378"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200201/00-7259b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the brief were Michael F. That some of the panels were unacceptable because they were chipped. The misrepresentation claim was dismissed pretrial. Showed that the primary cause of the deterioration of the panels was the introduction of excessive chloride ions when Beer improperly acid etched the panels. The deterioration was exacerbated by Beer's failures to manufacture the panels with sufficient concrete cover over the imbedded steel. To protect the steel from attack by chloride ions where the concrete cover was less than one and a half inches thick. The corrosion of the imbedded steel and the resulting cracking was an ongoing. That Beer was negligent. The jury also found that Tiber and Beer had failed to prove that the YWCA knew or reasonably should have known that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="378"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0058p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Court is asked to decide whether the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="378"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200201/00-7259a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the brief were Michael F. That some of the panels were unacceptable because they were chipped. The misrepresentation claim was dismissed pretrial. Showed that the primary cause of the deterioration of the panels was the introduction of excessive chloride ions when Beer improperly acid etched the panels. The deterioration was exacerbated by Beer's failures to manufacture the panels with sufficient concrete cover over the imbedded steel. To protect the steel from attack by chloride ions where the concrete cover was less than one and a half inches thick. The corrosion of the imbedded steel and the resulting cracking was an ongoing. That Beer was negligent. The jury also found that Tiber and Beer had failed to prove that the YWCA knew or reasonably should have known that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="378"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200310/02-7016a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="378"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CE5E9CE16D0D776F88256A8B0059D05A/$file/9935874.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The issues before us are jurisdictional. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The court found that: (1) the case was moot because the Tribe BIA contract had been completed and the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="378"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-7259b.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sandza argued the cause for appellees.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="378"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1954.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On page 17. Bradford & Veague were on brief for defendant. Was on brief for plaintiffs. *Of the Third Circuit. Plaintiffs are Ronald and Rosalie Masure. Defendant John Donnelly is a home builder. 3 Ronald Masure testified to the following. In September 1989 the Masures expressed an interest in buying a house Donnelly was then completing on Moosehead Lake in Northern Maine. They were particularly impressed with the view of the lake from the house. Donnelly informed the Masures that the asking price was $237. Donnelly was not present. The Masures were unaware of any problems with the house. Was informed by Edwards that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="378"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991058.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Kurfees and Associates (Kurfees) in which Kurfees was to construct three Food Lion stores in Virginia (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="378"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0395p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The government argued that Cinemark was not complying with the applicable Justice Department regulation. The district court held as a matter of law that Cinemark was in compliance because its theaters provided wheelchair patrons with unobstructed views of the movie screen from wheelchair seating located amid or adjacent to The Honorable Gordon J. Sitting by designation. * The Department of Justice's enabling regulations under the Americans with Disabilities Act are the Am ericans with Disabilities Act Accessibility G uideline s. Stadium style theaters have a seating configuration that rises at a relatively steep grade. Wheelchair placements are generally located on a flat portion of the auditorium approximately one third of the way back from the screen. This placement is in the third row of fixed seating. Near the entrances and exits to the theaters.3 Wheelchair placements are also located on a flat portion in the rear of the auditorium in Cinemark's theaters that seat 300 or more people. These placements are accessed by elevators.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="374"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961620.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The tax court found that Eren's relationship with his employer was that of an employee rather than an independent contractor. With the consequence that he was not entitled to the § 911 exclusion. We are of opinion that this ruling. That Eren was an employee. Was not clearly erroneous. We further find that the Erens' remaining assignments of error are also without merit. I. Ertan Eren is an architect. Eren would qualify for a§ 911 exclusion if he is classified as an independent contractor but not if classified as a State Department employee. 459 deficiency for 1989 after concluding that Eren was an FBO employee and therefore not entitled to a§ 911 exclusion. (5) the fact that the Bogota project was within the scope of FBO's regular business of constructing U.S. government buildings overseas. The court accordingly upheld the determination of the IRS that the taxpayers were not entitled to a § 911 exclusion. The taxpayers' only assignment of error meriting any extended discussion is their claim regarding the determination of Eren's employment status.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="374"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july95/93-2314.man.html">PULTE HOME CORP. V. OSMOSE WOOD PRESERVING<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Pulte Home Corp. v. A manufacturer of chemicals that were applied to plywood Pulte used in constructing the roofs of 1876 townhouses. After the townhouses were sold. A jury found that Pulte's loss from replacing the plywood was caused by Osmose's (1) misrepresentation that the plywood would not deteriorate and (2) negligence in failing to warn Pulte that the plywood would deteriorate. Finding that Osmose's misrepresentation was made with fraudulent intent to induce Pulte to purchase Osmose treated plywood. The court acted on the theory that Pulte's tort claims were barred by the economic loss rule. Which are sold at various prices. The multi family townhouses consist of a row of single family housing units that are joined by a common wall and. Osmose was only one of several manufacturers of chemicals used to create fire retardant treated (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="374"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2622.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Weld LLP</SPAN> were on brief for appellants.</SPAN> <BR WP=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="374"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july95/93-2314.man.html">PULTE HOME CORP. V. OSMOSE WOOD PRESERVING<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Pulte Home Corp. v. A manufacturer of chemicals that were applied to plywood Pulte used in constructing the roofs of 1876 townhouses. After the townhouses were sold. A jury found that Pulte's loss from replacing the plywood was caused by Osmose's (1) misrepresentation that the plywood would not deteriorate and (2) negligence in failing to warn Pulte that the plywood would deteriorate. Finding that Osmose's misrepresentation was made with fraudulent intent to induce Pulte to purchase Osmose treated plywood. The court acted on the theory that Pulte's tort claims were barred by the economic loss rule. Which are sold at various prices. The multi family townhouses consist of a row of single family housing units that are joined by a common wall and. Osmose was only one of several manufacturers of chemicals used to create fire retardant treated (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="374"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200411409.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs claim that all other developers that came before the Planning Commission had received approval and aver that Plaintiffs were treated differently by the City because of Mr. Filed a second amended complaint in which only the municipality of Rainbow City was named as a Defendant. The mayor and the Board of Adjustment were no longer parties to the litigation. 2 1 Defendant Rainbow City has appealed. Plaintiffs have not offered any evidence to support an equal protection claim of similarly situated individuals who were treated differently. The district court should have granted the City's Rule 50 motion. The order of the district court is reversed. It is directed to enter judgment for Defendant. Campbell ran for the office of Mayor of Rainbow City and was defeated by the incumbent. Campbell was critical of Glidewell and her policies. Mayor Glidewell is a voting member of both the City Council and the Planning Commission and appoints six of the other nine members to the Planning Commission. Because we conclude that the district court should have granted the City's Rule 50 motion.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="374"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-9566.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That the EEOC's recognition of such a right violates the expressed will of Congress and the Tenth Amendment. The Board further argues that the EEOC erred in its determination that one of the Administrative Law Judge's (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1529.html">W.G. YATES & SONS CONSTRUCTION V. CALDERA, LOUIS<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were <U>David M. This section also contained the two provisions that are at issue before us paragraphs 1.4.B Qualifications and 1.4.C Standard of Quality:</P><DIR> <DIR> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1998/98a1930p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are asked to review the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the United States and against Harry Grant and Sandalwood Corporation. The court ruled that Grant and Sandalwood were liable for violations of the Clean Air Act. We will affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of the United States based upon Grant's and Sandalwood's non compliance with an EPA compliance order for each day they were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1966OPN2.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Russoniello</SPAN> and <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053730p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Three issues are presented for decision following the District Court's grant of summary judgment to the excess insurer. Did the District Court err in holding that New York law governs this dispute as the state in which the insurance 3 contract was issued and delivered. We conclude that although Pennsylvania's choice of law rules have abandoned the lex loci doctrine. Was unloading bags at the Pittsburgh International Airport. He was severely injured and is now a quadriplegic requiring constant round the clock care. Which was a wholly owned subsidiary of the Dyson KissnerMoran Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1313.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Visconti and Visconti & Petrocelli Ltd. were on brief for Professional Building Concepts. Harnett was on brief for Promac. Was on brief for The City of Central Falls Housing Authority and U.S. DiFiore with whom Beals & DiFiore was on brief for Maron Construction Company. The lowest bid was rejected because no certified check or other guarantee was submitted with the bid. The district court held this was not arbitrary. The third lowest bidder argues the district court erred in approving the contract award on a bid that it contends was unresponsive because it contained an additional line item of cost not contemplated by the invitation to bid. At dispute is a contract funded by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for general improvements to two housing projects in Central Falls. The bid guarantee was to be either [a] certified check or bank draft. It was determined that the Authority could allow PBC to submit a proper security within three days. Present at the bid opening were the three lowest bidders.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043589p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
One of these subcontractors was 2 Hull. Various logistical and timing issues plagued the manufacture and delivery of the freeze dryers before they were eventually installed at Huadu's facility in China in April 1997. These tests would have held the freeze dryers to even more stringent standards than did the failed start up test. Satisfaction of the performance tests was required by the Huadu Contract. The result was an agreement among Huadu. March 1998 was set as the date by which modifications would be completed and Huadu would grant final acceptance. Several particular provisions of the APA are relevant to our discussion. The first is a list of purchase assets. The second provision at issue is Section 7.8. Which states that: Purchaser will. At the location of the customer) or accept returns of products of the Business shipped by [Hull] on and prior to the Closing Date ... which are defective or which fail to conform to the customer's order in accordance with the following provisions (but [SPI] does not hereby assume any liability to any third party claimant. ...).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="332"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1493.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a diversity action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. King Soopers was remodeling the store. His efforts were to no avail. The building was destroyed. Hussmann responded by alleging that King Soopers was also negligent and that its negligence should be compared to reduce Hussmann's <hr> potential liability. Which is the most fire resistant material. Testified that the presence of paper backed insulation was why Anderson was unable to extinguish the fire with a five gallon bucket of water. Despite manufacturer's warnings printed on the insulation that it was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="332"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1056.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The pegs are square. The holes are round. The fit is inexact. The obvious bar to arbitrability is the abecedarian tenet that a party cannot be forced to arbitrate if it has not agreed to do so. The facts are not disputed.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="314"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-7178a.html">NOVECON LTD V. BULGARIAN-AMERICAN ENTERPRISE FUND<BR></A><BR>
McFadden argued the cause for appellants. </p> <p>With him on the briefs was John M. With him on the briefs was Gary H. ) are private firms engaged in developing busi </p> <p>ness projects in Bulgaria. Plaintiff Richard Rahn is president of both compa </p> <p>nies. Ronald Utt is their managing director. ) </p> <p>is a not for profit corporation established pursuant to the </p> <p>Support for East European Democracy Act. Defendant Frank </p> <p>Bauer is the Fund's president and defendant Nancy Schiller </p> <p>is the managing director of its Chicago office.</p> <p>A</p> <p>In 1991. The correspondence contemplated </p> <p>that the Batsov family would have a 26 percent stake in the </p> <p>building complex. Was written on May 20. It </p> <p>stated that the Fund was ". This list is not exhaustive </p> <p>[but] should provide an overview of the role that [Novecon] </p> <p>will have.". The Fund was willing to compen </p> <p>sate Novecon with the sum of $200. This document is fairly comprehensive. Undoubtedly </p> <p>there will be some need to clarify certain points now or as we </p> <p>proceed.".
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="314"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0202n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He argues that 1) prejudicial testimony was introduced at trial. 2) the indictment was constructively amended. 3) the jury was improperly instructed. 4) Count One (Conspiracy) of the indictment was legally insufficient. 5) his motion for acquittal on Count One (Conspiracy) was erroneously denied. 6) his sentence was miscalculated under the Guidelines. 7) he was sentenced in violation of the Sixth Amendment. Kosinski was also ordered to pay an assessment of $7. Kosinski is a dentist. His father was a carpenter and independent contractor. Thyssen was in the midst of a multi million dollar expansion of its warehouse system. Which was run by Melvin Phillips. Kosinski and Melvin Phillips worked together for several years and were friends. Their 2 relationship as business associates was particularly close. So much so that two of Phillips's employees testified that they believed Kosinski and Phillips were partners. 625 were drawn on T.J.'s business account and made payable to Melvin Phillips or Phillips Contracting.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="314"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1921.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nachman with whom Joan Schlump Peters was on brief for Merit Builders. Palou & Miranda were on brief for Taber Partners I. Gonzalez & Rodriguez were on brief for appellees. A New York general partnership whose sole partners are two New York corporations. S.E. (hereinafter referred to collectively as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="314"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0792n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Upshaw alleges that the elimination of his position as part of an airport reorganization was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="314"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2324.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ltd</SPAN> were on brief. LLP</SPAN> were on brief. This case requires us to determine whether appellant Capital Terminal Company was entitled to reach a jury on its claim that certain improvements to a fire suppression system were required by
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="314"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2114.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bird and Hestres</SPAN> were on brief. Nez</SPAN> were on brief. Facts</SPAN></STRONG><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="314"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/02/062385P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a dispute between homeowners. The subdivision is limited to five lot owners. Three lot owners refused approval because the house was not set back from the street as far as it could be. The subdivision hired Julien
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="314"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1997/96a1486p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Michael Brown and Guy Michael (hereinafter the firm and its partners are collectively referred to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="314"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E15F9DE428C15C4C88256E21005DCE7C/$file/0256432.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court held that the corporation was not subject to liability under the FCA because DMJM was acting as an agent of the state when it allegedly submitted false claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Ali was employed by CSUN as an architect coordinating the reconstruction of buildings damaged by the January 1994 Northridge earthquake.1 CSUN retained DMJM as its construction management firm in December 1994. Claims against CSUN and the CSUN officials were dismissed pursuant to the parties' joint stipulation. The only remaining defendant is DMJM. Applicable FEMA regulations provided that buildings not in use at the time of the earthquake were ineligible for funding unless. The facts recounted here are not contested. Holding that the undisputed facts demonstrate that DMJM employees were acting as agents of CSUN. Thus DMJM is entitled to immunity for actions within the scope of their official duties. A. Standard of Review DISCUSSION The existence of sovereign immunity is a question of law reviewed de novo.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="314"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-31096.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
PER CURIAM:1 This is a suit for damages for copyright infringement. The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. The plans for the Stone home were drawn by Louis Ravasio (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="314"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199909/97-7178a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was John M. With him on the briefs was Gary H. Ltd. and Novecon Management Compa ny (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="314"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/00-1303.htm">00-1303 -- COLORADO CROSS DISABILITY COALITION V. WILLIAMS -- 08/29/2001<BR></A><BR>
Williams is a Denver attorney who. Is paralyzed from the chest down and uses a power wheel chair for mobility. The door to the store is recessed from the storefront and adds another barrier to wheelchair access of one to three inches. <p> In 1996. Concluding that Plaintiff failed to establish that removal of architectural barriers at the four locations was readily achievable. Including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction or restraining order for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="314"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002555.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because Carr is a limited purpose public figure who has forecast no evidence that Forbes acted with actual malice in publishing the article. As Interwest was developing the Quartzsite project. Who were familiar with Carr's work in Quartzsite. The sewer district was unable to pay off its bonds and ultimately filed for bankruptcy. Was controlled by DLR. The record does not reveal whether Carr was an officer in Interwest Carolina. Was the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="314"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTMyODYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3286-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled on a motion for summary judgment that the Board's decision was unsupported by substantial evidence (as required by the TCA). Is suing the City of White Plains (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="314"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTMyODYtY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/04-3286-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled on a motion for summary judgment that the Board's decision was unsupported by substantial evidence (as required by the TCA). Is suing the City of White Plains (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="314"></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-2.gif" ALT="271"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053693np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm the judgment on PSCC's contract claims. I John Sadlon is a former employee of Lederle Laboratories and the president of PSCC. Who was Lederle's director of quality assurance. Was part of a fourperson inspection team charged with approving outside contractors. Sadlon and Delavau entered into a contract under Pennsylvania is the state of incorporation and the principal place of business of Delavau and Accucorp. Although PSCC did not have a certificate of incorporation. There is no evidence in the record that Micelli had any expertise relevant to Sadlon's business. The only evidence of any work she did for PSCC was that she created some spreadsheets and was involved in a few unsuccessful attempts to sell an idea for a home blood test kit to the laboratory company for which she worked. She was engaged to Richard DiBenedetto Jr. Who was living with his father. DiBenedetto Sr.'s colleagues at Lederle were unaware of his prior visit to the Delavau facility. PSCC also agreed that any Lederle business in which it was in any way involved would be exclusively presented to Delavau.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="271"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec99/98-5447.man.html">FREMONT INDEM. CO. V. CAREY DWYER ECKHART MASON & SPRING, P.A. (12/6/1999, NO. 98-5447)<BR></A><BR>
We believe the issue is appropriate for resolution by Florida's highest court and defer our decision in this case pending certification of the issue to the Supreme Court of Florida. Is barred by the two year limitation period imposed by Fla. Dwyer was retained by Fremont to defend its insured. (2) Fremont's specific claim of malpractice in this case is that. Dwyer failed to advise Fremont of settlement offers made by the claimant to Spring which Fremont could have accepted and held down its payments and costs. Dwyer all occurring more than two years before this action was filed. (4) the litigation in the said state court action was still pending at the time the action in this case was filed. For which the case could have arguably been settled. At the time this action was filed.</P> <P><CENTER>COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE</CENTER> </P> <P> The parties have agreed to the following. Counts I III were for legal malpractice in the handling of the defense of claims against Fremont's insured. Count IV was for indemnity.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="271"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan97/95-4636.opa.html">BERNARD SCHONINGER SHOPPING CTRS. V. J.P.S. ELASTOMERICS, CORP.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bernard Schoninger Shopping Ctrs. v. Is a limited partnership organized under the laws of Florida.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="271"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1318.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
L.L.P.</U> were on brief for plaintiff. L.L.P.</U> were on brief for defendant. He was a partner with his brother in the firm of Ellis &. The present case arises from Ellis's representation of one person who was employed at two different jobs under two different names: Denis Milan and David Formoso. We will refer to Denis Milan only when discussing his claim for the first accident at the Victory Button Company. Because it appears uncontradicted that David Formoso is the correct name of this individual. We will use that name in all other instances.</P> <P> The first accident occurred on March 25. Claimed to have injured his back during a fall. Doctors examining Formoso determined that this injury was also at the L5 S1 location in his lower back. This claim was referred to St. Ellis represented Formoso in both claims.</P> <P> Although Formoso was claiming a causal relationship between his back injury and the fall at the Westford Regency Hotel. The prior accident at the Victory Button Company with its injury to the same part of the back was never disclosed to St.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="271"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972397.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Concluding that the conduct of Rouse and B&W was justified as legitimate competition. The District Court granted summary judgment on English's statutory claims because there was no factual basis to support them. An employee of Rouse who was also a representative of B&W. The letter stated that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="271"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1252.html">HPI/GSA-3C, LLC. V. STEPHEN A. PERRY<BR></A><BR>
Argued for appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The briefs were submitted by <u>Scott M. Argued for appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>Peter D. Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>David M. Appeals from the decision of the General Services
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="271"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/june97/95-4163.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. PROWS<BR></A><BR>
Tracy Prows was convicted of mail fraud and wire fraud for his role in a scheme to obtain software from WordPerfect at discounted prices by misrepresenting the identity of the purchaser. The district court misconstrued what is required for a conviction under the mail fraud and wire fraud statutes. We find that Prows was not prejudiced by his counsel's performance. Background Petitioner Appellee Tracy Prows was the owner of Computerland of Ogden. He was approached by James Baker who wanted to buy large quantities of WordPerfect software at a discount and resell them. Prows was an authorized WordPerfect dealer. He told Baker that discount prices were available when the software was purchased under a site license. A site license is an agreement whereby WordPerfect sells a large number of programs at a discount to a buyer who agrees that the programs will be exclusively for its own use and will not be resold. The discounts available under a site license are substantial. 1995 WL 143433 (Table) (10th Cir. 1995) (unpub.). price available to a WordPerfect dealer was $198 per unit of software.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="271"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1784.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. Is a houseboat a house or a SELYA. Is the enigma posed by this case. I I La Parguera is a bay in Puerto Rico acknowledged by all interested agencies and groups to have great beauty and ecological value. There are. The Corps informed the owners of these houseboats that they were subject to 2 the permitting requirements of section 10. Their applications were denied. For they are resisting the agency's effort to obtain a determination of legal enforceability by arguing that the agency lacked jurisdiction over their vessels. Although exhaustion of administrative remedies is often a prerequisite to judicial review of administrative action. Jurisdictional questions are generally not waived. Because an action taken by an agency lacking jurisdiction is a nullity. To the navigable capacity of any of the waters of the United States is prohibited. Non exclusive enumeration of things that are presumed to constitute obstructions. Included in this list is the term
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="271"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1639.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Was on brief. Was on brief. The complaint alleged that Copen was negligent in failing to warn Wilson of unusual conditions a narrow landing at the top of the stairs and a hidden light switch that caused her to fall in the darkness. That Wilson was more than 50% comparatively negligent. <U>See</U> Mass. Because Copen was not liable. We agree and therefore vacate and remand.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="271"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2004/023837p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That there exist disputed issues of material fact concerning when Prudential knew or should have know of its injuries from ACMs in its properties. That the statute of limitations for Prudential's RICO claims should have been tolled due to Gypsum's active and fraudulent concealment of known health risks associated with ACMs. We will affirm. One of the myriad asbestos cases that have besieged the courts. Are owners and operators of buildings that installed asbestos containing materials (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="271"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1996/96a1346p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Two significant constitutional questions are presented for our review. The first is whether the government's use of acquitted codefendant Mercedes Travis. Who Voigt alleges was counsel to the Trust and to him personally. The second is whether the district court violated Voigt's Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice when. We must decide whether those statutes require formal
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="271"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2003/022544p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jr. was convicted of theft from a museum for his involvement in the misappropriation of a Civil War officer's uniform in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 668 (1994). At issue is whether the Hunt Phelan Home Foundation. From whose care the uniform was taken. Was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="271"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec99/98-5447.man.html">FREMONT INDEM. CO. V. CAREY DWYER ECKHART MASON & SPRING, P.A. (12/6/1999, NO. 98-5447)<BR></A><BR>
We believe the issue is appropriate for resolution by Florida's highest court and defer our decision in this case pending certification of the issue to the Supreme Court of Florida. Is barred by the two year limitation period imposed by Fla. Dwyer was retained by Fremont to defend its insured. (2) Fremont's specific claim of malpractice in this case is that. Dwyer failed to advise Fremont of settlement offers made by the claimant to Spring which Fremont could have accepted and held down its payments and costs. Dwyer all occurring more than two years before this action was filed. (4) the litigation in the said state court action was still pending at the time the action in this case was filed. For which the case could have arguably been settled. At the time this action was filed.</P> <P><CENTER>COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE</CENTER> </P> <P> The parties have agreed to the following. Counts I III were for legal malpractice in the handling of the defense of claims against Fremont's insured. Count IV was for indemnity.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="271"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan97/95-4636.opa.html">BERNARD SCHONINGER SHOPPING CTRS. V. J.P.S. ELASTOMERICS, CORP.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bernard Schoninger Shopping Ctrs. v. Is a limited partnership organized under the laws of Florida.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="210"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkwMTlfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9019_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The controversy that triggered this litigation is whether EasyLink Services Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="210"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-8028.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bad faith arising from Mid Continent's failure to defend True Oil and pay for its liability resulting (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Or expense arising under either (i) or (ii) from: (A) The sole or concurrent negligence of the indemnitee or the agents or employees of the indemnitee or any independent contractor who is directly responsible to such indemnitee. Are against public policy and are void and unenforceable to the extent that such contract of indemnity by its terms purports to relieve the indemnitee from loss or liability for his own negligence. The statute was likely a response to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="210"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2047.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
AS HE IS TRUSTEE OF COLONIAL DRIVE REALTY TRUST. Rossman & Eschelbacher were on brief for appellant. Mahoney & Miller were on brief for appellees Patrick J. Louison and Merrick & Louison were on brief for appellee Joseph Ferruzzi. Vacate the judgment on the pendent state claims and remand so that those claims will be adjudicated. A special permit is analogous to a variance. The town planner wrote to Colonial that Building 3 was seven feet closer to the road than the special permit allowed. Building 3's proximity to the road was discussed in planning board meetings over the following months. Colonial once again argued to the board that there were no discrepancies between the special permit and the project as built. The reasons for the revocation were that the buildings did not conform with the special permit. That Colonial had represented in applying for building permits that the project was in compliance with
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="210"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2001/98-5447.op2.html">FREMONT INDEM. CO. V. CAREY DWYER ECKHART MASON & SPRING (11/6/2001, NO. 98-5447)<BR></A><BR>
The facts are more completely recited in that opinion.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="210"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19963547.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
All eleven judges on the Second Circuit are elected in at large. The four judges on the Leon County Court are elected in at large. The black population is concentrated in a few areas. The Second Circuit Court is a trial court of general jurisdiction. While the Leon County Court is a trial court of limited jurisdiction. Incumbents do not have to run against each other. In the few elections in which black candidates have competed against white candidates (prior to Davis's initiation of this litigation). Have little probative value. 92 L.Ed.2d 25 (1986) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="210"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19963547.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
All eleven judges on the Second Circuit are elected in at large. The four judges on the Leon County Court are elected in at large. The black population is concentrated in a few areas. Incumbents do not have 3 1 staggered terms. The Second Circuit Court is a trial court of general jurisdiction. While the Leon County Court is a trial court of limited jurisdiction. In the few elections in which black candidates have competed against white candidates (prior to Davis's initiation of this litigation). Have little probative value. Racial block voting has become
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="210"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FE9C678CD8E63FA488256D5D007C8167/$file/0117525.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Javier Noriega Lopez is a citizen and national of Mexico admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident alien about thirty six years ago. NoriegaLopez was convicted of felony possession of heroin for sale in violation of California Health and Safety Code § 11351. The Immigration Judge (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="210"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/56DBAB00715A69D488256D2500832D23/$file/0116033.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Lawrence Krug is an Arizona state prisoner. Nor is he required to seek modification of the decree in order to obtain relief. We also conclude that the ADOC officials are entitled to qualified immunity from Krug's claim for damages. Before Krug was incarcerated in the Arizona state prison system. LUTZ ing publications as obscene were conducted by a prison official other than the one who made the initial determination.1 Beginning in 1997. A revised policy was issued in late 1999. ADOC officials rejected 63 publications addressed to Krug because they were deemed obscene. It directed the ADOC officials to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="210"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/10/992294P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
BACKGROUND The focus of plaintiffs' lawsuit is the CCB. Is partially paralyzed and uses a wheelchair.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="210"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/12/98-3287.htm">98-3287 -- U.S. V. GUIDRY -- 12/21/1999<BR></A><BR>
Guidry was the architect of an embezzlement scheme that allowed her to line her pockets with approximately $3 million belonging to her employer. Wichita Sheet Metal.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="210"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200415898.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sitting by designation. 2 * The essential facts developed at trial are these. Use and development of land in unincorporated Broward County is regulated by the Broward County Zoning Code (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="210"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTEwNTVfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-1055_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chen and Liu contend that the district court's instruction on the intent element of misapplication of bank funds was erroneous. They also argue that statements of non testifying codefendant Tu were admitted in violation of the Confrontation Clause and that the evidence was insufficient to convict them. We also find that there was no Confrontation Clause violation. That the evidence was sufficient to allow the jury to reach a guilty verdict. All three appellants were members of the Board and partners in Seven Giants. Tu were all experienced in business. The terms were supposed to be based on an independent appraisal created by Bradley & Co Appraisers. The lease
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="210"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/01/02-1555.htm">02-1555 -- U.S. V. APTT -- 01/21/2004<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <strong><hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="210"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr98/96-3547.man.html">DAVIS V. CHILES (4/30/1998, NO. 96-3547)<BR></A><BR>
All eleven judges on the Second Circuit are elected in at large. The four judges on the Leon County Court are elected in at large. The black population is concentrated in a few areas. The Second Circuit Court is a trial court of general jurisdiction. While the Leon County Court is a trial court of limited jurisdiction. In the few elections in which black candidates have competed against white candidates (prior to Davis's initiation of this litigation). In which black and white voters have preferred different white candidates.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="210"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/07/992195P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Holding that the claims should have been brought as compulsory counterclaims in state court. Who are corporate officers of Bankcard. The parties were unable to resolve their disagreements. The Hyatts' trade in vehicles were repossessed from the Miller Jeep lot by lien holders for want of payments. The doctrines of claim preclusion and issue preclusion are inapposite. They further argue that even if their contract claims are precluded. The Hyatts also argue that the state court does not have personal jurisdiction over Myra Overright Hyatt. Because this issue was not raised before the district court. A party is precluded from asserting counterclaims that are deemed to be compulsory and thus should have been brought in a previous action. If it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject of the opposing party's claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. This rule is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="210"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1469.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On page 4. Bennazar & Colorado were on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellees. *Of the District of Massachusetts. Appellants are Nestor Col n Medina & Sucesores. Cerame Vivas is the president of the board of directors of Sucesores. He is allegedly an outspoken member of Puerto Rico's pro statehood New Progressive Party (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="210"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981740.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Finding that the action was barred by the four year statute of repose applicable to professional malpractice actions in North Carolina. Summary judgment is appropriate only when the court. Finds there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The statute is intended
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="210"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1541.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom Eduardo Castillo Blanco was on brief for appellee. Cabrera claimed money it was due under a subcontract with Sun Engineering. That there was insufficient evidence to support the court's findings of fact. Sun Engineering is a construction company which was the prime contractor for a federal project involving partially renovating the United States General Post Offices in San Juan. Cabrera was a subcontractor on the Project. An absolute price for the contract was never agreed upon. After the contract was formed. Also verbally requested Cabrera to make changes with respect to some partitions it was installing. There was some dispute regarding the precise dollar figure of this initial quotation. We will assume that $l06. 707.35 was the correct figure. 3 balance of $44. Sun Engineering claimed that the contract was for a total price of $80. Cabrera was entitled to be paid $105. The court found that Cabrera was not responsible for any Project delays. 2) the evidence presented at trial did not support the district court's conclusion that valid change orders were issued to Cabrera.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="210"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961365.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Heerensperger is the chief executive officer for Eagle Hardware and Garden. Whether McCormick first learned of the plane from Sala was contested at trial. Telling Sala that ITT would accept $2.55 million if certain conditions were met. That offer was rejected. Asserting that Heerensperger breached a contract under which Omni was to provide aircraft search and marketing services to Heerensperger. The motions were again denied. Heerensperger's contention on appeal is that there is no evidence to support the jury's award to Omni of quantum meruit damages in the amount of $185. Quantum meruit is an equitable remedy. To
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="210"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2001/98-5447.op2.html">FREMONT INDEM. CO. V. CAREY DWYER ECKHART MASON & SPRING (11/6/2001, NO. 98-5447)<BR></A><BR>
The facts are more completely recited in that opinion.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="210"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr98/96-3547.man.html">DAVIS V. CHILES (4/30/1998, NO. 96-3547)<BR></A><BR>
All eleven judges on the Second Circuit are elected in at large. The four judges on the Leon County Court are elected in at large. The black population is concentrated in a few areas. The Second Circuit Court is a trial court of general jurisdiction. While the Leon County Court is a trial court of limited jurisdiction. In the few elections in which black candidates have competed against white candidates (prior to Davis's initiation of this litigation). In which black and white voters have preferred different white candidates.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="210"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200411259.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Blazer are manufacturers of recreational boats. Who was primarily responsible for correcting the sheer line. Testified at trial that the irregularities in the boat's lines were not intended to be 3 present in the original boat and. Were the result of mistakes. Because the sheer line was off. Were also off. Ellig testified that once an element of a boat is changed because of an irregularity. Other aspects of the boat are also affected. Both the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="210"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011834.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Senior Circuit Judge: The principal question in this appeal is whether South Carolina's highest court would hold a professional appraiser liable to a third party for negligent misrepresentation. In the event the third party detrimentally relied upon the professional appraiser's materially inaccurate and negligent appraisal of the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="210"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-5022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Which is part of its National Air and Space Museum. Were unduly restrictive. Was assigned to represent the Smithsonian in IDC's protest. This determination is made pursuant to the modifications issued contemporaneously with the filing of this protest and. As I believe you are aware. If there is any additional information that you may need in withdrawing the protest. This letter was accompanied by a cover sheet stating.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="210"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200406/02-7155a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
<!-- End of real page content -->
<!-- kludgy empty paragraph acts as spacer -->
<P></P>
<!-- This is the place for the lower nav bar and footer -->
<!-- the following is Mason-included: footer.htm -->
<br class="clear" />
</div><!-- close extra div (opened in header.htm) -->
<br class="clear" />
</div><!-- close middle (opened in header.htm) -->
<div id="footer">
<div class="footerNav">
<div><!-- getting ridiculous, i know -->
<ul>
<li><a href="/lii.html" class="nav">about us</a></li>
<li><a href="/help/" class="nav">help</a></li>
<li><a href="/comments/credits.html" class="nav">© copyright</a></li>
</ul>
<br class="clear" />
</div><!-- close ridiculous div -->
</div><!-- close footerNav -->
</div><!-- close footer -->
<br class="clear" />
</div><!-- close collection (opened in header.htm) -->
<br class="clear" />
</div><!-- close ours (opened in header.htm) -->
<br class="clear" />
</div><!-- close container (opened in header.htm) -->
<!-- end of included footer -->
</BODY>
</HTML>
<!-- end of HTML -->
<!-- code from here on down -->
<!-- input arguments are:
a query (optional)
-->
<!-- to begin with...
This init block sets up and runs the query.
-->
<!-- select correct options based on scope -->
|
