Search the opinions of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal
use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"
This collection has many hidden limitations. To find out what you're really searching, see the
disclaimer .
Your query consumer and credit
returned 1026 results.
Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to
consider using additional terms to narrow it.
OPINION/ORDER
Is hereby amended as follows: 1. Replace
OPINION/ORDER
Is withdrawn. Insurance companies are required to send adverse action notices to consumers whenever they increase the rates for insurance on the basis of information contained in consumer credit reports. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681a(k)(1)(B)(i). 1681m(a).1 The principal question before us is straightforward: Does FCRA's adverse action notice requirement apply to the rate first charged in an initial policy of insurance? We hold that the answer is yes: The Act requires that an insurance company send the consumer an adverse action notice whenever a higher rate is charged because of credit information it obtains. Regardless of whether the rate is contained in an initial policy or an extension or renewal of a policy and regardless of whether the company has previously charged the consumer a lower rate. We hold that FCRA's adverse action notice requirement applies whenever a consumer would have received a lower rate for insurance had his credit information been more favorable. Regardless of whether his credit rating is above or below average.
OPINION/ORDER
Is withdrawn. Insurance companies are required to send adverse action notices to consumers whenever they increase the rates for insurance on the REYNOLDS v. 1681m(a).1 The principal question before us is straightforward: Does FCRA's adverse action notice requirement apply to the rate first charged in an initial policy of insurance? We hold that the answer is yes: The Act requires that an insurance company send the consumer an adverse action notice whenever a higher rate is charged because of credit information it obtains. Regardless of whether the rate is contained in an initial policy or an extension or renewal of a policy and regardless of whether the company has previously charged the consumer a lower rate. We hold that FCRA's adverse action notice requirement applies whenever a consumer would have received a lower rate for insurance had his credit information been more favorable. Regardless of whether his credit rating is above or below average. The requirement covers those whose credit information is disregarded and replaced for purposes of a rate computation by an average or neutral credit figure.
OPINION/ORDER
Insurance companies are required to send adverse action notices to consumers whenever they increase the rates for insurance on the basis of information contained in consumer credit reports. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681a(k)(1)(B)(i). 1681m(a).1 The principal quesSection 1681m(a) provides that any person who
OPINION/ORDER
The district court held that there was no evidence that Grendahl or the other defendants had obtained a credit report on Phillips by false pretenses. The court rejected Phillips's contention that he had pleaded a claim for wrongful disclosure of a consumer report and stated that such a claim would not be viable anyway because the document at issue in this case was not a
With him on the brief was Stephen L. Argued the cause for respondent.
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief was Stephen L. With him on the brief were Debra A. The Federal Trade Commission determined that these lists were
OPINION/ORDER
We will reverse and remand the district court's grant of judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff appellant Jennifer Cushman's claim for negligent noncompliance with that section. We will reverse and remand the district court's grant of judgment as a matter of law on those claims. I. To the extent the facts are disputed. Credit cards were issued to that person in Cushman's name. An unidentified bill collector informed Cushman that TUC was publishing a consumer credit report indicating that she was delinquent on payments to these three credit grantors. TUC was unable to contact Citibank so TUC deleted the Citibank entry from the report. TUC's investigations are performed by clerks paid $7.50 per hour and who are expected to perform ten investigations per hour. There is no evidence that TUC took the necessary steps to obtain access to pertinent documents from the credit grantors that would enable TUC to perform a handwriting comparison. A TUC employee testified that the form would not have been used for a handwriting comparison had Cushman completed it.
OPINION/ORDER
Which have been consolidated before the district court for pretrial purposes. Which is in the business of purchasing such delinquent claims from municipalities in several states. Appendix references are to the appendix filed in Nos. 99 3858 and 99 3859. 4 September 1996. The City and the School District entered into a Purchase Agreement whereby existing claims and liens for unpaid taxes and sewer charges were assigned to NTF.2 App. at 517. Ltd. (
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: It has been said that bad credit is like a
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: It has been said that bad credit is like a
OPINION/ORDER
I. BACKGROUND Equifax is one of the three largest credit reporting agencies in the United States. Equifax also is one of the largest national repositories of financial data. Equifax sent Leroy Nunnally a one page letter that stated that the JC Penney/Monogram account had been removed from his file and that the First USA Bank account was not currently reporting. The Home Financial Network account was reported as closed. The Merchants & Farmers account was paid. The district court determined that the letters Equifax sent to the Nunnallys and Rhodes were excluded from the definition of
OPINION/ORDER
Perry sought to amend her complaint to allege that First National's offer of credit was a sham. First National was prohibited from accessing her consumer credit report. Finding that the credit offer was a firm offer and that amending the complaint would be futile. To support her argument that the Notice was not
OPINION/ORDER
Questions we have not yet had occasion to address. The judgment of the district court is affirmed in part. Prepared a credit report regarding Philbin that erroneously stated he was subject to a tax lien in the amount of approximately $9500. Although there is no evidence of what inaccuracies it contained. Philbin apparently did not have any further complaints with TRW until approximately two and a half years later. Philbin applied for and was denied credit at Macy's department store. The reasons given were that his
OPINION/ORDER
The District Court dismissed plaintiff 's TILA count for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.1 We will reverse and remand. 1. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Because this is an appeal from the granting of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). We may affirm only if it is certain that no relief could be granted under any set of facts which could be proven.
OPINION/ORDER
The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. Who is a dentist. United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. 2 to what is proper in conducting litigation.
OPINION/ORDER
Treadway was able to produce her godmother as a
Holding that GEICO's conduct was not subject to FCRA restrictions because the document GEICO obtained regarding the Yangs was not a
OPINION/ORDER
The issue presented in this appeal is whether the adverse action notice provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (
OPINION/ORDER
I. Background Rental Research is a credit reporting agency that provides information about prospective tenants to subscribing landlords. Rental Research prepared an
OPINION/ORDER
We must decide whether Steven Levine is entitled to offer evidence in support of his claim that Experian Information Solutions. Levine claims that Experian did not make a reasonable effort to safeguard his confidential information and that it had reasonable grounds to believe that the request was for an impermissible purpose under the FCRA. Notwithstanding the fact that the former creditor stated the report was for
OPINION/ORDER
As they were called. One of the thirdparty lenders to consider both loans was the defendant. This is a common scenario. Those lenders often rely on a consumer's credit report to determine whether the deal is worth taking. The question before us is whether. This practice is legal. Stergiopoulos and Castro contend that it is not. Styled as a class action though no class was ever certified. I First Midwest has an arrangement with various car dealers whereby the dealers offer First Midwest the chance to purchase tentative loan agreements or RICs that the dealers have arranged with potential car buyers. Hoping that First Midwest will find the new terms more appealing. Leaving out the details that are the focus of this appeal. This agreement may be canceled by Rizza if Rizza determines that it cannot obtain third party approval and may be canceled by either party if no financing is obtained for Customer on the agreed terms within 15 business days of the date of this agreement. Which included the following statement: You are authorized to check my credit and employment history and to answer questions about your credit experience with me.
OPINION/ORDER
(2) the district court's failure to rule on a pending discovery motion before deciding the summary judgment motions.1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Clark
OPINION/ORDER
Heather Gillespie and Angela Cinson each defaulted on a credit account and this fail 2 No. 06 1952 ure was noted in their respective credit files. If the account is delinquent. The disclosure states: Payment history on your credit file is supplied by credit grantors with whom you have credit. This includes both open accounts and accounts that have already been closed. The length of time information remains in your credit file is shown below: Collection Accounts: Credit Accounts: Remain for 7 years. (The time periods listed above are measured from the date in your credit file shown in the
OPINION/ORDER
The Los Angeles County Superior Court ordered and adjudged that Hasbun was in arrears to his ex wife in the amount of $62. The County of Los Angeles and Experian (
OPINION/ORDER
The solicitation stated that the interest rate was
That the arbitration agreement signed by plaintiffs was fully enforceable pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (
OPINION/ORDER
Agin were on brief. Were on brief. Were on brief for the amici curiae in support of the appellees. Appellees' Br. at 12. 2 The other federal agencies sued in this action are the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Trans Union contends the regulations unlawfully restrict a CRA's ability to disclose and reuse certain consumer information because (1) a CRA is not a
OPINION/ORDER
Inc. was sued because they presented a contract with fraudulent signatures to a bank. As a result o[f] their action Grossinger City Toyota was sued . . . . The case was settled in our favor on July 8. A copy of the disposition is [inclosed]. Included with the letter was an incomplete Credit Report Dispute Form with the
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: The question in this appeal is whether the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (
OPINION/ORDER
That the arbitration agreement signed by plaintiffs was fully enforceable pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (
OPINION/ORDER
That the arbitration agreement signed by plaintiffs was fully enforceable pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (
OPINION/ORDER
You filed an application for a credit card and you are now eligible to receive your MasterCard.
707(b) is constitutional. In re Stewart. 707(b) is not void for vagueness and does not violate the equal protection guarantees of the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The monetary consequences of his entering a fellowship are appreciable. Perinatology graduate would have ranged from $100.
Show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Seeid. Having applied this standard. Included in her initial application were copies of her 1993 and 1994 income tax returns. 500 was capital gains from the sale of rental properties.
Plaintiff purchased properties. While her loan application was pending. Real estate property for rent or for sale.
Plaintiff's loan application was submitted to BOMC underwriters in Dallas for review. The loan was reviewed using the underwriting guidelines of the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA). Plaintiff's application was initially denied because the underwriter was
OPINION/ORDER
Was opened in November 1987. The parties disagree regarding who applied for this account and therefore who was legally obligated to pay amounts owed on it. It is undisputed that one of the applicants was Edward N. MBNA contends that Johnson was a co applicant with Slater. That she was merely an authorized user and not a co applicant. MBNA contacted Johnson and informed her that she was responsible for the approximately $17. The ACDVs that Experian and Trans Union sent to MBNA specifically indicated that Johnson was disputing that she was a co obligor on the account. Id. at 283 (Trans Union) (
OPINION/ORDER
Plaintiffs are a number of unrelated individuals. Whose credit reports between November 1999 and July 2000 list
OPINION/ORDER
Concluding that RJM violated the Act and therefore Guerrero was entitled to actual and statutory damages and reasonable attorneys' fees. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Therefore his action was barred by the Act's one year statute of limitations. That it was not a debt collection agency and not subject to the Act. The district court's conclusion that RJM violated Hawaii consumer protection statutes is likewise incorrect. RJM claims also that Guerrero's complaint was brought in bad faith and to harass. Therefore the district court should have awarded RJM attorneys' fees. That the Act's purpose is to protect unsophisticated debtors from abusive debt collectors. They are distinct legal entities. [RJM] still would have been obligated to verify
OPINION/ORDER
These eleven consolidated[fn1] actions were brought by concerned Pennsylvanians who believed that they were being charged excessive fees and interest on their credit cards and that these charges violated Pennsylvania consumer protection laws. None of the defendants are Pennsylvania lending institutions. The cases were all brought in Pennsylvania state courts and then removed by the defendants to the federal system.[fn2] These cases require that we resolve the conflict between state consumer protection law and federal banking law. We will first consider the district courts' holdings that removal jurisdiction was proper. We will reverse the district courts on this issue. The Supreme Court's conservative extension of the complete preemption doctrine and the application of the Third Circuit's two pronged test establish that federal jurisdiction is lacking in those cases in which the plaintiffs did not amend their complaints to allege federal claims. We will next consider claims particular to these actions. We will affirm the district court to the extent that the court held that plaintiffs' state law claims regarding late charges and over limit fees were substantively preempted.
OPINION/ORDER
Sitting by designation. * The issue before us is whether the district court correctly determined that plaintiff appellant Randal Bragg failed to state a claim under the Truth in Lending Act. Bill Heard is licensed in Florida as a motor vehicle dealer and a motor vehicle retail installment seller. Both RISCs included insurance and debt cancellation coverage (
OPINION/ORDER
We affirm the district court's ruling that the compensatory damage award was not excessive. Because the punitive damages awarded in this case were unconstitutionally excessive. Bach is a seventy seven year old retired widow who resides in West Carrollton. Bach's name was added to the checking account. Funds were wired from Bach's accounts to the FUNB checking account. The account eventually became overdrawn and was closed. A credit card account was opened with FUNB in Bach's name but listing Heidi Bake's address. The credit card was issued by FUNB pursuant to a phone application based on Bach's clean credit history. The balance on the card was $20. Most of which was never paid. Bach's application was denied due to her credit report. Bach sent letters to FUNB and American Express seeking to inform them that the accounts in her name were opened fraudulently and without her consent. Bach stated that the address listed on the account was that of her granddaughter. These phone calls were harassing in nature.
OPINION/ORDER
I The facts of this case were aptly set forth by the magistrate judge in his summary judgment order: In August 2002. These cards were subsequently issued to her and she was able to intercept them and use them without her husband's knowledge. MacDermid was on a
OPINION/ORDER
Regular payments were shown made up to January 8. The report stated:
OPINION/ORDER
Reasoning that Wantz put forth no competent evidence that he was entitled to damages. Experian and at least one other consumer reporting agency nonetheless continued to report that the judgment was not paid In June 2002. When Wantz found out that one consumer reporting agency was reporting the judgment as unpaid. Superior was contractually obligated to verify information by going to the courthouse and looking at the judgment. Reasoning that Wantz had no competent evidence that he was entitled to damages. No. 04 1272 II. 3 Our review of the district court's grant of summary judgment is de novo. Summary judgment is proper when the
OPINION/ORDER
Was the holder of a Citibank Visa credit card when he died on August 29. His account balance was $889.58. Which were never mailed to George or Michael Hess. Citibank claimed that it was entitled to interest that had accrued during the two years between the date in February 1999. Whether the amount of interest was calculated according to the terms of the cardmember agreement attached by Hess to his complaint or under Missouri's statutory interest rate. The court calculated the amount of interest that would have accrued on the account through December 2000 employing three different potential methodologies. The court calculated the total interest that would have accrued under both variable and fixed rates. The balance on George Hess's account in December 2000 would have been greater than $974.96. The court observed that the cardmember agreement submitted by Hess states that finances charges continue to accrue until payment in full is credited to the account. Concluded that once Citibank was notified of George Hess's death.
The district court's jurisdiction was based on 28 U.S.C.
OPINION/ORDER
The letter stated in pertinent part: YOU ARE EITHER HONEST OR DISHONEST YOU CANNOT BE BOTH Your creditor believed you to be honest when credit was extended. Is a debt collection agency. This is an attempt to collect a debt and any information will be used for that purpose. Or misleading representation[s] or means
OPINION/ORDER
Guarantee that a person seeking credit will be turned away.
OPINION/ORDER
The question before us is whether the District Court erred as a matter of law in holding that language contained in a debt collection letter. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court. A one page letter notifying him that it was attempting to collect a debt he allegedly owed to the hospital for almost two years. This office will assume this debt is valid. This office will obtain verification of the debt or obtain a copy of a judgement and mail you a copy of such judgement or verification. If you request this office in writing within 30 days after receiving this notice this office will provide you with the name and address of the original creditor. All three paragraphs are printed in the same font.
OPINION/ORDER
All three checks were returned for insufficient funds.
(d) the award of $39 million for consumer redress is contrary to undisputed record evidence.
In addition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
OPINION/ORDER
Perfect 10 alleges that numerous websites based in several countries have stolen its proprietary images. The Visa and MasterCard entities are associations of member banks that issue credit cards to consumers. FDC's stated reason for the termination is that the percentage of Perfect 10's customers who later disputed the charges attributed to them (the chargeback rate) exceeded contractual limits. Perfect 10 claims these chargeback rates were temporarily and substantially inflated because Perfect 10 was the
OPINION/ORDER
P.A. was on brief for appellants. Reed and Reed & Reed were on brief for appellees. That the damages awarded were improperly duplicative. This is a unusual case. Because none of these irregularities is material to the narrow issues on appeal. We merely point 2 2 was $229. No payments of principal or interest were due on the note until either the LaBarres sold certain other real estate or the passage of two years from the date of the note's execution.2 In October 1990. Shepard and Parks initiated foreclosure proceedings against the LaBarres for the balance then due on the mortgage note.5 A foreclosure sale was 3. This judgment is impossible to decipher. The judge then stated that
OPINION/ORDER
Hutchins2 appeal the district court's grant of injunctive relief and $10.2 million in fines in this action Barry Sussman is or was the Vice President of Check Investors. Hutchins is or was general counsel to Check Investors. We will affirm. I. FACTS3 Check Investors is in the business of purchasing large numbers of checks written on accounts with insufficient funds (
OPINION/ORDER
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Was secured by a mortgage on the Beatties' residence in Greenville. They claim to have made repeated attempts. Indicated that the Beatties' mortgage was satisfied. The Beatties concede that they have never paid all of the amounts due on the loan. NationsCredit attempted to collect the debt and informed the Beatties that their mortgage was in default. At some point after the LMS was filed. Revealed that their mortgage with NationsCredit was
OPINION/ORDER
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Was secured by a mortgage on the Beatties' residence in Greenville. They claim to have made repeated attempts. Indicated that the Beatties' mortgage was satisfied. The Beatties concede that they have never paid all of the amounts due on the loan. NationsCredit attempted to collect the debt and informed the Beatties that their mortgage was in default. At some point after the LMS was filed. Revealed that their mortgage with NationsCredit was
OPINION/ORDER
In part: The [credit card] agreement specifically provides that Direct Merchant's Credit Card Bank is entitled to recover. The state court suit against Gionis was settled between the parties. 294 (1995)) was (1) not protected by witness immunity nor litigation immunity. The two appeals were later consolidated. We have
OPINION/ORDER
Both of which are Delaware corporations with their principal place of business in California. Is the exclusive licensee of the FREEDOM CARD marks. 5 1 claims UTN brought against Chase.2 UTN asserted those claims in counterclaims it filed in response to Chase's declaratory judgment action. We will affirm.4
OPINION/ORDER
The sale was not a simple cash for product exchange. Was committed to the transaction and obliged to perform upon counter signature by Koons Buick. The transaction's closing and the completion of Nigh's purchase were thus left within the dealership's unilateral control. Was unable to find a willing lender. Told Koons Buick he did not have an additional $2. Believing the vehicle to have earlier become property of Koons Buick. Nigh also learned that one of the reasons Koons Buick had been unable to get a lender to accept RISC II was that it contained an unaccounted for charge. Was listed on the second Buyer's Order and on RISC II at a price of $965. Absent from the transaction documents was a Silencer
OPINION/ORDER
We are asked to decide whether the district court erred when it dismissed these actions for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. We have jurisdiction over the district court's final orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Who was a paralegal with the Bennett Law Offices (
OPINION/ORDER
We are asked to decide whether the district court erred when it dismissed these actions for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. We have jurisdiction over the district court's final orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Who was a paralegal with the Bennett Law Offices (
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was Mark L. With him on the brief was Laurie B. Because of its importance to local commerce and because there is no decision by the highest court in the District of Columbia precisely on point. We have decided to certify it to that court. We agree that such dismissal was improper and rein state these two claims contingent on a positive response by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to the question certified here. DeBerry that this grant was improper and accordingly reinstate the claim. DeBerry is a citizen of the District of Columbia. First Government is a Virginia corporation with its principal place of business in Maryland. Code s 28 3904 is entitled
OPINION/ORDER
Chapter 21 of the Michigan Insurance Code would only create a private cause of action if the remedies that Chapter 21 provided were
OPINION/ORDER
Defendant was not liable for statutory damages. Defendant informed Plaintiffs that they would each have to sign a second contract. It is undisputed that Plaintiffs were given the actual RISC document for review prior to signing it and that the actual RISC accurately disclosed all of the transactions' credit terms. Nor do they claim that any of the disclosures that were made before they signed the RISC were inaccurate. Denied the motion for class certification because the Plaintiffs were not typical of their proposed class and because the class definition was inadequate. Summary judgment is appropriate where
OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). 1 The Honorable Michael J. Appellants operate their stores under the business name
OPINION/ORDER
Charles Davenport and Brent Johnson1 are both Minnesota residents who have purchased property and automobile insurance policies from Farmers for over ten years. Is licensed to do business in Minnesota. The district court determined that the MIFIRA was not preempted by the FCRA. That the MIFIRA did not provide the plaintiffs any relief because it allowed disclosure of personal information without written authorization where such disclosure was permitted by another law. Where state law is inconsistent with the FCRA
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Page v. David Scalise were each indicted on a 31 count indictment. The remaining defendants were convicted after a jury trial on all 31 counts. Withdrawal from conspiracy.<p> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov95/93-8706.opa.html">PAGE V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Page v. David Scalise were each indicted on a 31 count indictment. The remaining defendants were convicted after a jury trial on all 31 counts. Withdrawal from conspiracy.<p> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4ECFFB4755716A108825713E004E20DC/$file/0415581.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
15 U.S.C. § 1.1 The district court found that Plaintiffs' claims were released by the class action settlement in In re Visa Check/Mastermoney Antitrust Litig. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm. We hold that issue preclusion bars Plaintiffs from re litigating the WalMart courts' determination that Plaintiffs' price fixing claims were properly released. That Plaintiffs' claims are extinguished by the Wal Mart settlement because the two actions share an identical factual predicate. Facts and Procedural History Plaintiffs here purport to represent all merchants nationwide who currently have a contract with one or more of Visa and MasterCard's member banks for credit and debit transactions. It is necessary to 1 Unless otherwise noted. All statutory references are to 15 U.S.C. 3304 REYN'S PASTA BELLA v. This is how a typical sales transaction works. The 1.6% discount is the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19938706.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
David Scalise were each indicted on a 31 count indictment. The remaining defendants were convicted after a jury trial on all 31 counts. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742. We will vacate and remand for resentencing. 55 F.3d 572 (11th Cir.1995).1 We will affirm the judgments and sentences imposed by the district court in all other respects. McKnight was a Page. Were telemarketers who worked under her direction. Scalise were among the telemarketers that they hired. Are you over 21 years of age? Have you ever been bankrupt. How long have you worked there? ... What is your combined monthly income? Set out the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="594"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002337.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This appeal deals only with the summary judgment and focuses mainly on whether there are triable issues on Dalton's claims that CAI's failure to follow FCRA mandated procedures led it to issue a false report on his criminal record. I. Because Dalton was the nonmovant in the summary judgment proceedings. Who was seeking the position of West Coast Regional Sales Manager. In 1993 Dalton was charged in Colorado with second degree assault. Which the clerk erroneously said was a felony. While Sumitomo was waiting for the results of the criminal records check. Informing him that the offer was being withdrawn because he had been convicted of a felony. The Sumitomo representative called Dalton back a half hour later and told him that CAI was standing by its report that he had a felony conviction. Began to reinvestigate whether Dalton was a convicted felon. It had discovered that he was not a convicted felon. Claims that CAI told him that it was standing by its report. Which the clerk said was a felony. When Lehto pressed the clerk about whether third degree assault was really a felony.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1994/94a0795p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The appellants cross appellees are California Smoothie International. We sometimes will refer to CSI and CSLC singularly as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/33DAA86C85AF72D08825723E005EE5E6/$file/0455396.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: First Alliance Mortgage Company was driven into bankruptcy and subsequent liquidation by well publicized and justified allegations of fraudulent lending practices. One is a class action on behalf of First Alliance's borrowers seeking to impose liability for aiding and abetting the fraudulent scheme engaged in by First Alliance. (This group of unsecured creditors is essentially the same as the group of borrowers asserting their claims of fraud against First Alliance. As is explained in more detail below. These two separate actions were handled together by the same district court and have been consolidated for purposes of this appeal. First Alliance Mortgage Company First Alliance was a lender in the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="581"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1447.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: Page 50. Delete the sentence that starts with
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="581"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2004/032084p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2004) The Prices are chapter 7 debtors who wanted to use their automobiles while remaining current on their monthly auto loan payments. Four courts of appeals have held that a debtor is not limited by the options enumerated in 521(2). While four others have held to the contrary. It seems that the only thing our courts can agree on is that we disagree. The Prices were current on their payments on the vehicle loans and they continued to keep the loans current during the chapter 7 proceeding. The Prices are currently under order to surrender. Although the effect of that order was stayed by the District Court pending this appeal. Which were secured by liens on their two motor vehicles. The Credit Union advised the Prices that their only choice in connection with the retention of the cars was to exercise one of the options stated in 2 II. We will examine the justiciability of this controversy in light of recent communications received from the parties regarding the effect of loan payments made by the Prices. We are persuaded that this matter is not moot.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0189p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The sole issue presented in this appeal is whether federal income and selfemployment taxes should be considered consumer debt for purposes of 11 U.S.C. § 1301. We hold that these taxes are not consumer debt and. I. The facts are stipulated by the parties. The following version is taken from the decision of the bankruptcy court: Wilbur G. 221 (1st Cir. 1999) (stating that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1994/94a0859p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Have petitioned this court. The PFDA contends that the FTC's decision to implement a ban on casket handling fees was arbitrary and capricious and that the factual findings underlying that decision were unsupported by substantial evidence in the rulemaking record taken as a whole. We will affirm the amended Funeral Rule. The FTC's decision to issue the Funeral Rule was appealed to the Fourth Circuit. Was affirmed in Harry & Bryant Co. v. The FTC adopted the amendment to the Funeral Rule which is at issue here. Inc. is a member. Sought and was granted permission to intervene. FACTS The Funeral Rule The Funeral Rule was enacted on September 24. The Funeral Rule was premised on evidence that consumers are uniquely disadvantaged when they purchase funeral services after the death of a loved one. The evidence showed that funeral service providers often sold only preselected packages of goods and services such that consumers were forced to purchase goods and services they did not want. [fn1] the purpose was to prevent funeral service providers from forcing customers to purchase goods or services they did not want.[fn2] However.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9735672B3C039E4F882572D4005953ED/$file/0456230.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
OPINION PER CURIAM: We address whether a credit reporting agency is liable under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Plaintiff Jason Dennis was served with an unlawful detainer complaint by his landlord. A written stipulation was filed with the Los Angeles Superior Court. Dennis called Experian and advised it that he had settled the matter out of court and that a judgement was never entered against him. Hogan reported back that the information was accurate. He presumably invites us to consider all of these claims by broadly framing the question presented to us as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="574"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1702.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lorincz & Jacobi were on brief for appellee. Debtor's appeal from that decision asks us to do two things: reverse the district court's holding that federal credit unions are nonprofit organizations and hold that educational loans issued to him by creditor appellee TI Federal Credit Union are. We affirm the result achieved by the district court that debtor's loans are nondischargeable and elect not to reach the issue of federal credit unions' nonprofit status. From which DelBonis obtained no direct personal benefit and on which he is the sole obligor. Were acquired from the Texas Instrument Federal Credit Union. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/lognameprint.php">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jerome Wayne Johnson</td> <td align=left valign=top>03 13595 / 03 00036 CR J 25 TEM</td> <td align=left valign=top><font color=red>07 12 2004</font></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align=left valign=top>In re: Will C. Bowman</td> <td align=left valign=top>02 13050 / 01 01345 CV BU E</td> <td align=left valign=top><font color=red>08 13 2003</font></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align=left valign=top>In re: Will C. Whose name in this complaint will be Dakota Allen v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/03/043640P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
IFS cross appeals the district court's1 conclusion that IFS is a debt collector for purposes of the FDCPA. BACKGROUND IFS is primarily a check guarantee company that contracts with merchants who accept checks from customers. A check written to a merchant is endorsed with a stamp that includes IFS's account information at Huntington National Bank (HNB). If the check is dishonored by the drawer's bank. The National Automated Clearing House Association (NACHA) is an association of financial institutions who use the ACH. McDonald's and the Crow Bar contracted with IFS for their check guarantee services. 2 After the checks were returned by the merchants' banks. Three of the four dishonored checks were presented twice. Volden argued in the district court that IFS was a debt collector under the FDCPA. IFS countered that it was not a debt collector. Even if it were. IFS was a 2 South Dakota law provides that [i]f a merchant or place of business conspicuously posts a notice on its premises . . . Stating that a fee will be assessed against returned checks.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="572"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/lognameprint2.php">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Whose name in this complaint will be Dakota Allen v. Bowman</td> <td align=left valign=top>02 13050 / 01 01345 CV BU E</td> <td align=left valign=top><font color=red>08 13 2003</font></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align left valign=top>In re: Will C. Cohen</td> <td align=left valign=top>03 13162 / 02 23079 CV KMM</td> <td align=left valign=top><font color=red>07 08 2004</font></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align left valign=top>In re: Will C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3139_010.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Background Dirk Westra was the unfortunate victim of identity theft in 1999 when a former friend fraudulently opened several 2 No. 04 3139 accounts in his name. They were deleted from his Trans Union credit file. Westra received notice of an account that Credit Control was collecting on behalf of Pasco Emergency Medical Services. This time indicating that the dispute was whether the account was fraudulent. Westra claims that he was denied credit from Norwest Bank and First Card and denied a chance to refinance his mortgage at a lower rate due to the delay in removing the fraudulent account from his credit report. Credit Control filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted by the district court. No. 04 3139 Discussion 3 Summary judgment is appropriate where the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200411/03-7132a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2004/014348p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The District Court dismissed plaintiffs' RICO claim because it lacked the specificity in pleading fraud that is required under Fed. 2001). 1 We agree that the RICO claim was properly dismissed. Because it is predicated on mail and wire fraud. It was not. The antitrust claim is also based on fraud on misrepresentations in the information given to consumers and on misrepresentations in the information ROTH. Gary Oriani have borrowed money from defendant banks pursuant to lending agreements with
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-4338_012.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LLC (ACCT) is a debt collection agency. Each of whom were delinquent in making required minimum monthly payments against their respective account balances. 1 all collection activity will be stopped.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="559"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042552np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because such blanket authorizations are not inconsistent with the requirements of the FCRA. We will affirm. Were asked to sign an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="559"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/nov95/94-5135.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The bankruptcy court held that First National was eligible for subrogation under 11 U.S.C. 509(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 158(d). I. The facts of this case are undisputed. Debtor disputed First National's right to the credit card proceeds and asserted that it was entitled to the $111. An involuntary bankruptcy petition was filed against Tom Slamans. 1992 to determine who was entitled to the $111. Its interest in the credit card proceeds was superior to all other claimants. First National asserted that it was entitled to the $111. It was subrogated to Sun Company's right under the distributor agreement to setoff the credit card proceeds in its possession against the $192. [First National] is entitled to be subrogated to the rights of Sun Company.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-9010.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LLC</SPAN> was on brief. P.A.</SPAN> were on brief. May a lender who is owed both secured and unsecured debts insist upon reaffirmation of the latter as a condition to reaffirmation of the former? BACKGROUND</STRONG></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2001/996020.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are asked to determine whether certain costs incurred by banks for marketing. Researching and originating loans are deductible as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2000/996020.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are asked to determine whether certain costs incurred by banks for marketing. Researching and originating loans are deductible as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/01/00-5021.htm">00-5021 -- CASSARA V. DAC SERVICES INC. -- 01/17/2002<BR></A><BR>
1681g(a)(3)(A)(I) (2000).<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/02/003727P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
One way they sell wireless service is through
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1497.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Rosmarin was on brief. Brady never signed the lease inquestion but was named in the lease as a tenant. The mortgage company subsequently advised Bradythat his financing was in jeopardy because of the listing of therent as an outstanding debt on his credit report. That he was not liable for the unpaid rent. We attribute to words that are not definedin the statute itself their ordinary usage. While keeping in mindthat meaning can only be ascribed to statutory language if thatlanguage is taken in context. In ordinaryEnglish
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961877.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue of material fact and judgment for the moving party is warranted as a matter of law. A mere scintilla of evidence is not sufficient to defeat summary judgment. Korotki is in the business of real estate development and construction. After repeated demands for payment which were refused by Korotki. This service was sought on appellant as owner of the real estate on which Old Court Village was located and as the president and only principal of APK Development. Unsuccessful efforts were made to serve Korotki in a variety of ways from registered mail to personal service to posting of notice on the gate of Korotki's house. No helpful information was obtained from the report. No further use was made of the report. A breach of contract action was finally filed in state court for collection of the indebtedness. This Court addresses the defendants' summary judgment motion under the assumption that the report is a consumer report and.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1032.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Spearman concedes that Tom Wood provided the necessary disclosures and that the disclosures were in writing. Asserting that the disclosures were not in a form she could keep and that the disclosures were not made prior to the consummation of the transaction. The pages of the form were not labeled to indicate the intended recipient of each copy. One of the four copies was intended for Spearman. Spearman was unaware that one of the four copies was intended for her to keep until the salesman handed a copy to her. She testified in her deposition that she would have been uncomfortable tearing out a page and keeping it for herself before signing. The Tom Wood salesman did not give Spearman any other copy of the disclosures before presenting her with the Contract in the form we have described. The Tom Wood salesman told her that he would try to obtain a better financing rate for her and that if he were able to do so. She later testified that she would not have signed the Contract had she known she would be held to the rate specified in the Contract.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1558.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued for appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Evan S. Argued for appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>John M. Associate Solicitor.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Nancy C. Precludes registration of marks that are merely descriptive. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>In re MBNA Am. More than substantial evidence supports the Board s finding that the two service marks in issue are merely descriptive of a feature or characteristic of the services. To register the marks MONTANA SERIES and PHILADELPHIA CARD for credit card services. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The recitation of services for the two marks was later amended to read: credit card services featuring credit cards depicting scenes or subject matter of. Line height:200%'>Pending are at least 75 other applications filed by MBNA to register similar service marks. Were allowed registration by the Examining Attorney and issued in 1992 and 1995.
</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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/06/02-6101.htm">02-6101 -- FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. KUYKENDALL -- 06/10/2004<BR></A><BR>
We agree with the panel and the district court that the underlying proceedings were correctly classified as civil contempt proceedings. Before that appeal was heard the parties entered into a settlement that was eventually incorporated into a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/50F67AA133DE5D8088256D280073E440/$file/0056043.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are withdrawn and replaced by the amended opinion. The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. A majority of the nonrecused active judges failed to vote in favor of en banc rehearing.* The petition for rehearing en banc is denied. *Judge Rawlinson was recused. 6460 SUZUKI MOTOR CORP. v. What makes CU's ratings particularly useful is the thorough explanation of the testing procedures employed. Is no exception. The explanation is not written for morons. It is geared to an intelligent. Yet the careful reader will not fail to understand the central facts that undergird Suzuki's claim in this lawsuit. This is the death of consumer ratings: It will be impossible to issue a meaningful consumer review that a band of determined lawyers can't pick apart in front of a SUZUKI MOTOR CORP. v. The ultimate losers will be American consumers denied access to independent information about the safety and usefulness of products they buy with their hard earned dollars. The majority's analysis is tainted throughout by its failure to articulate.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1994/94a0702p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
These loans were evidenced by the following seven promissory notes: 1. a $185. This letter is at the heart of this action. The letter was signed by William Carlough. The following are the most significant provisions of the letter: (1) the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/09/996008P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an appeal from a bankruptcy court1 ruling that a debt owed by the debtor/appellant. Is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). Moen (who is not a party to either the nondischargeability action or this appeal). Which was secured by a mortgage on the Moens' home. 000.00 and clearly stated that it was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051002p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At issue in this appeal is whether the Truth in Lending Act requires all pertinent credit information be disclosed by a 2 single creditor. Or whether the requirements of the TILA can be satisfied if some of the required credit information is disclosed by a third party. We address the question of whether a creditor violated the provisions of the TILA when it excluded certain debt cancellation fees from the calculation of the finance charge without disclosing the amount of the fees and that the debt cancellation coverage was voluntary. Despite the fact that the disclosures were ultimately made by a non creditor third party. We will reverse the judgment of the District Court. Fitts was not Sky Bank's agent and at all relevant times acted independently.1 1. It is undisputed that the loan entered into It appears from the record that there exists some confusion over Fitts' exact relationship with Sky Bank. That there was never any explicit agreement or implicit assumption that Fitts would act as Sky Bank's agent for the purposes of the loan.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1995/95a1163p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
On behalf of herself and the uncertified class consisting of all residents of New Jersey who are or have been parties to contracts to rent to own merchandise from Defendant and have been charged illegal fees and/or interest since April 13. This appeal requires us to address whether rent to own agreements which are terminable at any time without additional charges fall under the purview of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). We will affirm its judgment. The agreement is characterized as a rent to own (RTO) agreement. In support of her claim Ortiz alleged that the wholesale price of the furniture was $380.00. Far less than the total amounts in weekly payments required for her to acquire title to the furniture and far less than the amount she had paid at the time she filed the lawsuit.[fn1] She characterizes the difference in the two amounts as a finance charge and based on this characterization contends that the RTO agreement is a credit sale within the meaning of the TILA. That these regulations were entitled to deference.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov98/97-6963.man.html">ELLIS V. GEN. MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORP. (11/13/1998, NO. 97-6963)<BR></A><BR>
GMAC was exempted from liability under TILA. On appeal the Ellises argue that the statute of limitations was suspended by the doctrine of equitable tolling and that. We find that TILA is subject to equitable tolling but that GMAC. Is not liable for the TILA violations alleged.</P> <P><CENTER><EM>Background</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> The Ellises' claim derives from their purchase of a 1993 Saturn SL 2 from Royal Oldsmobile (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov98/97-6963.man.html">ELLIS V. GEN. MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORP. (11/13/1998, NO. 97-6963)<BR></A><BR>
GMAC was exempted from liability under TILA. On appeal the Ellises argue that the statute of limitations was suspended by the doctrine of equitable tolling and that. We find that TILA is subject to equitable tolling but that GMAC. Is not liable for the TILA violations alleged.</P> <P><CENTER><EM>Background</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> The Ellises' claim derives from their purchase of a 1993 Saturn SL 2 from Royal Oldsmobile (
</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/Feb1997/97a1513p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Cohen appeals from the order of the New Jersey District Court affirming the bankruptcy judge's determination that certain debts were nondischargeable in bankruptcy because they were obtained by fraud. We will affirm. The Hoboken Rent Leveling Act (The Act) is a comprehensive rent control ordinance which governed the Monroe Street property. The rents set by the Cohens were approximately double what they could legally charge under the Act. Most of the tenants in the Monroe Street units were non native speakers of English with little education. The Cohens were ordered to refund amounts totaling $31. The amounts were not refunded and the Cohens failed to perfect an appeal from the determination of the Administrator. They claimed that the debts owed to them were procured by fraud and were thus nondischargeable in bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). Most were unaware that any rent control ordinance governed the property. He was aware that the rent control ordinance existed. That he never inquired about the requirements of the ordinance nor was he advised of its provisions.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2450_013.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The two suits filed in the Central District of Illinois were dismissed. Agreeing with the bankruptcy court's conclusion that eBay was not Nos. 05 2450 & 05 3043 3 collecting debts but merely opting not to do business with McCready. EBay successfully caused the case to be remanded to state court where default judgment was entered against McCready. Was filed by McCready in the Western District of Michigan and involved an eBay transaction. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge. We need not consider whether the district court's decision was correct. He threatened the district court with promises to file for a writ of mandamus if his cause of action was dismissed. Was to preserve any issues for appeal. Appended to the defendants' appellate brief was a subpoena. McCready filed a motion for default judgment and motion for entry of default against Kamminga [who was proceeding pro se] for filing an inartful answer to the complaint. Dismissal is proper
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2002/011502.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Schnall had failed to show that he was misled by the advertised rates. This holding is buttressed by the letter brief of the Federal 2 Reserve Board of Governors. The Bank contends that even if there was a violation. Schnall may not recover statutory damages because he failed to establish that he was misled by or relied on the advertised rates or that he was financially harmed by the TISA violation. That he was misled by the advertised APY. Or that he was financially harmed by the TISA violations. We therefore conclude that Schnall is entitled to partial summary judgment on the question of liability and will remand for a determination of damages. The advertisements stated that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/05/97-4045.htm">97-4045 -- SNOW V. RIDDLE -- 05/11/1998<BR></A><BR>
The check was dishonored because of insufficient funds. 1994 for $23.12 was dishonored. If it is not paid. 76 6 505 that any person who issues a bad check knowing that it will not be honored is guilty of a crime. That statute also presumes criminal intent if the check is not paid within fourteen (14) days of actual notice. <p> My client did not offer or extend credit to you. In his complaint Snow alleged that his action was based on that part of the Act
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200106/00-5212a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With them on the briefs were John L. Prabhu were on the brief of amici curiae The Association for Competitive Technology and Computing Technology Industry Association in support of appellant. Burton was on the brief for amicus curiae Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism in support of appellant. Getman was on the brief for amicus curiae Association for Objective Law in support of appellant. With them on the brief were A. Naughton were on the brief for amici curiae America Online. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Lee A. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Carl Lundgren. There are three principal aspects of this appeal. Because the substantive provisions of the order are flawed. Microsoft asserts that the trial judge committed ethical violations by engaging in impermissible ex parte contacts and making inappropriate public comments on the merits of the case while it was pending. The oral arguments before this court we find that some but not all of Microsoft's liability challenges have merit. There are several reasons supporting this conclusion.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may98/97-6731.man.html">HAWTHORNE V. MAC ADJUSTMENT, INC. (5/11/1998, NO. 97-6731)<BR></A><BR>
Plaintiff appellant Carrie Hawthorne claims that Mac Adjustment violated her rights that are protected by the FDCPA. We decline Hawthorne's invitation and AFFIRM the ruling of the district court.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> Hawthorne was involved in an accident. Who was damaged in the amount of $2. If you did not have insurance and wish to resolve this matter voluntarily. Send your check for the full amount of the claims by return mail.</P> <P> In the event that you are without insurance and you cannot remit payment immediately. The claim will be assumed to be valid. If you notify us in writing within 30 days that the claim or any portion thereof is disputed. We will obtain verification of the claim or a copy of a judgment against you and a copy of verification or judgment will be mailed to you. We will provide you with the name and address of the original creditor. This is an attempt to collect a claim and any information obtained will be used for that purpose.</P> <P> Averring that the claim referred to in the Mac Adjustment letter had expired under Alabama law on December 7.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may98/97-6731.man.html">HAWTHORNE V. MAC ADJUSTMENT, INC. (5/11/1998, NO. 97-6731)<BR></A><BR>
Plaintiff appellant Carrie Hawthorne claims that Mac Adjustment violated her rights that are protected by the FDCPA. We decline Hawthorne's invitation and AFFIRM the ruling of the district court.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> Hawthorne was involved in an accident. Who was damaged in the amount of $2. If you did not have insurance and wish to resolve this matter voluntarily. Send your check for the full amount of the claims by return mail.</P> <P> In the event that you are without insurance and you cannot remit payment immediately. The claim will be assumed to be valid. If you notify us in writing within 30 days that the claim or any portion thereof is disputed. We will obtain verification of the claim or a copy of a judgment against you and a copy of verification or judgment will be mailed to you. We will provide you with the name and address of the original creditor. This is an attempt to collect a claim and any information obtained will be used for that purpose.</P> <P> Averring that the claim referred to in the Mac Adjustment letter had expired under Alabama law on December 7.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5212a.html">U.S. V. MICROSOFT<BR></A><BR>
Holley argued the causes for appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001891.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Included in the amount financed column of the RISC was a charge for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/12/016031P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The bankruptcy court determined that the Petersons failed to prove that Rothweiler was a creditor under TILA. The bankruptcy court also ruled that even if Rothweiler was a creditor under TILA. The Petersons were required to tender the loan proceeds to Rothweiler in order to effectuate the rescission. The Petersons assert that they presented sufficient evidence at trial which showed that Rothweiler was a creditor for purposes of the application of TILA remedies. That because they are in bankruptcy. Filed an amicus brief in support of Rothweiler in which he adopts the position that the confirmed Chapter 13 plan does not have res judicata effect on the treatment of his claim. The Petersons' Chapter 13 plan was confirmed by the bankruptcy court on October 30. That this note was secured by a second deed of trust on their residence. The Petersons further alleged that this note was amended on May 17. The Petersons alleged that Rothweiler engaged in a practice of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061052np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. Factual Background1 Sel Leb is a New York corporation that distributes and markets consumer merchandise to retailers. George Fischer were company directors. LLP was a company auditor. Our review is limited to the contents of the complaint and any attached exhibits. The company said it was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2205.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is corrected as follows: On page 6. Sullivan & Worcester were on brief. Were on brief. Because we believe that the lower court was on the wrong track. Background Background The pertinent facts are largely undisputed. Plaintiff appellant Greenwood Trust Company (Greenwood) is a Delaware banking corporation. Its deposits are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The terms and conditions applicable to use of the Discover Card are spelled out in a Cardmember Agreement. If the default is not cured within twenty days. A ten dollar late charge is automatically assessed. The Commonwealth and its Attorney General were named as defendants. The Massachusetts statute is straightforward. 2Endeavoring to ensure that its flanks are fully protected. It is not necessary for us to distinguish among them. 6 late charge. Section 521 is equally uncompromising: In order to prevent discrimination against State chartered insured depository institutions. Notwithstanding any State constitution or statute which is hereby preempted for the purposes of this section.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3132_022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The defendants in this class action have been permitted to appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) from the district judge's refusal to dismiss. Upon which the district court's jurisdiction was premised. These are claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The complaint is a hideous sprawling mess. We have found it difficult and in many instances impossible to ascertain the nature of the charges. It would have been better had the defendants deferred their motion. Until either the defendants served contention interrogatories designed to smoke out what exactly the plaintiffs are charging. The judge told the plaintiffs to specify the acts of the defendants that they are complaining about so that he could decide how much of the complaint was preempted. The principal defendant and the only one we need discuss (the other defendant is a law firm charged with having assisted Ocwen in the misconduct of which the plaintiffs complain). Was at the times relevant to this case a federal savings and loan association engaged in servicing home mortgages originated by other lenders.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/00/00-4167.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was insufficient. It held that the proper interest rate was the prime rate plus a risk adjustment of 1.5%. SCS Credit Corporation was the only creditor to object to confirmation of the Tills' amended Chapter 13 plan. SCS is a secured creditor and holds a security interest in an automobile. The vehicle was valued at $4. SCS is a sub prime lender. The Tills are such borrowers. The interest rate on the Tills' loan was 21%. A bankruptcy plan will be confirmed over the objection of a secured creditor if the creditor retains its lien on the collateral. The creditor receives cash payments over the course of the plan that are equivalent to the value of the collateral on the plan's effective date. The interest rate it would have No. 00 4167 3 earned if SCS had foreclosed on the vehicle. Both witnesses testified that SCS had received 21% interest on all of its loans because borrowers like the Tills are poor credit risks. SCS reasserted its argument that it was entitled to 21%. The court held that the bankruptcy court had misread Koopmans and that Koopmans required 4 No. 00 4167 that SCS receive the interest rate it would have earned on a new loan financed by the proceeds from the sale of its collateral.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981024.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
N.A. is a national banking association which maintains an office in Bethesda. NationsBanc Mortgage Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/05/066071P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He was rescinding both loans under unspecified federal laws. We will refer to First Security and Carlson collectively as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1444A.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Voelker appeals from the district court's dismissal of his claims for breach of OE The opinion in this case was originally published on November 3. This revised opinion is substituted for the opinion published November 3. We assume that the facts alleged in the complaint are true. This warranty was to begin
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june97/96-4124.opa.html">BUCKMAN V. AM. BANKERS INS. CO.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Buckman v. Plaintiff says (1) that a bail bond transaction which includes a contingent promissory note and mortgage is subject to the Truth in Lending Act. (2) that a bail bondsman's attempt to collect on that note is subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. That a bail bondsman's later attempt to collect on the note is not covered by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. We affirm the judgment of the district court.<p> I.<p> <p> Defendant American Bankers Insurance Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june97/96-4124.opa.html">BUCKMAN V. AM. BANKERS INS. CO.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Buckman v. Plaintiff says (1) that a bail bond transaction which includes a contingent promissory note and mortgage is subject to the Truth in Lending Act. (2) that a bail bondsman's attempt to collect on that note is subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. That a bail bondsman's later attempt to collect on the note is not covered by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. We affirm the judgment of the district court.<p> I.<p> <p> Defendant American Bankers Insurance Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july97/96-8019.opa.html">BAGGETT V. FIRST NAT'L BANK<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Baggett v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> We have reviewed plaintiffs/appellants' complaint filed in district court. Defendant.<p> <p> CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:95 CV 684 FMH.<p> <p> <i>ORDER</i><p> <p> This case is before the Court on the Defendant First National Bank of Gainesville's Motion to Dismiss for want of subject matter jurisdiction [3 1]. Frances Otwell Bagby (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct2000/995709.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiff alleges she was harmed by deceptive lending practices of a dealer from whom she purchased an automobile. Three Circuit Courts of Appeals have encountered nearly identical TILA claims and all have concluded plaintiffs could not state a claim.1 Following those courts. We will affirm. I. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. A court may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proven consistent with the allegations. The facts in this case are uncomplicated.2 Ramadan purchased a used Hyundai for $4. The sale was achieved through a Retail Installment Contract (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C43C738D3BA5C6FF88257266007AB1BA/$file/0450469.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have juris UNITED STATES v. Berger was Craig Electronics' President. Richardson was the Chief Financial Officer of Craig Electronics until May 31. Defendant Bonnie Metz was at various times a Vice President in Craig Electronics' Hong Kong and Cerritos. Metz is not a party to this appeal. Not to exceed $1 million. (3) Craig Electronics was prohibited from borrowing against goods that had been returned to Craig Electronics but not yet inspected. Or goods that were defective. Craig Electronics was required to provide Bankers Trust with a Borrowing Base Certificate (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/06/986070P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The bankruptcy court held the accounts receivable were not the equivalent of wages or salary and therefore were not exempt under the Nebraska statute. Pruss is an attorney engaged in the practice of law as a sole practitioner. The scheduled value of these receivables was $41. Her claim of exemption was. The Chapter 7 Trustee of two other bankruptcy estates which are creditors of Ms. The
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2532.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1479.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Dickson and Law Offices of George Dickson were on brief for appellants. Bass & Green were on brief for appellee. Circuit Judge impression presented in this case is whether section 501(a)(1) of the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980. Is preempted by section 501(a)(1). Is a wholly owned subsidiary of Dime Savings Bank of New York. Was assigned to Dime Savings the day it was made. The interest rate was fixed at 7.75% for the first six months. The interest rate was capped. Including that (1) the SIS is preempted by 804(c) of the Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act of 1982. Is pre empted by section 501(a)(1).3 B. 'the question of whether federal law pre empts a state statute is one of congressional intent.'
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/10/043117P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A test conducted by SJM showed a slightly higher risk of paravalvular leaks at the site where the valves were implanted. Numerous suits were then filed across the nation. The cases were later consolidated in Minnesota. The cases were consolidated for pretrial proceedings in Minnesota pursuant to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. A class action was the superior method to adjudicate those claims. [found] that only significant variations in state law will be sufficient to require different subclasses. The district court found no two states' laws were substantially alike. Conditionally certifying the class only as to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/05/036095P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Iowa This is an appeal from an order of the bankruptcy court1 holding that $3. 300.00 in accrued and unpaid wages owing to Stephanie Irish are totally exempt from property of her bankruptcy estate. Unpaid wages that are owing on the petition date in addition to any amounts the debtor would be able to exempt against a garnishing creditor. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. She is paid on a twelve month basis. Her expected calendar year earnings for 2003 were between $16. Only consumer debts were listed in the Debtors' schedules. Contends that she is entitled to exempt her accrued. Which provides: A debtor who is a resident of this state may hold exempt from execution the following property .... 9. This exemption is in addition to the limitations contained in sections 642.21 and 537.5105. § 642.21(1)(b) states that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19968019.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Senior Circuit Judge: We have reviewed plaintiffs/appellants' complaint filed in district court. ORDER This case is before the Court on the Defendant First National Bank of Gainesville's Motion to Dismiss for want of subject matter jurisdiction [3 1]. Frances Otwell Bagby (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july97/96-8019.opa.html">BAGGETT V. FIRST NAT'L BANK<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Baggett v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> We have reviewed plaintiffs/appellants' complaint filed in district court. Defendant.<p> <p> CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:95 CV 684 FMH.<p> <p> <i>ORDER</i><p> <p> This case is before the Court on the Defendant First National Bank of Gainesville's Motion to Dismiss for want of subject matter jurisdiction [3 1]. Frances Otwell Bagby (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="494"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0362p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He argues that the district court erred in finding that he was not a party in interest with respect to all his claims. The
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="494"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/33A495E6898F919B882570D5004DB39D/$file/0417126.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
BACKGROUND Camacho's debt of $42.57 was assigned to Bridgeport Financial by Into Video.1 In its initial collection communication. This office will assume this debt is valid.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1444.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We assume that the facts alleged in the complaint are true. This warranty was to begin
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D8524371EDD4FDAB8825733A004BEA0C/$file/0655964.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We consider whether a class arbitration waiver in New Cingular Wireless Service Inc.'s standard contract for cellular phone services is unconscionable under California law. Whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts a holding that the waiver is unenforceable. We hold that the waiver is unconscionable. That the invalidation of the contract provision is not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. Alleging that he and similarly situated plaintiffs (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-7195b.html">BRAD WILLIAMS V. FIRST GOVERNMENT MORTGAGE<BR></A><BR>
With them on the briefs was </P> <P>Jean Constantine Davis.</P> <P> Before: Wald. Was reasonable in </P> <P>relation to Williams's success in the litigation. Remand his common law unconsciona </P> <P>bility claim for the district court to clarify whether he lacked </P> <P>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTAzNDQtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0344-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case was decided by a two judge panel. The resulting settlement was the largest in 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 the history of antitrust law. Defendants agreed not to tie their debit and credit products together and to pay more than $3 billion to plaintiffs in exchange for the release of any and all claims that were or could have been filed against defendants or their member banks (non parties in this action) based on the conduct alleged. Was an Visa and MasterCard are national bank card associations. The discount fee is determined by the acquiring institution. Economics demands that the discount fee be greater than the interchange fee the acquiring 3
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200412420.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which are small loans with interest rates averaging 400 500% APR due on the next payday. This appeal presents the question of whether the State of Georgia may regulate a narrow segment of agency agreements between in state payday stores and out of state banks or whether the Georgia Act in issue is preempted by § 27(a) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2000/995117.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
CNIS is a wholly owned subsidiary of Commerce Bancorp. We will reverse.1 I. By the time this litigation was commenced. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and review the District Court's factual findings for clear error. We are left with a definite and firm conviction that mistake has been committed. Neither CIA nor CBI were aware that anyone believed that the companies were business affiliates of each other. The application was granted. The District Court first determined that CBI's rights in the Commerce mark were senior to those of CIA. The Court found that CIA's use of the Commerce mark in 1983 was likely to create confusion. Because reasonable consumers dealing with CIA
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="483"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200512/04-5257a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the briefs were Gregory G. With him on the brief was Rhonda M. Peter Buscemi was on the brief for amici curiae State and Local Bar Associations in support of appellees. Babb were on the brief for amicus curiae The Conference of Chief Justices in support of appellee American Bar Association. The Bar Associations sought a declaratory judgment that the FTC's decision that attorneys engaged in the practice of law are covered by the Gramm Leach Bliley Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1994/94a0885p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a trade dress infringement action brought under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. That Travis is liable for manufacturing the molds for Joy's planter. Because Duraco's claim is predicated upon infringement of the trade dress of the product itself. Constitute inherently distinctive trade dress thus serving as a designator of origin that will protect the plaintiff's product design features against copying. Insofar as it is not a symbol according to which one can relate the signifier (the trademark. Along with the degree to which the mark describes the product is unsuited for application to the product itself. We also think that there is a proper set of circumstances for treating a product configuration as inherently distinctive. These circumstances are characterized by a high probability that a product configuration serves a virtually exclusively identifying function for consumers where the concerns over
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/49F73C863DE5878688256BE20074E049/$file/0056043.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
CU's motion for summary judgment was granted by the district court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I. BACKGROUND CU is a nonprofit corporation that engages in comparative testing and evaluation of consumer products and services. The results of which are published in the magazine Consumer Reports. Was introduced in the United States in 1985. The petition was denied. Although the NHTSA emphasized that the denial was not an endorsement of the safety performance of a vehicle. A double lane change avoidance maneuver test course that CU had used since 1973.2 The long course was designed to replicate an emergency situation in which a driver suddenly steers a vehicle left into the opposing lane. Several CU personnel were in attendance during the April 20 testing. CU driver Kevin Sheehan reported that the Samurai was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200008/97-7195b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With them on the briefs was Jean Constantine Davis. Was reasonable in relation to Williams's success in the litigation. I The facts of this case are set forth in detail in Williams v. 176 F.3d 497 (D.C. * Former Circuit Judge Wald was a member of the panel at the time of oral argument. Most would not give him credit because his income was too low. Al though the monthly payment was $100 more than he had been paying. Although the term of the loan was longer than he wanted. Williams was receiving $1. Water were cut off. Oral argument in this case was heard on the same day as DeBerry v. Because local D.C. courts had
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3511.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court granted summary judgment to J.V.D.B. on the ground that the debt collector was unaware of Turner's bankruptcy as a matter of law. Turner's $97.80 debt to Pre Paid Local Access Phone Service Company was discharged in bankruptcy. Turner's bankruptcy was listed on his credit reports. That letter was printed on J.V.D.B.'s letterhead. Stated at the top that the account balance due to PrePaid was $97.80. Contained the following text: This is an attempt to collect a debt and any information used will be obtained for that purpose. This office will assume that the debt is valid. This office will obtain verification of the debt or obtain a copy of a judgment and mail you a copy of such judgment or verification. This office will provide you with the name and address of the original creditor. The district court granted J.V.D.B.'s motion for summary judgment on the ground that there was no evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could conclude that J.V.D.B. knew that Turner's debt was discharged in bankruptcy.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0166p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P&T argues that the district court erred in finding that defendants were entitled. No challenge is made to the reasonableness of the amount of the judgment. First Tennessee was the lead bank on that syndicated credit facility. An
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1608.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
S</U> were on brief. Borges</U> were on brief. S blanco no se puede
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1997/97a1705p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Whether the obligors on unmatured promissory notes can obtain declaratory relief against the obligees of those notes and have the notes declared void and unenforceable. Whether transactions involving investment securities are covered under section 9.2(a) of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade 2 Practices and Consumer Protection Law (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept2000/994061.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Debtor and his wife have accrued over $100. They have now been separated for more than seven years. The action is still pending. The most recent trial date was continued either on joint motion of the parties or without objection by the Debtor. Debtor's divorce is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTU0ODctY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5487-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Some have said. Is an engine of technological development. The telephonic system at dispute in this appeal is an example of that phenomenon it was designed and implemented to ensure that consumers paid charges for accessing pornography and other adult entertainment. The system identified the user of an online adult entertainment service by the telephone line used to access that service and then billed the telephone line subscriber 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 for the cost of that service as if it was a charge for an international phone call to Madagascar. It had a problem as well: It was possible for someone to access an adult entertainment service over a telephone line without authorization from the telephone line subscriber who understood herself contractually bound to pay all telephone charges. If the computer was connected by modem to a telephone line. Charges for accessing the adult entertainment appeared on bills sent to the consumers whose telephone lines were used. This billing system did not have a mechanism to ensure that a telephone line subscriber authorized the computer user to access a given adult entertainment service.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="477"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2341.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. Were on brief. We reverse and remand the case for action consistent with this opinion.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/01/012328P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
GSB is a debt collection agency incorporated in Nebraska. The parties informed the court that there were fifty one other FDCPA cases against GSB in the district and that all would be affected by the decision in this case. The other cases were later gathered together for management purposes in a consolidated file and stayed pending the decision in this case. United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 2 2 Peters argued to the district court that his VA contained a literally false statement because service by constable was not GSB's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul14/03-20917-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The action was dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The loan was to originate from Ritemoney Ltd. as lender. Inter alia: the amount financed was $2013 ($2000 to Lovick and $13 filing fee for asserting a lien on her vehicle). The interest rate was ten percent. Are not in issue. I understand that this loan is made by lender [Ritemoney] under Section 302.001 of the Texas Finance Code at a rate of interest not greater than 10% per annum and that a fee paid to a third person [CPCWA] for arranging this loan (though required to be treated as finance charge for purposes of federal law disclosures) is for a separate service and not interest for purposes of Texas law. Was 349.403.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//2nd-idx.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Eleventh Circuit
OPINION/ORDER
Was offering financing at a 1.9% annual percentage rate (APR) to qualified buyers. 800 more than the Caravan was worth. The parties executed a
OPINION/ORDER
Finding the Arbitration Agreements were unconscionable. I. BACKGROUND FNB is a national bank chartered under the National Bank Act. Which is located in Georgia. The customer would have to sign and date both the Promissory Note and the Arbitration Agreement. The type of lending transactions at issue in this case are commonly referred to as
OPINION/ORDER
P.A. were on brief for appellants. P.A. were on brief for appellants. Jr. with whom Wright & Cherry were on brief for Peter S. Jr. with whom Wright & Cherry were on brief for appellees. appellees. The loan was secured by a first mortgage on the Chroniak residence. The loan was repaid in full by June 1988. 000 within ninety days of its execution. 3 The loan was secured by a second mortgage on the Chroniak home. Chroniak made what she believed was a
OPINION/ORDER
Plaintiffs are persons who borrowed from the two banks and signed second mortgages. Appellees in this case are the settling parties. Appellants are a number of law firms and plaintiff class members who challenge the District Court's jurisdiction. The alleged mastermind of the scheme was the Shumway Organization (
OPINION/ORDER
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. (2) Bondy's retaliation claim was barred by res judicata in that Bondy previously sued Group Health Association unsuccessfully in connection with the same termination of employment. The assets of Group Health Association were transferred through various transactions to Consumer Health Foundation. Nor ha[d] he identified what those claims are.
OPINION/ORDER
First full paragraph the paragraph is rewritten to read as follows: Section 523(a)(2)(A) covers debts incurred through the direct provision of
OPINION/ORDER
I Thomas Price is a computer consultant. Because he was not paying his debts as they became due. 469 of which was secured debt. 511 is secured on Price's residence. Price's petition claimed that
OPINION/ORDER
Inc. is the servicing affiliate for Greenwood Trust Company. Iowa. 2 The Bankruptcy Code is 11 U.S.C. §§ 101 1330. All future references are to Title 11 unless otherwise indicated. 2 3 establish a line of credit
OPINION/ORDER
As anyone who has taken out such a loan is doubtless aware. Many of these forms are required by the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). One of whose requirements is at issue in this case: that a creditor clearly disclose to a borrower her right to rescind the loan within three days and provide the borrower with an appropriate form to 2 Nos. 04 3690 & 04 4042 accomplish the rescission. The period within which the borrower may rescind the loan is extended from three days to up to three years. One of which was inappropriate for her loan. Handy held a 30year variable rate mortgage on her home that was serviced by a company known as Homecomings. Handy was given five rescission forms. Four of these forms were identical.
OPINION/ORDER
Dickerson advising her that the balance on her GM credit card account was past due. Which was sent to thousands of delinquent creditors like her. Dickerson is licensed to practice law in Virginia and has done so for more than 30 years. The
584.80 premium was charged for credit life insurance with a ten year term and added into the principal amount borrowed. 692.74 premium was charged for credit life insurance with a ten year term and added into the principal amount borrowed. Plaintiffs stipulated that their damages will not exceed $75. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The issue of whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' complaint is a question of law subject to de novo review. Mutual Assurance. Removal jurisdiction exists only when the district court would have had original jurisdiction over the action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The only jurisdictional issue is whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75. 000.
This issue is further narrowed because all Plaintiffs stipulate that each individual class member will neither request nor accept damages in excess of $75. At least one individual plaintiff in a class action must have a damage claim greater than $75. 000 for a federal court to have diversity jurisdiction over the case. Zahn.
584.80 premium was charged for credit life insurance with a ten year term and added into the principal amount borrowed. 692.74 premium was charged for credit life insurance with a ten year term and added into the principal amount borrowed. Plaintiffs stipulated that their damages will not exceed $75. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The issue of whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' complaint is a question of law subject to de novo review. Mutual Assurance. Removal jurisdiction exists only when the district court would have had original jurisdiction over the action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The only jurisdictional issue is whether the amount in controversy exceeds $75. 000.
This issue is further narrowed because all Plaintiffs stipulate that each individual class member will neither request nor accept damages in excess of $75. At least one individual plaintiff in a class action must have a damage claim greater than $75. 000 for a federal court to have diversity jurisdiction over the case. Zahn.
OPINION/ORDER
Latturner were on brief. Hayden were on brief. These matches were not exact. Deborah Barnes was a customer of BankBoston. Your accounts will transfer to the Fleet accounts that are most similar to your existing BankBoston accounts. Everything will happen automatically. So you won't have to do a thing.
OPINION/ORDER
If the procedural requirements for sentencing defendants that this court established are so inflexible that we cannot affirm any sentence when the district court fails to articulate its analysis in precisely the terms of those requirements. Then we must vacate the sentence imposed in this case no matter how reasonable we believe it is. We will not vacate the sentence imposed by the District Court. Write to dispel any erroneous impression that we have relaxed those requirements. I. Defendant Donald James King appeals his sentence of seventy two months imprisonment that was imposed by the District Court following his plea of guilty to one count of bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. King claims that the sentence is unreasonable and in violation of United States v. Because the District Court did not follow proper procedure for imposing a sentence in excess of the range recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines (3037 months imprisonment).1 We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). 328 (3d Cir. 2006) (holding that an unreasonable sentence is imposed in violation of the law). 2 1 The events giving rise to this criminal prosecution took place during the years 1998 and 1999.
OPINION/ORDER
Mosley's hip and back were injured when he fell from a tank. Mosley left Alcorn State because it was not offering a class he needed to graduate and because he believed his mother's health was deteriorating. He was unable to * Honorable John R. Sitting by designation. 2 complete the training or keep any of his jobs because he was depressed. Where he stayed for approximately one to two weeks and was diagnosed with anxiety and depression. Mosley is registered with the Georgia Department of Labor and has sought work through the labor pool since 2000 with little success. He worked at an airport for a short time but was unable to meet the physical demands of the job because his medication made him groggy and he cannot do heavy lifting. 000 and have been in default since 1996. Mosley's loans were transferred to Educational Credit. Mosley was the sole witness and testified before the bankruptcy court about his medical problems. He introduced Social Security and Medicare earnings statements showing that his annual taxable earnings between 1994 and 2004 have never exceeded $7.
OPINION/ORDER
Thorne argues that the district court erred in granting the Rule 50 motion because there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to show that he was entitled to individual coverage under the Fair Labor Standards Act when he regularly used Defendants' credit cards. This Court finds that Thorne failed to present sufficient evidence that he was either engaged in interstate commerce or was engaged in the production of goods for commerce. Finding that
OPINION/ORDER
Which created a presumption of abuse against debtors having primarily consumer debts who have sufficient income to repay their debts. Is that a bankruptcy court may not consider a debtor's income and expenses in deciding a motion to dismiss brought under section 707(a). It is within the sound discretion of the bankruptcy court to consider a debtor's monthly income and expenses together with any other factors relevant to a debtor's good faith in filing for bankruptcy. We will affirm the Bankruptcy Court's order denying Hitachi's motion to dismiss. Perlin is a licensed radiologist. They have saved more than $430. CMI's payments were due on a graduated payment schedule. The consultant determined that the original income projections were flawed. The Bankruptcy Court found that Hitachi had presented sufficient information to shift the burden to the Perlins to prove that their petition was brought in good faith. The Bankruptcy Court found that the Perlins's substantial expenses were
OPINION/ORDER
The district court (1) found that the Ordinances were preempted by the Home Owners' Loan Act (
OPINION/ORDER
Was on brief. The question is one of first impression at the federal appellate level. When all is said and done. Police officers responded to the shopping plaza where the store was located. A total of twenty two unauthorized credit cards were found in the companion's wallet. The companion pleaded guilty and his case is not now before us. We will uphold a refusal to suppress evidence as long as the refusal is supported by some reasonable view of the record.
OPINION/ORDER
The debt was therefore dischargeable. Because the bankruptcy court based its decision upon facts that were not in the record. We will remand the case to the district court with instructions to remand to the bankruptcy court for further fact finding. David Cohn was involved in a business relationship with a financial consultant. Cohn was required to sign a promissory note for his share. 500 which was to be executed between Cohn. Schedule No. 5 required as follows:
OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: at slip Opinion page 6. The petition for rehearing and for rehearing en banc is denied. The district court (1) found that the Ordinances were preempted by the Home Owners' Loan Act (
With him on the brief were Eileen J. the case is remanded. These tax exempt uses qualify the purchaser of diesel fuel to recover those fuel taxes in the form of a refund under 26 U.S.C. § 6427(l) or in the form of a tax credit under 26 U.S.C. § 34(a).
The IRS record of this inquiry furth
OPINION/ORDER
Holding that PCI's disclosures were adequate under the Act and that the extended recision period was therefore unavailable to the Carmichaels. The statement was accurate except for two glaring errors: it greatly overstated the finance charge as $188. Both amounts due under the loan contract were only a fraction of the numbers listed. Summary judgment is proper when the
OPINION/ORDER
Was the company permitted to deduct anticipated warranty expenses in the year that it sold warranted motor vehicles to its dealers even though warranty claims had not necessarily been made? 2) Was Chrysler barred by the ten year statutory limitations period 1 No. 03 1214 Chrysler Corp. v. We will abandon our usual practice of beginning our opinion with a generalized background section in favor of treating each issue individually. The Tax Court framed the issue in these terms: We must decide whether for Federal income tax purposes all events necessary to determine petitioner's liability for its warranty expenses have occurred when it sells its vehicles to its dealers. A liability . . . is incurred. Generally is taken into account for Federal income tax purposes. In the taxable year in which all the events have occurred that establish the fact of the liability. Only the first prong of the test whether the
OPINION/ORDER
AT&T appeals on the ground that the application of California's consumer protection laws is preempted by the Federal Communications Act and the Federal Arbitration Act. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The 1934 Act was intended to address the unique problems inherent in a monopolistic environment.
Century 21 was denied relief and Meraj obtained a verdictfor $700. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
OPINION/ORDER
000 of their loan proceeds to a company previously unknown to OE Defendant Nationscredit Financial Services Corporation is the successor by merger to Equicredit Corporation of Illinois. Against which the initial lawsuit was filed. Because Equicredit is the registered trade name of Nationscredit Financial Services Corporation. We will refer to this defendant as Equicredit. 2 No. 06 2250 them but identified on their loan documents as one of their creditors. This appeal is limited to their federal claims and specifically addresses whether the lender violated the Truth In Lending Act (
OPINION/ORDER
Plumb & Murray were on brief. With whom Olafsen & Butterfield was on brief. Connor was on brief. Was registered in Maine as a credit services organization. It is conceded by all parties involved that the Code
OPINION/ORDER
Sherwin Williams stated that the coatings at issue were not
OPINION/ORDER
The plaintiffs ask this Court to reverse the district court's determination that injunctive relief is not available for Fair Credit Reporting Act (
American Target is a Virginia corporation that provides fundraising services to nonprofit organizations. The corporation is under contract to provide such services to Judicial Watch. American Target is classified as a professional fundraising consultant under the Utah Charitable Solicitations Act. 13 22 9.
American Target has not complied with the registration requirements and is therefore barred from assisting Judicial Watch with its mailing in Utah. Because nothing in the record indicates that the Act will have any different impact upon interests not before this court. We analyze both prongs of the First Amendment challenge as they are presented under the facts of this case. City Council of L.A. v. We will then decide if the provision is unconstitutional on its face. Where expressive activity is arguably protected by the First Amendment. We conclude that all but three of the challenged provisions are consistent with the First Amendment.
Charitable solicitations qualify as protected speech for First Amendment purposes. Village of Schaumburg v.
OPINION/ORDER
Both accounts were ultimately turned over to Credit Protection Association (
Who are members of the Oklahoma State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors (
OPINION/ORDER
His consolidation loan was guaranteed by Great Lakes Higher Education Guaranty Corporation (Great Lakes). The facts are drawn from the parties' statements of undisputed material facts (filed in connection with OSI's motion for partial summary judgment) and the district court's order. 2 1 In 1995. The loan was serviced on Great Lakes' behalf by OSI Collection Services. Which was approximately $27. Debtors who are subject to garnishment are statutorily entitled to a hearing 3
OPINION/ORDER
The District Court granted plaintiff's motion to certify a class consistent of all persons who: a. were sent advertising by MBNA Corporation promoting a special low introductory (6.9%9.9%) annual percentage rate on cash advances and/or balance transfers. They are required only to identify themselves as a member of the class. 64% of the class) were active. The District Court found that the proposed settlement was in the range of fair and reasonable. There are approximately 1.8 million members of the class. Approximately 80% have a current account with MBNA (current class members). Approximately 20% do not have a current account with MBNA (non current class numbers). Of current class members approximately 80% (64% of the total) of the accounts are presently active (current active class members). Class members who had account activity during the period November 2000 through January 2001 were classified as
OPINION/ORDER
The district court held that the trustee should not have received compensation based 2 on a $7. The trustee argues that the district court's interpretation of S 326(a) was improper and that the determination of a fee award is not limited to the factors enumerated in S 330(a). Cain was subsequently appointed as Chapter 11 trustee. The debtor's principal asset was a parcel of property consisting of two office complexes in Marlton. Which was subject to a mortgage in favor of First Fidelity Bank. It was later appraised at a fair market value of $9. The trustee was awarded interim compensation of $28. The Chapter 11 proceeding was converted into a Chapter 7 proceeding and Mr. Cain was reappointed as Chapter 7 trustee. Although the trustee alleged that he was prepared simply to abandon the property and allow First Fidelity to foreclose on it. Once the administrative expenses were paid. That at a sale
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Brown v. He was informed that he could pick up the truck. That he would have to travel to another location to get the dolly. DISCUSSION<p> <p> A. <i>Denial of class certification.</i><p> Appellant argues on appeal that the district court erred when it denied class certification for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug97/96-2546.opa.html">BROWN V. BUDGET RENT-A-CAR SYS.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Brown v. He was informed that he could pick up the truck. That he would have to travel to another location to get the dolly. DISCUSSION<p> <p> A. <i>Denial of class certification.</i><p> Appellant argues on appeal that the district court erred when it denied class certification for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2004/022432p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are presented with a number of questions concerning certain requirements of the Consumer Leasing Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="435"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5495555B0A4675E7882571C6007C1725/$file/0416174.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This case centers on the trademarks of two well known automobile manufacturers Volkswagen and Audi.1 The question is whether the Lanham Act prevents a maker of automobile accessories from selling. The logos and marks of Volkswagen and Audi are aesthetic functional elements of the product that is. They are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="435"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/06/033191P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Farm Credit sent Farm Fresh a letter informing Farm Fresh that Farm Credit was financing Reece's production costs.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="435"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1995/94a0973p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a trade dress infringement action in which plaintiff Versa Products Company. Which Versa maintains copies the product configuration of the B 316.[fn1] The action was brought under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. That there was a likelihood of confusion of the sources of Bifold's Domino Junior and Versa's B 316 valves. In connection with which we are called upon to determine whether the jurisprudence that lowers the standard to a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="435"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1997/97a1494p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inasmuch as: (1) the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act was inapplicable. Rendering Suber ineligible for the treble damages that are available under that statute. Was approximately $29. The dealership told Suber that nothing was wrong with the van. Again told Suber that there was nothing wrong. Both men told him that there was a problem with the van's suspension. The official report filed by Bomanski stated that the suspension system was fine. The CAB found that Suber's complaint regarding the suspension was groundless. The dealership told him that it would contact him when the repairs were completed. He called and was informed that his van was not yet ready. The dealership's repair invoices show that the last work on the van was performed on July 22. This notice informed these Dodge owners that the front coil springs on their vehicles needed to be replaced: The service is needed to prevent the front suspension from bottoming out when traveling over rough surfaces. Without the service we are offering. Suber contends that his van's suspension is defective to this day.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="435"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-1169b.html">ALLI COMMTY MEDIA V. FCC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="435"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2004/031427p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
No allowance was made for the value of the car with the defect. Nor was any reduction made for the plaintiff s use of the vehicle. We will remand for further proceedings. The scope of this review is a narrow one. Although the appeal in this case is limited to the certification issue. We are obliged to examine subject matter jurisdiction. An interlocutory order on jurisdiction per se by the District Court is not appealable. The fact that review under Rule 23(f) is restricted does not relieve the court from the duty of inquiry into its jurisdiction. Even if the parties have not raised the issue. The parties would have us address the certification issue before scrutinizing subject matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court concluded that because the class certification rulings were dispositive as to all parties it would address them first rather than the jurisdictional challenges. The certification issues common to all were logically antecedent and merited priority because they applied to all members of the class.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="433"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0484n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ownit filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code and all proceedings against it are currently stayed. Which was dismissed by agreement below. I. The property in question is located at 14200 Forrer. Plaintiff replied that she was essentially told to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="433"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTE4NDUtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1845-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
15 U.S.C. § 1.1 These policies are MasterCard's imposition of penalties for charges denied by customers of. BACKGROUND Because this is an appeal from a dismissal of a complaint under Fed. 52 (2d Cir. 1996). a) MasterCard MasterCard is one of four major payment card network service providers in the United States.2 United States v. MasterCard is a membership association operated as an open joint venture. MasterCard is funded primarily by service and transaction fees paid by its members. The
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="433"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1522.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for appellant. <P> <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="431"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2158.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Requires that any dunning letter by a debt collector as defined by the Act state
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="431"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992539.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
No. 99 2539 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Polk was given copies of the RISCs. The sole question in this appeal is whether a seller is required to make the required disclosures in writing and in a form the consumer can keep before consummation. Or whether Regulation Z is satisfied as long as the disclosures are made in some form before consummation and the consumer later receives the disclosures in writing. It is possible to read the regulation as the district court did as requiring disclosure of all information prior to consummation of the transaction but not requiring that the written disclosure occur prior to the transaction. That is. Crown Auto was required to make the disclosures to Polk in writing. Not only are we satisfied that this is the plain meaning of the provision. This interpretation comports with Congress' intent to require
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="431"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-5083b.html">JACKSON MICHAEL V. CULINARY SCH WA LTD<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="431"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012352.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
District Judge: This matter is before the Court on the Defendants' appeal of the Western District of Virginia's grant of Summary Judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs. At issue is the constitutionality of Va. The District Court's ruling granting summary judgment and striking down the statute is AFFIRMED. Plaintiffs' speech is accessible both within and outWe do not recite here the specifics of how the Internet functions. We note that the general contours of the Internet have been described in various other judicial opinions. Plaintiffs facially challenged the constitutionality of section 18.2 391 and were granted a permanent injunction by the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia enjoining the enforcement of the statute. Of commercial materials that are harmful to juveniles. Several plaintiffs brought suit challenging the 1985 amendment as facially unconstitutional on the grounds that it was impermissibly vague and violated the First Amendment. The statute was eventually upheld by the Fourth Circuit in light of a narrowing construction accorded to the statute by the Supreme Court of Virginia.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="431"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012318.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: Plaintiff Tyna Boulware claims that § 8(b) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="431"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992539.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Section 1 the status is changed from
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="427"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200312/02-7134a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="427"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199712/93-1662a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Povilaitis were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Chief Judge: At issue in this case is a claim by the Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="427"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054160p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Concluding that because
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="425"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/10/046016P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Debtors learned that their federal tax liability resulting from the ESOP liquidation was $150. Were only able to pay $20. The first debt was valued at $ 297. 000 and the second debt was valued at $32. The record indicates that Debtors have no equity in the Residence. Debtors' monthly payment on the first mortgage is $2. Their combined net income as of the petition date was approximately $7. The basis of the UST's motion was its argument that because Debtors had sufficient disposable income to fund a Chapter 13 plan. Debtors countered by arguing that their purchase of the Residence was as an investment. 000 debt that was secured by the Residence was utilized for investment purposes and was not a consumer debt. 3 Accordingly. Debtors maintain that their debts were not primarily consumer debts as required by § 707(b). Debtors testified at the hearing on the UST's motion that the reason they liquidated the ESOP and invested the proceeds into the Residence was that they believed that the Residence was a better investment than the ESOP.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="422"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0084p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Keweenaw Bay Indian Community is a federally recognized Indian tribe with approximately 3. The Community is the successor in interest to the L'Anse and Ontonagon bands of Chippewa Indians. The TPTA states that its intent is to levy the tobacco tax against the consumers of tobacco products. Although it is the licensee's responsibility to collect and account for the tax. The state can tax sales made by a tribe to individuals who are not tribal members. A state like Michigan is faced with a somewhat complicated collection scheme when. The Community was party to such an agreement with the state from 1977 until the state terminated it in 1997. Revised agreements were reached with eight of the tribes. The State will now require all wholesalers and/or unclassified acquirers to collect these taxes at the point of sale even where the retail purchaser is an Indian Tribe or tribal member. All packs of cigarettes sold at retail from within Indian Country will bear a special stamp applied by the wholesaler to clearly indicate that tax has been paid. . . .
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="422"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1689.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
They probably think their names and addresses will not be released to a firm of private lawyers seeking fuel to propel a possible class action lawsuit. So it is with this case which deals with
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="422"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/05/011949P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is an Arkansas attorney who organized Ponzi schemes3 to defraud investors. He is currently incarcerated in a state penitentiary serving a 156 year sentence for his crimes. An involuntary bankruptcy petition was filed with the bankruptcy court and an order for relief was entered on March 13. Meeks was appointed trustee in the bankruptcy proceeding. Harrah's is the operator of Harrah's Casino Cruises in Tunica. Ponzi schemes are fraudulent business ventures in which investors'
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="418"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/09/033153P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
She informed the bank that she was participating in a Consumer Credit Counseling Service (CCCS) payment plan. As the homes Davis was interested in required more financing. That 28(j) letters are to be used only to call our attention to significant authorities unknown to the parties preargument. This letter is not to be construed as a commitment letter but a credit preapproval based on an in file credit report. After Cendant had become aware that the application was for a conventional loan instead of an FHA loan. Stating that Davis was ineligible because of her involvement in CCCS. He told Davis that his bank was trying to process an FHA loan but needed to address the seller's concerns about such loans. Davis declined the Home Advantage offer because it was a market rate loan and would require a higher monthly payment. A notice of adverse action was sent from Cendant on behalf of U.S. Indicating that the loan was not granted on the terms requested. Which was mailed to her former address. Which was removed to federal court.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="418"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0912n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The only existing certificate of title was issued by the Texas Department of Transportation. That is the only matter before us in this appeal. Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact such that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The facts underlying the action are not in dispute.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="418"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug16/03-30613-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2004 The appellees in this action are customers of three cellular telephone service providers. Was predicated on certain allegedly deceptive billing procedures. Is not involved in this 2 appeal. for billing purposes. The case is a putative class action. The plaintiffs' original complaint and the first two amended complaints stated that the plaintiffs were not pursuing claims related to contracts that contain arbitration clauses. Centennial filed motions to compel arbitration and to stay the judicial proceedings as regards the plaintiffs who were their respective customers. The state is not involved in this appeal. Is suing as a representative of the Iberia Parish Sheriff's Department. Extra phones were added to the These agreements did account during the next couple of years. not contain arbitration clauses. Thirteen months after the original complaint in this case had been filed (but several months before the Sheriff's Department was added as a plaintiff in the case). Above the signature line:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="418"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/06/056057P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction over this appeal from the final order of the bankruptcy court. We also conclude that the propriety of the sanctions imposed under 11 U.S.C. § 349 is moot because the 180 day period has expired. The Cass County Court entered judgment in favor of the Credit Union and against the Hedquists concluding that the satisfaction of the 1998 Mortgage was filed in error. Determining that the Hedquists were in default under the 1998 Loan. The validity of the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="418"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul21/03-30613-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: The appellees in this action are customers of three cellular telephone service providers. Was predicated on certain allegedly deceptive billing procedures. Is not involved in this 2 appeal. court denied a motion to remand and dismissed the local agents on the ground that they had been fraudulently joined to destroy complete diversity. The case is a putative class action. The plaintiffs' original complaint and the first two amended complaints stated that the plaintiffs were not pursuing claims related to contracts that contain arbitration clauses. Centennial filed motions to compel arbitration and to stay the judicial proceedings as regards the plaintiffs who were their respective customers. The state is not involved in this appeal. Is suing as a representative of the Iberia Parish Sheriff's Department. 3 Through one of the Department's deputies. Extra phones were added to the These agreements did account during the next couple of years. not contain arbitration clauses. Thirteen months after the original complaint in this case had been filed (but several months before the Sheriff's Department was added as a plaintiff in the case).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1324.html">CATALINA MARKETING INTERNATIONAL V. COOLSAVINGS.COM<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3817_024.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A third party computer
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTYxNjItY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-6162-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendant Appellee cross appeals the district court's finding that Plaintiff met its burden of production showing that the information at issue was in the public domain. Inner City Press/Community on the Move (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3283.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Attempted by telephone to collect a client's debt from Amanda Horkey while she was at work. I. J.V.D.B. is a debt collection agency whose employee. When Scholes told Romero that Horkey was away from the office and asked if Romero wished to leave a message. Summary judgment is proper when the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-4186.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
His was sold2 as delinquent to Capital One. Sent Neff a letter stating that his balance was $1. Neff assumed that his Citibank debt was satisfied. Which would have alerted him to the fact that someone thought his account remained open and that it was accumulating interest at a staggering rate. Robb claims that the account was settled and that he heard nothing until 2002. The government estimates that in 2000 there was $683 billion of outstanding credit card debt. 2003. 2 Nos. 02 4186 & 02 4189 3 received monthly statements or correspondence of any sort that would have put him on notice that he had outstanding debt which was accumulating interest at a high rate. The accounts were settled long ago. We can only assume that the claims against them have dried up. It is Neff and Robb who take the offensive. Both Neff and Robb were surprised when they received letters from CAMCO telling them they owed money on credit card charges going back almost 10 years. Not only did they (if their story is accurate) assume that they owed no money on the accounts.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/01/951306P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Held that NSP was entitled to have the interest on its tax refunds computed by offsetting. That The is. I. The relevant facts of this case are not contested. 1984 were smaller than was thought when NSP paid its $23 million deficiency. It turns out NSP actually overpaid for all five years.2 So the parties agree that NSP is entitled to refunds plus interest for all five years in question (1980 84). The rates have changed several times since then. 501. 22 1 not agree on how to calculate the interest due on the refund. disagreement is the subject of this appeal. This What makes this case interesting is the gap between the interest rates on underpayments and overpayments. That is. It would make no difference if underpayments and overpayments were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200214037.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sitting by designation. * This is an antitrust action brought pursuant to section 1 of the Sherman Act.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTYxNjItY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/05-6162-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendant Appellee cross appeals the district court's finding that Plaintiff met its burden of production showing that the information at issue was in the public domain. Inner City Press/Community on the Move (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-5032.html">AMERICAN BROADCASTING V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="407"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/99a0401p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because Gail was away. Who had returned by the time the work was finished. An attorney who has practiced law for twenty two years and who is employed by Defendant Gerald M. IV. 13 for partial summary judgment on the grounds that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendants were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="403"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2225.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because the Small Claims Court's judgment of civil damages for check deception is a valid state court judgment. Epps tendered a check of $330.00 to Creditnet in payment of an installment of his contract that was returned unpaid to Creditnet because of insufficient funds. Venable tendered a check of $280.38 to Creditnet in payment of an installment of his contract that was returned unpaid to Creditnet because Venable did not have an account at the drawee bank. The suits were filed under Indiana Code §§ 35 43 5 5. Knowing that it will not be paid or honored by the credit institution upon presentment in the usual course of business. Judgment was thereafter entered against Epps and Venable for treble damages. The court ruled that the IUCCC is concerned with charges in a consumer loan contract. A district court's grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Construing all facts and drawing all reasonable 3 (...continued) which the district courts have original jurisdiction. The district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="403"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTI2NDUtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-2645-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Judge) erred in concluding that a consumer debt collector's initiation of a lawsuit in state court seeking recovery of unpaid rent is an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="403"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/04/02-6259.htm">02-6259 -- ROBEY-HARCOURT V. BENCORP FINANCIAL COMPANY, INC. -- 04/15/2003<BR></A><BR>
The district court granted BenCorp's Motion for Summary Judgment because it was not a creditor and thus could not be held accountable under the Act. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="403"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199903/97-5316a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Alan B. With him on the brief were Wilma A. Although federal student loan policy now recognizes school misconduct defenses against lenders who have
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="403"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTI2NDUtY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/05-2645-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Judge) erred in concluding that a consumer debt collector's initiation of a lawsuit in state court seeking recovery of unpaid rent is an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="403"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1998/98a1972p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Pendent state law claims against Chase Manhattan Corp. and Hyundai Motor Finance Co. alleging that she was given false financing disclosures when she purchased an automobile. We will reverse. I. The essential facts are undisputed. This breakdown is mandated by 15 U.S.C. Which requires a creditor to disclose to a borrower
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2002/01-15828.opn.html">GREER V. O'DELL (9/23/2002, NO. 01-15828)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034399p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Advising them that they were delinquent in water fees owed to the City in the sum of $252.75. The letter stated:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F9A9AADE15B51C4888256D350051482A/$file/0116427.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
When they were unable to provide evidence that they could tender the proceeds. The loan was co signed by their daughter. In July 1998 the Yamamotos and Tampon notified BNC that they were exercising their right to cancel the loan due to 7076 YAMAMOTO v. They claimed that upon receipt of the letter the mortgage was automatically void and BNC was required to release its security interest in their home within 20 days. The district court determined that the damages claim was barred by TILA's one year statute of limitations. The court also held that the bankruptcy trustee was the proper plaintiff to pursue recission rather than the Yamamotos. Who had indicated that they were unable to tender the proceeds. Could have sixty days to try to do so.1 When the Yamamotos/ Tampon failed to comply with either condition. While their brief mentions the issue of whether BNY was entitled to summary judgment on their claim for statutory damages. The issue is not argued and we deem it abandoned. 1182 (9th Cir. 2001) (
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/02/062888P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Those allegations were based on the Credit Union's loaning Polk money to purchase a vehicle when Polk did not have a license. Was an alcoholic. Which was granted except with respect to the Credit Union's negligence in failing to repossess the vehicle after receiving notice of careless operation of the automobile. Was responsible for paying the Grays' settlement. The denial of coverage on appeal is under Coverage A.
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2002/01-15828.opn.html">GREER V. O'DELL (9/23/2002, NO. 01-15828)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/12/043198P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="396"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034745p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2006) *This case was submitted to the panel of Judges Roth. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). **Honorable Jane A. We are asked to determine whether the Bankruptcy Court's decision to deny enforcement of an otherwise applicable arbitration clause was proper. AGF claims that the Bankruptcy Court did not have the discretion to deny enforcement of the arbitration agreement. Mintze is a retired and disabled homeowner. The cost of a new heater was $3800. The principle balance of this agreement was $44. The terms of the loan agreement were payments of $551.13 per month over fifteen years at an annual percentage rate of 13.44%. Mintze then filed a complaint against AGF We note that Mintze was not in fact eligible for the credit life insurance policy because of a pre existing health condition. 6 1 in the Bankruptcy Court. [L]et me first confirm that the parties have agreed. That the matter before me is a core proceeding. The upshot of that would mean that whether I choose to grant the relief is within my discretion.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="396"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-31149.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Inc. have filed an interlocutory appeal under FED. P. 23(f) challenging the district court's certification of a class [the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="396"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7119D19EAA9717AD88256FA50005D633/$file/0355575.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Holding that the Joneses have stated a viable complaint. Among the documents was one entitled
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="396"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1141b.html">TRANS UNION CORPORATION V. FTC<BR></A><BR>
<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="394"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982696.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
McGraw and Rodd contend that the district court erred in denying them summary judgment on this claim because they are entitled to qualified immunity. Three of these solicitations are relevant to this case: (1) a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="392"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/56AC05798C8B473588256C39007AD378/$file/0135155.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm the district court's decision in all respects. Tchou is an electrical engineer. Tchou is also the sole founder. Tchou registered the domain name www.epix.com with Network Solutions.2 Tchou testified that he registered the domain name epix.com because the catchy name connoted electronic (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/june96/95-8051.wpd.html">COLMAN V. WENDOVER FUNDING, INC.<BR></A><BR>
Plaintiffs originally filed this action in state court seeking a declaratory judgment to declare the terms of the mortgage and loan modification agreement which Wendover is allegedly responsible for servicing. Plaintiffs also sought damages for alleged violations of the Truth in Lending Act and for (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. The loan was secured by a 20 year mortgage with interest at 17.75 percent per year. The second modification agreement provided in pertinent part: The next payment is due on the 1st day of April. To be applied first to interest at the rate of Ten Percent (10.000%) per annum upon the unpaid balance of said indebtedness and the balance to principal and such monthly payments shall continue until said indebtedness is paid in full. **This modification will expire 24 months from the due date of the first payment in this agreement. Earl Colman contends the last sentence quoted was inserted without the parties' knowledge or permission after the agreement had been signed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc3OTJfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7792_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(4) correctly held that plaintiffs' statelaw claims were ripe for adjudication. We hold that the District Court's award of punitive damages was inconsistent with the Due Process Clause and with Illinois law. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal brought by individual and corporate defendants who. Defendants contend Plaintiffs have brought a motion to dismiss this appeal under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. Assuming the case was not arbitrable. They claim that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to conduct a trial while an appeal was pending in this Court from the District Court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration. That the District Court abused its discretion by deciding unsettled questions of Illinois law after all the federal claims were dismissed. That the Illinois claims brought by plaintiffs were not ripe for adjudication. Arguing that the District Court abused its discretion when it denied their motion to reinstate RICO claims that were previously dismissed at the behest of this Court.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc3OTIgdyBFcnJhdGFfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7792%20w%20Errata_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(4) correctly held that plaintiffs' statelaw claims were ripe for adjudication. We hold that the District Court's award of punitive damages was inconsistent with the Due Process Clause and with Illinois law. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal brought by individual and corporate defendants who. Defendants contend Plaintiffs have brought a motion to dismiss this appeal under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. W e have d enied this mo tion. 1 2 that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over this case and the parties to it on multiple grounds. Assuming the case was not arbitrable. They claim that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to conduct a trial while an appeal was pending in this Court from the District Court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration. That the District Court abused its discretion by deciding unsettled questions of Illinois law after all the federal claims were dismissed. That the Illinois claims brought by plaintiffs were not ripe for adjudication. Arguing that the District Court abused its discretion when it denied their motion to reinstate RICO claims that were previously dismissed at the behest of this Court.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/04/983097P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
She signed a retail installment contract that stated the dealer was assigning the contract to CAC. The installment contract required LaBarre to maintain insurance on her car until the loan was repaid and permitted LaBarre to fulfill this requirement by providing her own insurance or by obtaining insurance through CAC. We will affirm the district court's dismissal of LaBarre's complaint only if it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that LaBarre can prove no set of facts entitling her to relief. The decisive question is whether RICO's application to the activities of CAC. The answer to that question is yes. LaBarre's arguments to the contrary are foreclosed by this court's holding in Doe and by the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Humana. The alleged 3 activities of First Lenders and Bankers in scheming to sell LaBarre higher priced VSI insurance rather than LPD insurance are governed by Minnesota's insurance law. CAC's alleged activities are not governed by Minnesota's insurance statutes. 459 (1969) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053477p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. Four groups are relevant to this appeal. Kemp was charged with two counts of honest services mail fraud for his role in an asset locator business that he created and operated with his friend. Holck and Umbrell were charged with eight counts of honest services wire fraud concerning their role in corrupting Kemp. Hawkins was charged with two counts of aiding and abetting wire fraud. Hawkins The defendants were initially indicted on June 29. All references to the indictment refer to the superseding indictment. 2 1 White passed away before trial. 6 was charged with four counts of perjury stemming from false statements that Hawkins allegedly made while testifying before a grand jury investigating this case.3 B. Central to the government's case were tape recordings of scores of conversations between the defendants. These are but a selection of the charges included in the indictment. Kemp was charged with one count of conspiracy. Hawkins was charged with one count of conspiracy. Knight was charged with one count of conspiracy.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043510p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Alfred DiGiacomo was a member of the Teamsters Union and a participant in the Teamsters Pension Trust Fund of Philadelphia and Vicinity (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="386"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/08/992783P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
These premiums were paid to American National Insurance Co. Peters's purchase was financed through TCF Financial Services. The payment of premiums back to Lupient was not disclosed. Rather than disclose that commissions were being paid to Lupient on the insurance policies. All of our sister circuits that have examined whether the retention by a car dealer of any amount of a fee that is purportedly being paid to a third party is a violation of TILA. Have answered in the affirmative. As this issue was not fully briefed by the parties and the issue of damages fully resolves this suit. Peters concedes that the only remedy for failing to make this type of disclosure as required by § 1638(a)(2)(B)(iii) is actual damages. See 15 U.S.C. § 1640 (stating 2 statutory damages are only available for violations of § 1638(a)(2) in those cases where the amount financed was not disclosed). Actual damages are traditionally defined as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="386"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/09/02-3441.htm">02-3441 -- U.S. V. HOLCOMBE -- 09/08/2004<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Elizabeth Marzette Holcombe pled guilty to credit card fraud. She was sentenced to five years probation on condition she be placed on home detention for six months and ordered to pay $27. None were given to the victims. The district court refused to deduct the value of the confiscated goods from the total loss amount because the victims are financial institutions and retailers. Which were not in the business of selling used consumer goods. <p> We review factual findings underlying the restitution order for clear error and the amount of restitution for abuse of discretion. Which is part of The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996. Restitution is to be in the full amount of the victim's loss. 18 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="386"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2003/024046p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Daffy's is a chain of retail clothing stores specializing in selling popular brands of goods and apparel at discount prices. Inc. was recognized as a reputable supplier. The events leading to the purchase began when a representative of Sara's approached Daffy's regarding some Gucci handbags that were being diverted to the United States from a merchant in the Far East. Although Daffy's representatives were confident that the bags were genuine. A Daffy's employee presented one of the bags to the Gucci clerk and informed the clerk that she had received the bag as a gift 3 and was not certain of its authenticity. The employee asked the clerk to examine the bag and confirm that it was genuine. Informed the Daffy's employee that the bag was authentic. That conclusion was based on certain indicia of authenticity including the quality of fabric and leather. Daffy's also sent one of the bags it had purchased that was damaged to the Gucci repair center in New York for repair. Daffy's concluded that the bags it had purchased from Sara's were genuine Gucci bags.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="386"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0229p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a lawsuit brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) against a debt collector. Attached to the complaint were two exhibits that listed the account number. Harvey's factual allegations were sparse. They argued that (1) a lack of available documentation at the time the Complaint for Money was filed is not actionable under the FDCPA. (2) the filing of the Complaint for Money is protected by the common law doctrine of immunity during judicial proceedings. This type of debt is transferred electronically. The same is true for documentation of the original agreement (including the interest rate) and for documentation of the chain of ownership of the alleged debt. This is common practice in the industry because of the time and cost of obtaining such documentation. The default rate on such lawsuits is at least ninety percent. Once a default judgment is entered the debtor's chances of overturning it are miniscule. Seneca Javitch can proceed to garnishment regardless of whether it could have proved its case in disputed litigation.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="386"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1488_020.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
One of the many contested matters in Kmart's bankruptcy was whether the debtor could assume an executory contract with Capital One Bank providing for a co branded credit card. Bankruptcy Judge Sonderby held that Kmart is entitled to assume the contract. District Judge Pallmeyer affirmed. 2 No. 05 1488 Capital One contended during the trial that Kmart was in material breach of its obligations under the agreement. That would have precluded assumption unless the shortcoming had been cured and assurances of future performance given. 11 U.S.C. §365(b)(1). (We cite the Bankruptcy Code as it was before the 2005 amendments. Kmart contended that it was in compliance and has not relied on the cureand assurance route. Even if Kmart was performing its duties in September 2003 (when the bankruptcy court allowed it to assume the contract). There is a controversy: Kmart wants damages for wrongful termination. That claim is tenable only if the contract was properly assumed under §365. The posture is similar to that of a case in which a district judge issues a preliminary injunction secured by a bond.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034097p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will reverse the judgment of the District Court in favor of the defendant and remand with directions to grant the Government's request for injunctive relief. Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in York Pennsylvania. The relevant market is the sale of prefabricated artificial teeth in the United States. Artificial tooth manufacturing is marked by a low or no growth potential. Is about 15 times larger than its next closest competitor. The other significant manufacturers and their market shares are: 4 Ivoclar Vivadent. There are hundreds of dealers who compete on the basis of price and service among themselves. The relationship is essentially terminable at will. Dealer Criterion 6 was enforced against dealers with the exception of those who had carried competing products before 1993 and were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200110/00-1141b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The same is true here: Trans Union's target marketing lists interest only Trans Union and its target marketing customers. Trans Union's lists are not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4BE9B652B6F1291888256D8A005C615D/$file/0215430.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Holding that there are material issues of fact as to the existence and terms of a contract. They are as follows: On February 7. Richard Grimes indicated that he was a manager employed by the City of San Francisco. Was retired on Social Security. 000 from Ameriquest at 9.75% was stated to exist in a mortgage GRIMES v. Told them that his company could offer them the loan at a rate of interest in the range of 6% to 8% and that after paying off the existing mortgage and several unsecured debts they would have $7. Among the documents that the Grimeses signed was a typewritten Loan Application for a fixed rate loan for $252. Opposite
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="381"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1995/95a1003p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiff alleges that she was required to guaranty a loan for the benefit of her spouse in violation of the ECOA. That plaintiff's right to initiate an action for damages based upon such alleged violation is barred by the statute of limitations. Was required to sign the Guaranty Agreement (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="377"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-8052.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Joelson argues that the BAP erred because the representations that she made to Cadwell were statements
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="377"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216559.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
As he should have.1 Instead. He stated that he was not working and As Dickerson recognizes. It is a crime for a person to withhold or falsify information about his work status.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="377"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2003/021603.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Paul Camiolo (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="377"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/10/00-7003.htm">00-7003 -- ADAMS V. GREENPOINT CREDIT CORP. INC. -- 10/06/2000<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Defendant Greenpoint Credit Corp. appeals the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's decision authorizing the bankruptcy trustee to avoid Greenpoint's lien as a preference. He argued that the lien was perfected when Greenpoint filed the lien entry form. Which was within ninety days of the petition. Greenpoint argued that the manufactured home was a consumer good and thus its security interest was automatically perfected under Okla. The bankruptcy court held that because the manufactured home was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/45814D6321BF8DA888256B5D005D4500/$file/0056559.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/05/052707P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is the second action that Mr. The bank is now known as U.S. Beyer's counsel that he was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="373"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/055428p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We disagree and will reverse. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The facts of the underlying RICO suit are straightforward. Weiss was employed by Tucker Anthony Sutro as an investment banker. He was insured by First Unum through a group insurance policy with Tucker Anthony Sutro. The policy provided long term disability benefits when the insured is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="373"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/02/021780P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
BACKGROUND GSI is a Minnesota corporation that operates as a natural gas marketing company. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="373"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1720_016.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are asked to decide the validity of a forum selection clause that appears in the following provision of a contract between NorVergence. Construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State in which Rentor's principal offices are located or. If this Lease is assigned by Rentor. The State in which the 2 No. 05 1720 assignee's principal offices are located. The contract is for the lease of telecommunications equipment by NorVergence to Aliano. Which is also Aliano's state). In a state or federal court in the state in which the assignee is headquartered. Which is headquartered in Illinois. The judge granted the motion on the ground that the forum selection clause is invalid and so is not an effective waiver of Aliano's objection to personal jurisdiction. The courts have divided over its validity. The decisions that hold the clause invalid or express skepticism about its validity invariably do so on the ground that the clause is not specific. That is incorrect. A threshold question is whether federal or state law governs the issue of validity.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="373"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2136.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
<SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="373"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011436.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
KOONS BUICK PONTIAC GMC Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Two claims were dismissed on summary judgment. Were placed in front of Gavin. Gavin noticed that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="373"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-4612_022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Any issuer that owns
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="366"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july99/95-2963.man.html">JENNINGS V. BIC CORP. (7/22/1999, NO. 95-2963)<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="366"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200311720.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The agreement indicated that the purchase price for the home was $58. After the construction was completed by Masterbuilt and approved by the Castleberrys in November 1988. 2 to whom the Castleberrys began making Daiwa Finance Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of Daiwa America Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="366"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0053p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="366"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19998007.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We held that the district court erred in certifying two classes under Rule 23(b)(3)2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because the plaintiffs had failed Our decertification of the class based upon predominance negates the need to address whether providing notice of this action by means of publication rather than by individual notice was proper. One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class. (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class. (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. 2 to demonstrate that common issues predominated.3 The first class of plaintiffs. An action may be maintained as a class action if the prerequisites of subdivision (a) are satisfied. That a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="366"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july99/95-2963.man.html">JENNINGS V. BIC CORP. (7/22/1999, NO. 95-2963)<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="366"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6C06D8136F71E47588256F00008266F4/$file/0335041.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The identity of the actual lender is not always clear. This case deals with whether old usury laws have caught up with modern practices in lending. Have the brokers and lenders involved here structured their transactions so clearly that there remain 12372 ZACHER v. We conclude that in certain instances they have. In others they have not. The plaintiffs appellants' (Borrowers) claims are timebarred by the applicable statutes of limitation. We will affirm in part and will reverse in part the orders of the district court. Will remand for further proceedings. Are the two lead cases in a group of putative class actions with similar allegations that were originally filed in King County Superior Court. Borrowers contend that their loans were usurious because Union and AMP were not licensed by the state of Washington to charge interest in excess of 12%. TMS and the Trust Defendants are subject to all claims and defenses that Borrowers may assert against Union and AMP. Union and AMP did not need licenses under the CLA because they were not lending their own money.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="366"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0226p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The landlords were the customers of the Water District and held the account for water service to the property. Page 2 District's policy that tenants and other non property owners cannot establish water service accounts in their own names because they are not property owners. We hold that the Plaintiffs have not established a due process or equal protection violation because they have not shown a legitimate claim of entitlement to water service and because Defendants' conduct does not shock the conscience. I. Background Because this matter is before the Court on an appeal from a grant of a motion to dismiss. The following facts are derived from the Midkiffs' First Amended Complaint and construed in the light most favorable to the Midkiffs. The Midkiffs have four young children. Monica Midkiff was pregnant and experiencing complications due to diabetes. The Water District is the exclusive supplier of water services to residents of Adams County. The Midkiffs contacted the Water District and requested that they be allowed to establish an account in their own names and have water service resumed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="366"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-9007.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Must debtors in chapter 7 proceedings simply state whether they intend to retain or surrender property of the estate that is collateral for a consumer debt. The debtors' payments under the loan agreement were current. The Bank argued that it was entitled to relief under the plain language of 11 U.S.C. 521(2). Which provides: [I]f an individual debtor's schedule of assets and liabilities includes consumer debts which are secured by the property of the estate (A) within thirty days after the date of the filing of a petition under chapter 7 of this title or on or before the date of the meeting of creditors. Whichever is earlier. Specifying that such property is claimed as exempt. Or reaffirmation (all agree that the minivan is ineligible for exemption and avoidance of the Bank's security interest) by entering an endorsed order requiring only that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="366"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2002/99-8007.opn.html">SIKES V. TELELINE, INC.(2/13/2002, NO. 99-8007)<BR></A><BR>
<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="366"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2002/99-8007.opn.html">SIKES V. TELELINE, INC.(2/13/2002, NO. 99-8007)<BR></A><BR>
<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="366"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=01&date=01&year=02">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="366"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C2FA43604F5CB31A8825723A005ACAC0/$file/0315955.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom Judge CLIFTON joins as to Part II A and II B: The question before us is whether a provision to submit to arbitration in a written franchise agreement is valid and enforceable. A three judge panel of our court held that the unconscionability of an arbitration provision contained in the franchise agreement is a question for the arbitrator to decide. It was error to hold that consideration of the unconscionability of the arbitration provision was to be determined by the arbitrator. Is unconscionable must be referred to the arbitrator. When the crux of the complaint is not the invalidity of the contract as a whole. Then the federal courts must decide whether the arbitration provision is invalid and unenforceable under 9 U.S.C. § 2 of the FAA.1 The federal courts cannot shirk their statutory obligation to do so simply because controlling substantive state law requires the court to consider. No cause of action in the complaint alleges that the franchise agreement is invalid because it is a contract of adhesion.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="366"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961171.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Elbeze told Mourning that there was a burgundy 1989 Town Car on the lot that had been driven a little less than 40. Who is black. She was greeted by Bernie Brown (no relation to the owner). Because Mourning was becoming agitated that the sticker on the burgundy Town Car reflected a price 2 that was $1. That was about $5. Though Mourning was willing to make a $5000 down payment. Her monthly obligation on the burgundy car would still have been $70 80 more than her stated maximum. Mourning was later notified by mail that her application had been rejected by two lenders. This time the application was approved. One possible explanation is that Mourning reported her total monthly income on the Pyles application as $4. Her income was listed as $4. As opposed to the 36 month loan that was the maximum available for the older vehicle at Brown. Both applications to Ford Credit contained a space for prospective purchasers under age 27 (Mourning would not have qualified) to provide their educational background.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="360"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-4004_024.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A settlement was reached in 2000: American Express acknowledged the Association's senior rights in the term
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="360"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/September2004/032868p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The dispute is an outgrowth of aggressive and expansionist banking f l o wi n g f rom the C ongressional liberalization in recent years of national banking laws. Citizens National Bank of Evans City (CNBEC) is a community bank founded in 1878 in Evans City. (CFG) is a subsidiary holding company of the Royal Bank of Scotland. CNBEC claimed that nine of these former Mellon Bank branches were located near CNBEC branches. In addition some of the branches in Butler County were located on the same streets.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="360"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-9003.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom Raskin & Berman was on brief. Was on brief. The question presented is the meaning of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="360"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972215.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Jones's complaint was amended on February 10. Are as follows. Largely because the closing costs for the loan were higher than Mortgage and Equity initially represented. The TILA docu2 ments given to Jones were defective because they under disclosed a $300.00 processing fee paid to Mortgage and Equity. Saxon would pay a bonus to Lenders if Lenders's loan was at a higher interest rate than the agreed par rate on loans Saxon agreed in advance to purchase. Since the loan was above par. Instituted foreclosure proceedings because Jones was in default. Jones's residence was sold at foreclosure to TCB. Jones was evicted from the residence in July 1996. Jones maintains that he is entitled to a declaratory judgment. That he is entitled to a return of record ownership of the subject property. 1992 loan transaction was a consumer credit transaction covered by 15 U.S.C. §§ 1635. Jones's position was that his TILA action was timely filed. He reasoned that the time period for rescission under 15 U.S.C. § 1635 was tolled because of the doctrines of fraudulent concealment and equitable estoppel.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="360"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=07-1483_017.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bankruptcy judges across the nation have divided over the effect of the unnumbered hanging paragraph that the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 added to §1325(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The unsecured portion is the amount by which the debt exceeds the current value of the collateral. With a rate of interest that the judge will set (rather than the contractual rate). This procedure is known as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="360"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/005047.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Johnson submits that compelling arbitration is precluded by an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="360"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1338.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Jeffrey A. With him on the brief were Peter J. Of counsel on the brief was Jonathan D. Describing the legal issues and identifying what proof it believed was lacking. Atrana stated that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="360"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1074.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was McPherson D. Of counsel on the brief was David B. With him on the brief were David W. Of counsel on the brief were Keith A. 2003 (claim construction order). conclude that the jury verdict of infringement was based on a partly incorrect claim construction. The judgment of infringement is reversed and the damages award vacated. The grant of a royalty bearing license during appeal is vacated. The issues raised by cross appeal are moot. BACKGROUND The Ross patent is for a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="360"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972215.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Section 1 the status is changed from UNPUBLISHED to PUBLISHED. Section 6 the status line is changed to read
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="360"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/01/022458P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendant argues that the district court erred in relying on a policy statement issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="360"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032868p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The dispute is an outgrowth of aggressive and expansionist banking f l o wi n g f rom the C ongressional liberalization in recent years of national banking laws. Citizens National Bank of Evans City (CNBEC) is a community bank founded in 1878 in Evans City. (CFG) is a subsidiary holding company of the Royal Bank of Scotland. CNBEC claimed that nine of these former Mellon Bank branches were located near CNBEC branches. In addition some of the branches in Butler County were located on the same streets.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="360"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FDB20710C4E7795988256DAD005B6212/$file/0215774.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="355"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043408p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appellants/Plaintiffs are physicians and their professional corporations who purchased life insurance through Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Associations (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="355"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar97/96-6159.opa.html">SMITH V. HIGHLAND BANK<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Smith v. Whichever is later....
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="355"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2002/01-15302.opn.html">CARMICHAEL V. NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORP. UNION CITY NISSAN (5/20/2002, NO. 01-15302)<BR></A><BR>
Sitting by designation.</P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="355"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar97/96-6159.opa.html">SMITH V. HIGHLAND BANK<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Smith v. Whichever is later....
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="355"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2002/01-15302.opn.html">CARMICHAEL V. NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORP. UNION CITY NISSAN (5/20/2002, NO. 01-15302)<BR></A><BR>
Sitting by designation.</P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="351"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/02-8059.htm">02-8059 -- EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORP. V. POLLEYS -- 02/04/2004<BR></A><BR>
Defendant Appellant Education Credit Management Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="351"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/02/96-4133.htm">96-4133 -- SINE ENTERPRISES, INC. V. JAGUAR CREDIT CORP. -- 02/26/1998<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff/Appellant Wesley Sine. Jaguar purchases contracts from dealers at specific rates and typically is assigned the rights and liabilities under the lease. Which were later assigned to Jaguar or Jaguar's predecessor in interest. The first sentence states the lessee understands the consumer lease disclosures made in this lease are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="351"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1220.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On page 36. Is vacated. The magistrate judge is free to reduce the amount embargoed to the net award plus anticipated costs and interest.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="351"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/07/033423P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was appointed as Receiver for GNBT. Was granted leave to substitute itself for GNBT as an appellee in this case. Suits to which the FDIC is party are generally deemed to arise under the laws of the United States and. Is a party shall be deemed to arise under the laws of the United States.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="351"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216567.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which was pending at the time the district entered final judgment. The district court concluded that the early termination provision was
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5E837DBE8AB0EBC388256E5A00707AD2/$file/9916814.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: We are asked to decide whether the decision of a state administrative law judge (
</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/Jan1998/98a1788p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Amending the March 13 order nunc pro tunc to preclude Ford from altering certain practices that were in effect as of the date of the March order. We will reverse the district court's September 19. Will vacate the district court's order awarding attorneys' fees and remand that issue for reconsideration. We otherwise will affirm. 1. Which provides that
</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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/08/97-6052.htm">97-6052 -- BRANNON V. BOATMEN'S FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OKLAHOMA -- 08/25/1998<BR></A><BR>
We are asked to address whether a parent subsidiary corporate relationship standing alone is enough to invoke RICO liability. Holding that it is not. The lending institution is authorized to procure the insurance itself and add these costs to the balance of the borrower's account. It was Boatmen's practice to charge consumers more than the actual cost of the insurance. Count I of plaintiffs' complaint alleges that Boatmen's is the RICO person and Bancshares the RICO enterprise. Count I</strong></center> <p> It is well settled in this circuit. The district court concluded that plaintiffs' allegation that Boatmen's conducted or participated in the conduct of its parent's affairs is insufficient to satisfy this requirement. 1962(c) claim was properly pleaded by alleging first. That the defendant corporation was both the person and the enterprise. Concluding that it was
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9650FC414B77635E88256A24005BACDB/$file/9916814.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: We are asked to decide whether the decision of a state administrative law judge (
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/12/976058P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bankruptcy Judge: This is the second appeal by Greenwood Trust Company and Discover Card Services. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982200.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Because we are reviewing a grant of summary judgment in favor of First Union. She was paid hourly. The position of team leader at First Union was a supervisory position. Smith was responsible for implementing and communicating collection procedures. Scoggins subjected Smith to a barrage of threats and gender based insults while she was under his supervision. Scoggins' remarks began when he informed Smith that he would have preferred a male in the team leader position because males are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BD0E3C0B69C465FA88256F6600014423/$file/0216903.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The main question in this case is whether a debtor may recover damages for emotional distress under 11 U.S.C. § 362(h) when a creditor violates the automatic stay that follows from the filing of a bankruptcy petition. We are persuaded that we erred and now answer
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/08/982442P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of THORN EMI. Which is a wholly owned subsidiary of TEMINAH. Is a wholly owned subsidiary of THORN EMI. Thereby ceasing to have a separate corporate existence. 2 1 interest rates on credit sales of consumer goods. The District Court certified the plaintiff class to include
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/05/061058U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</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/051989np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) and we have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will affirm. Who are familiar with the facts. We will only briefly revisit them here. Although Policyholders' primary role in these sales was to provide financing to the consumers by way of private label credit card accounts. Or FIE.1 The Policies were obtained through Policyholders' insurance brokers. Who are not parties to this litigation. The District Court determined that the FIE in the policy issued by Westchester was unambiguous and relieved it from the obligation to cover claims arising from Beneficial's issuance of credit card financing. Household and Beneficial were wholly unrelated companies. The essence of Policyholders' fraud claims is that Westchester tacitly represented that all of Policyholders'
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1905.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LLP</SPAN> were on brief. LLP</SPAN> were on brief. It appears that this is a case of first impression under Massachusetts law as to the revised § 9 204.</P> <P> Of primary concern here are revisions that altered § 9 204. Such as whether the obligations created along with the dragnet clause were of the same or similar type or class as other obligations.</P> <P> Our interpretation of the revised § 9 204 is informed by a second change to Article Nine that was also made by the 2001 amendments. It appears that this expansion of the definition of good faith has also not yet been addressed by Massachusetts' highest court.</P> <P> At stake is whether a commercial lender. Are primarily premised on CFC's unwillingness to release its first position security interest in Pride's assets. Pride argues that these contingent retail financing debts are not secured and thus that CFC has no right to insist on such a deposit before releasing the security interest. Contends that these future debts are indeed secured by a dragnet clause in its 1995 and 1996 wholesale financing agreements with Pride.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D9FCE2F8F111A37E88256A22005BE148/$file/9836268.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1291 and we affirm on all issues. Engstrand had almost all of his fingers amputated while working on a team that was splitting firewood for Little Joe's Tavern. The amount of such consumption is in dispute: CWIC claims only a moderate amount was drunk by the team while Troutt claims that the vats were flowing freely and that alcohol was a major contributing factor to Engstrand's accident. Was notified of the accident. The investigator was not notified of Lee Troutt's statement that did not attribute the accident to alcohol at that time even though Troutt's attorney possessed a copy of such statement in his file. Because the investigation failed to turn up any evidence that the accident was alcohol related. Stated during her deposition that both Lee Troutt and another member of the team were visibly intoxicated when they left the bar at 2:00 a.m. Lee Troutt admitted that it was possible that he had a hangover the day of the accident. Several members of the team were deposed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200003/99-5222a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Richard T. With him on the brief was Phillip L. With him on the brief were David W. Cooper is a member. The United States is likely to provide an estimated $2 billion in debt relief and monetary payments in consideration for the dismissal of the class' complaint alleging that USDA systematically discriminated against them on the basis of their race. Cooper contends instead that the benefits of the consent decree are illusory because USDA has 1 Mr. Cooper is the only member of the class to appeal although in noting his appeal he purported to file on behalf of himself individually and as a representative of a class of African American farmers. None of those persons is a named appellant. The Secretary of Agriculture are appellees. reserved the right in paragraphs 19 and 21 to undo the decree by regulatory fiat. No basis exists to conclude that USDA would promul gate such a regulation under laws in effect when the decree was approved by the district court. Cooper's con tention concerning the limitation of the district court's author ity by paragraph 21 is inconsistent with the plain language of that provision.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011211.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
For Appellee. *Judge Wilkins was assigned to the panel in this case but has since recused himself. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). 2 CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA) v. PARKER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. A cardholder's use of a credit card is treated as an implied representation to the credit card company that the cardholder intends to repay the debt. The issue thus becomes whether that implied representation was fraudulent. 1 CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA) v. If the creditor proves that the debt is consumer debt for luxury goods and establishes the other elements of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(C). She did not realize that her credit card debt would have to be included in her bankruptcy petition. She stated further that when her credit card was canceled in October 2000. The bankruptcy court ruled that Citibank had failed to establish that the challenged charges were for luxury goods and therefore held that Citibank was not entitled to a presumption of nondischargeability.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200115302.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a case of first impression concerning the Consumer Leasing Act. The issue is whether voluntary or involuntary repossession of a leased automobile constitutes
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1182.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. The motion was granted on December 21. Judgment was thereafter entered in Visa's favor. I The invention of the '028 patent is an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200610353.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The SEC asserted that these interests were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/063996np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Our review of the District Court's grant of summary judgment is plenary. We will affirm.1 I. DelPonte attended a training and instructional session and was given a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2500.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
After noting that the parties are of diverse citizenship (Evans is an Illinois citizen and American is incorporated and has its principal place of business in Florida). Although it did specify that the damages awarded were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C468283AE31FE9A0882571A9007CF0DD/$file/0435428.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on the briefs. Were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Circuit Judge: We must decide whether a mail solicitation for internet service is deceptive as a matter of law within the meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The check was addressed to the recipient and the recipient's phone number appeared on the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0606n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A two count information was filed against Defendant. Defendant's adjusted offense level was 19 and his criminal history score a 28. The recommended sentence was therefore 63 to 78 months of incarceration. The district court determined that a greater sentence was called for. Certain of Defendant's prior offenses were not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/02/056059P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The debtor appeals the bankruptcy court's1 order determining that he was not eligible to be a debtor in a bankruptcy case and its order dismissing his case. The debtor's case is governed by the Bankruptcy Code as amended by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. The certification was attested to under penalty of perjury. Because the certificate is of the ultimate significance. Residence and homestead was scheduled for foreclosure at 12:00 p.m. I was advised that I had to file a Chapter 13 Petition prior to 12:00 p.m. I had already attempted to get the mortgage company to stop the foreclosure so I determined that I would have to file the Chapter 13. I was advised that I had to complete credit or debt counseling prior to filing a bankruptcy and given the name of a Debt Counseling Service or Agency that had been approved by the U.S. That I called them and was advised that it would be two weeks before they could provide me with the debt counseling on the phone and that it would be twenty four hours before they could provide me with the counseling by internet.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200011/97-1715b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With them on the briefs were William R. With them on the brief was Jay L. With him on the briefs were J. Open access is the essence of Orders 888 and 889. Open access transmission is expected to increase competition from alternative power suppliers. Are intended to create a market in which customers may purchase power from any of a number of suppliers. Will no longer have to purchase power from its local utility but instead may seek cheaper power anywhere in the country. All key players in the electricity market have challenged various provisions of Orders 888 and 889. Utili ties have been heavily regulated at both the federal and state levels. Economies of scale have justified the construction of large (greater than 500 MW) generation facilities. Techno logical advances in the 1970s and 1980s have permitted small plants to operate efficiently as well. These alternative suppliers have created a wholesale market for low cost power. They have and will continue to exercise that market power in order to maintain and increase market share.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0244p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This Lease will be automatically renewed for subsequent one year terms upon the same terms and conditions. It being the intent of the parties that the term of this Contract will run concurrently with the term of the Lease executed as of even date herewith. This Contract will be automatically renewed and the term of the Contract extended for subsequent one year terms. Contractor fully acknowledges that this Contract with Contractee is a separate and distinct contract and is not associated with any other agreements. Contractor further acknowledges that Contractee is the retailer of the fuel facilty to be operated hereunder and that this Contract does not give any rights to the Contractor as a fuel retailer. That may have existed between Contractee and Contractor. Contractor agrees that all funds collected for fuel sales are the property of the Contractee and further agrees to act as the agent of Contractee in the collection and safe keeping of all monies collected for sale of fuel. Main explained that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200006/97-1715a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With them on the briefs were William R. With them on the brief was Jay L. With him on the briefs were J. Open access is the essence of Orders 888 and 889. Open access transmission is expected to increase competition from alternative power suppliers. Are intended to create a market in which customers may purchase power from any of a number of suppliers. Will no longer have to purchase power from its local utility but instead may seek cheaper power anywhere in the country. All key players in the electricity market have challenged various provisions of Orders 888 and 889. Utili ties have been heavily regulated at both the federal and state levels. Economies of scale have justified the construction of large (greater than 500 MW) generation facilities. Techno logical advances in the 1970s and 1980s have permitted small plants to operate efficiently as well. These alternative suppliers have created a wholesale market for low cost power. They have and will continue to exercise that market power in order to maintain and increase market share.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1111.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. With whom Richard Briansky was on brief. Nuzzo's discharge was not permanent it turned out to be the functional equivalent of a six month suspension without pay but Nuzzo vociferously blamed Taraskiewicz for his predicament. Brooks knew that Nuzzo blamed Taraskiewicz for his enforced vacation and that Nuzzo harbored considerable ill will toward her. Brooks was a peripheral player. Wondered whether there was a stool pigeon among the baggage handlers. Nuzzo posited that Taraskiewicz was the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-4021.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Guises were assessed a finance charge of $434. A company that is under common ownership and management with The Loan Arranger. The plaintiffs argue that because the title insurance and endorsement fees were not disclosed as finance charges. The statement of finance fees was understated in excess of the permitted margin of error provided in 25 U.S.C. § 1605(f)(2)(A) and 12 C.F.R. § 226.23(g). The plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to rescind their loan. Finding that the finance charges disclosed were within the applicable TILA tolerance. We also
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F52C75525CA7ECDF88256E5A00707ACB/$file/9836268.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1291 and we affirm on all issues. Engstrand had almost all of his fingers amputated while working on a team that was splitting firewood for Little Joe's Tavern. The amount of such consumption is in dispute: CWIC claims only a moderate amount was drunk by the team while Troutt claims that the vats were flowing freely and that alcohol was a major contributing factor to Engstrand's accident. Was notified of the accident. The investigator was not notified of Lee Troutt's statement that did not attribute the accident to alcohol at that time even though Troutt's attorney possessed a copy of such statement in his file. Because the investigation failed to turn up any evidence that the accident was alcohol related. Stated during her deposition that both Lee Troutt and another member of the team were visibly intoxicated when they left the bar at 2:00 a.m. Lee Troutt admitted that it was possible that he had a hangover the day of the accident. Several members of the team were deposed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0147p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200115828.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: At issue in this case is whether a loan servicer may appear in Bankruptcy Court to protect a claim relating to the debt that it services. We conclude that a loan servicer is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="334"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3734_020.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The question presented by these consolidated appeals is whether the assignee of a debt in Illinois is free to charge the same interest rate that the assignor the original creditor charged the debtor. Even if the assignee does not have a license that expressly permits the charging of a higher rate. The interest rates that the credit card companies that are the assignors in this case charged delinquent borrowers had been 22.99 percent to Dawson and the 2 Nos. 04 3734. That is not the basis of his suit.). The plaintiffs explain that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="334"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5C798066B53CD96088256F18007C604E/$file/0135406.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is the incumbent local exchange carrier (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="327"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C03/03-40691-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We refer to them collectively. 2 1 lions of consumers who have purchased a car in Texas since 1994. The tax was just another overhead expense to be absorbed as part of the sales price. Defendants are engaged in horizontal price fixing. Have been unjustly enriched. Is hereby declared to be illegal.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="327"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962606.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Senior Circuit Judge: This is an appeal by C.B. SmithKline began circulating with its product a freestanding advertising insert coupon which claimed that the Massengill douche was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="327"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1485.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
O'Connor and Peabody & Arnold were on brief for National Credit Union Administration. Billings with whom Sally & Fitch was on brief for Michael Putnam and Maureen Putnam. I Background The following background is relevant to this appeal: 1. The record shows that the jury finding could have rested on evidence that Amirault made one. Since the offering price per unit was considerably less. The investment was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="327"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3487.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Fairbanks sent the Schlossers a letter asserting that the debt was in default. Fairbanks was mistaken. The Schlossers were not in default. Because the debt was not actually in default when Fairbanks acquired it. Fairbanks was not a debt collector within the meaning of the FDCPA. 10% of which were identified as in default. The Schlossers' mortgage was delinquent at the time of the transfer. Notifying the Schlossers that they were in default. This letter is a formal demand to pay the amounts due. In the event that these sums are not paid to Fairbanks Capital Corp. WILL BE ACCELERATED and foreclosure proceedings will be instituted. . . . You have the right to bring a court action if you claim that the loan is not in default or if you be No. 01 3487 lieve that you have any other defense to the acceleration and sale. . . . This letter is from a debt collector and is an attempt to collect a debt. Any information obtained will be used for that purpose. 3 When the Schlossers tried to make their regular monthly payment to Fairbanks.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="327"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B05870C709ECC1EC88256EF40081A34C/$file/0235965.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: We must decide whether Indian tribes have sovereign immunity from an Idaho state tax on motor fuel delivered by non tribal distributors to tribally owned gas stations for sale on Indian reservations. The state is barred from re litigating the matter. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Substantially all proceeds from the state motor fuel tax are used for highway construction and maintenance. When such fuels are not for the exclusive use of the United States. (b) The officer in charge of such reservation shall. Or the District of Columbia within whose borders the reservation is located. Showing the amount of such motor fuel with respect to which taxes are payable under subsection (a) for the preceding month. 4 U.S.C. § 104 (emphasis added). The amended law declared that the legal incidence of the tax was not on the retailer. Was on the distributor. 2002 Idaho Sess. To expressly impose the legal incidence of motor fuels taxes upon the motor fuel distributor who receives (as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="327"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-3474.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
800.00 was executed between BNC and the McCarthys. Option One was designated as servicer of the loan. Just over one year after the loan was executed. 376.39 was assessed. The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the parties to this action are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75. Alternative mortgages are mortgages in which the interest rate or finance charge may be adjusted or renegotiated. Fixed term transactions are involved. 12 U.S.C. § 3802(1).1 Although federally chartered lenders were previously permitted to issue alternative mortgages. The Parity Act's purpose is to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="327"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1069.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Class members have appealed. The judge ordered the challengers to post a $3.15 million appeal bond on the ground that if the settlement were delayed Fleet would lose the ability to pay the amounts that it had agreed to pay in the settlement. There was no basis for this concern. We vacated the bond. 2 No. 03 1069 The suit was brought on behalf of approximately 1.6 million persons whose home mortgages were owned by Fleet Mortgage Corporation. The unauthorized transmission of the information to the marketers is alleged to have violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act along with state consumer protection laws plus state common law protections against invasion of privacy. While the use of the information to trick people into buying from the telemarketers is alleged to have violated both the federal Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act and state consumer protection laws. There are thus two plaintiff classes. 000 members of the first class who were victims of the telemarketers. As is common.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="327"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/56ADB59DAD4DF55388257248007DAED4/$file/0372511.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued the case and was on the briefs of petitioners Nevada Power Company and Sierra Pacific Power Company. Were also on the briefs as attorneys for the same parties. Argued the case and was on the briefs of petitioner Southern California Water Company. Lyons was also on the briefs as attorney for the same party. Argued the case and was on the briefs of petitioner Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County. Were also on the briefs as attorneys for the same party. 19546 PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT v. Were on the briefs of petitioner Office of the Nevada Attorney General. Argued the case and was on the briefs of the respondent. Were also on the briefs as attorneys for the respondent. Was on the brief of intervenor Public Utilities Commission of Nevada. Were on the joint brief of the intervenors. Were on the joint brief of the intervenors. Were on the brief of intervenor Mirant Americas Energy Marketing LP. Will & Emery LLP. Were on the brief of intervenor Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. Argued the case and was on the joint brief of the interve PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="327"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1049.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Wilcox & Galvani was on brief for appellants. Ropes & Gray were on brief for appellees. We affirm the district court's ruling that statutes of limitations barred all of plaintiffs' claims and uphold the district court's denial of Dime's motion for Rule 11 sanctions because that denial was not an abuse of the court's discretion. 1. Dime is a federally chartered savings bank. It is unclear from the record whether DRES MA was merged into Dime or whether it was dissolved. 4 4 effort was part of Dime's national campaign to expand rapidly its home lending business. A principal feature of an Impact Loan was an initial
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="327"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct05/03-40691-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We refer to them collectively. 2 1 lions of consumers who have purchased a car in Texas since 1994. The tax was just another overhead expense to be absorbed as part of the sales price. Defendants are engaged in horizontal price fixing. Have been unjustly enriched. Is hereby declared to be illegal.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="323"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/479E84E9EF5028C288256BD1007B3FC2/$file/0116206.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which are fees paid by mortgage lenders to mortgage brokers that are based on the difference between the interest rate at which the broker originates the loan and the par. Are lawful under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). RESPA prohibits the giving or receiving of fees for referral as part of a real estate settlement service but permits fees that are paid for facilities actually furnished or services actually performed in the making of a loan. We do not write on a clean slate in deciding whether the yield spread premium was a referral. Which is charged with enforcing RESPA. It asks whether services were actually performed for the total compensation paid to the mortgage broker. Whether that compensation is reasonably related to the services provided. It then granted summary judgment in favor of Banc One on Scheutz's claim that its payment of the yield spread premium was really for a referral of business by Home Mortgage. That Home Mortgage's total compensation (of which the yield spread premium was a part) was reasonably related to the services provided.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="323"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2003/991324.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Enough is Enough. In which the Court held that our decision affirming the District Court's grant of a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="323"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-6311.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court found that there were no facts suggesting he actually assumed his mother's mortgage or that Countrywide extended him credit. The district court found there were no genuine issues of material fact concerning Mr. The District Court order granting summary judgment to the defendants is VACATED for want of subject matter jurisdiction to address the merits of Mr. Crutchfield purported to notify both Countrywide and MERS that he was exercising his right to rescission pursuant to TILA. The court held that the Oklahoma default judgment was not void for lack of proper service. Crutchfield's argument that there was insufficient evidence of the relationship between MERS and Countrywide to warrant summary judgment as a matter of res judicata. Crutchfield responded that there was sufficient evidence of a <hr> consumer credit transaction to survive summary judgment. Finding that there was no evidence of either a consumer credit transaction or a written assumption. Crutchfield would not have rescission rights under TILA.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="323"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2002/002713.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The District Court held that it was clear from the complaint that plaintiffs' claims are subject to the two year statute of limitations governing actions for fraud under Virgin Islands law and that their filing of an earlier identical action in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. Which was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Since the complaint in this case was not filed within the two year limitations period. Plaintiffs submit that the most appropriate statute of limitations under Virgin Islands law is the catch all six year statute of limitations for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="323"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-1088a.html">LA PUB SVC CMSN V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
Fontham</i> argued the cause for petitioners. <p> With him on the briefs were <i>Noel J. With him on <p> the brief were <i>Jay L. With him on the brief was <i>J. Vincent</i> were on the <p> briefs for intervenor Occidental Chemical Corporation.<p> <p> <i>Mary W. Ortman</i> were on the brief for intervenors City of <p> New Orleans and Arkansas Public Service Commission.<p> <p> Before: Wald. To order a <p> refund from the subsidiaries that were undercharged by <p> virtue of the tariff violation to the customers of the over <p> charged subsidiaries. Entergy's <p> subsidiaries are linked by more than common parentage: <p> each subsidiary makes its capacity available to its sister <p> <p> <p> companies as a backstop for when demand exceeds self <p> generated supply. Even when it is not tapped for <p> power generation. Since the subsidiaries' retail rates are set <p> by state regulators based on principles of cost of service <p> ratemaking. It would be inequitable vis a vis a subsidiary's <p> retail customers for that subsidiary not to earn compensa <p> tion from its sister companies when it keeps capacity on hand <p> for them.<p> <p> The Entergy subsidiaries' response to this problem of cost <p> equalization <i>inter se</i> is the System Agreement.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="323"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2003/021125.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
An indenture trustee was denied recovery from sureties on performance bonds. We will affirm. Was the indenture trustee for a series of corporate notes of Transportation Leasing Corporation and Voyageur Lines. These notes were sold to the public by a group including David Namer of Memphis. With the representation that payments were guaranteed by surety bonds. While those actions were pending. Sentinel was removed as trustee by disgruntled noteholders and was replaced by Nevada State Bank. One of whose terms was that the Chancery Court's judgment for damages would be vacated. Universal and the surety companies were not parties to that order. Before the vacatur was actually docketed. The Court denied the contract claims because Sentinel was no longer a trustee. The obligations on the surety bonds were not owed to it personally. Sentinel was viewed as a mere
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="323"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3669_018.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is the second time we visit the fairness of a proposed class settlement stemming from Fleet Mortgage Corporation's (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="323"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1676.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Evans</SPAN> were on the brief. PC</SPAN> were on the brief. Flynn is an electrical engineer and robotics scientist who wrote a book with a colleague. The book was published in 1993 by Jones &. The book was a great success. Hoping to have the revised edition published by the next spring. Asking if she was amenable to the proposed revision with Seiger's assistance. That is. We are pleased that you have agreed to our suggestion regarding the 2d edition of Mobile Robots. We will be forwarding a contract to you soon for the signature.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="323"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTQ4ODdfc28ucGRm/05-4887_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="323"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/02/00-6100.htm">00-6100 -- HARDISON V. BALBOA INSURANCE CO. -- 02/16/2001<BR></A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="323"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-2707_017.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Credit was extended by General Electric Capital Corporation through the auspices of Monogram Credit Card Bank of Georgia. It was represented by Blatt. Beler's unpaid balance was $731. Judgment was entered accordingly. Who asserted that the entire balance was exempt because all of her current income consisted of disability payments from the Social Security program. The Law Firm chose not to contest this assertion though Beler might have had assets independent of Social Security income and dismissed the citation. The account was frozen for 23 days between the Bank's receipt of the citation and the Law Firm's release of the citation. The Law Firm does not contend that these contentions should have been raised in state court. GE Capital was not clear enough to enable an unsophisticated consumer (see Gammon v. The Law Firm is a debt collector. We suggested (though we did not have an occasion to hold) that the state's rules of procedure. It is far from clear that the FDCPA controls the contents of pleadings filed in state court.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="323"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/08/986024P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nelson is an associate degree nurse and the single mother of two children. Her current hourly wage is $18.28 per hour. Nelson's net monthly income is $2. 160.36 and her monthly expenses are $2. The balance on the Note was $10. The debt on the truck was $17. Is accurate The Honorable William L. United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Iowa. 3 2 despite the fact that her 1997 income tax return indicated that her gross income was $41. Testify that her monthly expenses were understated. She said her expenses were really $2. Was accurate. There was some reference to the fact that the fair market value of the truck is approximately $10. Was offered at the hearing. Nelson further testified that camping is her family's main form of recreation. Found that the camper is a luxury item. That the camper is not a luxury item. That she will be unable to repay a substantial portion of her unsecured debt in a Chapter 13. 3 II We note first that this is an interlocutory order. Nelson could have converted her case to Chapter 13 within the time allotted by the bankruptcy court.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="323"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199904/98-1088a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Noel J. With him on the brief were Jay L. With him on the brief was J. Vincent were on the briefs for intervenor Occidental Chemical Corporation. Ortman were on the brief for intervenors City of New Orleans and Arkansas Public Service Commission. To order a refund from the subsidiaries that were undercharged by virtue of the tariff violation to the customers of the over charged subsidiaries. Entergy's subsidiaries are linked by more than common parentage: each subsidiary makes its capacity available to its sister companies as a backstop for when demand exceeds self generated supply. Even when it is not tapped for power generation. Since the subsidiaries' retail rates are set by state regulators based on principles of cost of service ratemaking. The Entergy subsidiaries' response to this problem of cost equalization inter se is the System Agreement. If the company's actual capability is less than its capability responsibility. Then the company is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="323"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2000/981113.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Kelt was to repay Horizon with interest. Horizon was to receive half of Kelt's profits. Deglau was to get an annual salary of $80. Kelt's stock and all of its assets were pledged as security for this loan. The Loan Agreement was negotiated by Deglau's lawyer. The terms of the loan agreement are disputed. Will be discussed below. 000 line of credit if it was personally guaranteed by Deglau and his wife. The note itself was signed in blank. It was eventually filled out to reflect a $200. He was personally liable for the additional $100. He tells us he was assured verbally that the Guaranty would apply only to the $200. Horizon was experiencing financial turmoil. Was 1. Citations to the Appellant's Appendix will be indicated by R.[page]. 3 eventually taken over by the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) and later by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).2 In 1990. The FDIC advised Deglau that he was in default on the 1985 Kelt note for about $1.3 million. A familiarity with judgment by confession as undertaken in Pennsylvania is essential to the decision of this case.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="323"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053530p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred in certifying a class when defendant asserted a defense unique to the claims of the class representative. We will vacate and remand. Beck did not have an outstanding loan with the Department of Education. Beck called Maximus to clarify she was not the debtor in question. She knew it was intended for the other Donna M. Beck and was sent to Inolex in error. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is intended to protect both debtors and non debtors from misleading and abusive debt collection practices. From
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="323"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1996/96a1467p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(App. 16a) The dispute that remains is over the interest on the debt. Which was significantly higher than the rate usually charged by federal agencies to states. Claiming primarily: (a) that HHS's use of the private consumer rate was not only arbitrary and capricious but inconsistent with the common law and (b) that HHS did not follow the proper procedures in enacting its interest rate regulation. Were to be charged a rate of interest based on the prevailing private consumer rates. Op. at 2) HHS's action was in response to congressional enactment of the Debt Collection Act of 1982 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="323"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0257p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The sole basis of federal subject matter jurisdiction in this case was Terrance Golden's single claim pursuant to the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. The pre tax purchase price of the vehicle was $42. The vehicle was at Gorno Ford's repair facility for a total of 44 days. The Mustang was returned to Gorno Ford's repair facility for warranty repairs. The first set of repairs was completed on June 1. This set of repairs was not completed until July 12. The persistent problem was that the Mustang's serpentine belt and throttle cable rubbed against the insulation under the hood. On the same date that the Mustang was purportedly repaired a second time. Golden returned the vehicle to Gorno Ford for warranty repairs because it was leaking fuel. This repair was completed on April 10. Golden was worried about the possibility of a fire. The basis for the motion was that Golden's Magnuson Moss Warranty Act claim failed to meet the $50. The issue before the district court was whether the entire amount of the contract.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="323"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept96/95-8046.opa.html">ANDREWS V. AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH CO.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Andrews v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="323"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/03/021066P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
They contend that their loan was not consummated on January 26. That because this notice was inaccurate. They are entitled to an extended three year period to rescind. They argue that the court should have instead borrowed the Minnesota six year statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Are married and live in Coon Rapids. The Gaonas are both deaf. Their primary method of communicating is through American Sign Language. For an interpreter and that none was provided. The loan was funded and the money was disbursed on February 1. They claim that their mortgage loan was not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="323"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022100.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
HAWKE 3 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Are codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 6701 and 6714. Rather than to the provisions as codified. 2 The West Virginia Bankers Association is a banking trade association consisting of community banks. Savings and loans located in West Virginia. 3 The Joint Appendix is cited as J.A. in this opinion. 4 CLINE v. Were preempted by federal law. Where there is a regulatory conflict between a State insurance regulator and a Federal regulator. The Federal or State regulator
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="323"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/06/001221P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2 appeals from the order of the District Court granting the United States summary judgment on IES's claim for tax refunds to which IES contends it is entitled as a result of securities trades that the court held to be sham transactions. That IES is entitled to deduct fifteen years' worth of environmental cleanup cost assessments in the tax year in which the amount of the liability was determined. Will affirm if the record shows no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The material facts are undisputed. The question of law before us is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="323"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept96/95-8046.opa.html">ANDREWS V. AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH CO.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Andrews v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/feb96/94-1285.html">UNITED STATES V. 9844 S. TITAN CT.<BR></A><BR>
There is merit in both arguments. These were adjacent units in an industrial condominium. Philip May was indicted on January 28. He was convicted on all counts. He was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. Frances May was never arrested or charged with any crime. Contending that the property was connected with the sale and distribution of controlled substances under 21 U.S.C. 881(a)(6) and (a)(7). By reason of any act or omission established by that owner to have been committed or omitted without the knowledge or consent of that owner. (7) All real property. Which is used. By reason of any act or omission established by that owner to have been committed or omitted without the knowledge or consent of that owner. (1) The May home at 1277 South Memphis in Aurora. Unit 9 was purchased with marital funds but was titled in Philip's name only. (3) The $13. 050 in cash that Philip had with him when he was arrested. (4) The $2. Arguing that he was unable to stop the searches as promised once the police took him from the search sites.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/06/97-1147.htm">97-1147 -- LADICK V. GEMERT -- 06/09/1998<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200005/99-5158a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Robert B. Crotty were on the brief for amici curiae American Bankers Association and Association of Banks in Insurance. Sinder argued the cause and was on the brief for appellees. Filed suit in the district court claiming that this interpretation was incorrect as a matter of law. 12 U.S.C. s 24 (Seventh) confers the following powers upon national banks: [National banks shall have the power] [t]o exercise ... all such incidental powers as shall be necessary to carry on the business of banking. The most pertinent phrase to this case is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EB5D7C138F642F8B882569EB0062542E/$file/9915856.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Appellee Rory Dean Hunt filed for bankruptcy and Appellant First Card commenced an adversary proceeding to have Hunt's debt to First Card declared nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) on the ground of actual fraud. That decision was not appealed. The fee award was slightly reduced but otherwise affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). First Card sought to have that debt declared nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). Hunt was represented pro bono in the § 523(a)(2)(A) proceeding by McGeorge School of Law's Community Legal Services (McGeorge).1 1 We commend McGeorge and its law students for their pro bono representation of Hunt in this case. 1548 First Card alleged that Hunt
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1994/94a0831p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lawrence Seidman (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199802/97-1024a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on the brief. The Commission held that Koch's accounting system was violative of its tariff and ordered Koch to refund over $3 million in net revenues to its customers. 186 (1997). equal footing.2 Its primary method for achieving greater competition was to require that pipelines unbundle (i.e. Pipelines were thus required to provide transportation service at equivalent levels of quality without regard to whether the gas had been purchased from the pipeline or from another supplier. As we have recently noted. Because customers were permitted to purchase trans portation as a separate service. Pipelines might find it difficult to regulate imbalances in the amount of gas that was being delivered to. It must
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AFF4B22C93D28B2A88256E5A00707A31/$file/9915856.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Appellee Rory Dean Hunt filed for bankruptcy and Appellant First Card commenced an adversary proceeding to have Hunt's debt to First Card declared nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) on the ground of actual fraud. That decision was not appealed. The fee award was slightly reduced but otherwise affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). First Card sought to have that debt declared nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). Hunt was represented pro bono in the § 523(a)(2)(A) proceeding by McGeorge School of Law's Community Legal Services (McGeorge).1 1 We commend McGeorge and its law students for their pro bono representation of Hunt in this case. 1548 First Card alleged that Hunt
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct95/94-2384.opa.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>In re Vann United States Court of Appeals. The court rejected the creditor's claim that reasonable reliance was an overly stringent standard or. Which was materially false under section 523(a)(2)(B)
OPINION/ORDER
LLC were on brief. DeGiacomo were on brief. This may not be the type of redemption agreement that section 722 contemplates have agreed to cancel that right of repossession on payment of an
OPINION/ORDER
Are preempted by section 36 of the National Bank Act (NBA). I. Bank One is a national bank organized under the NBA. Its main office is located in Salt Lake City. Seeking a declaration that provisions of the Iowa EFTA restricting out of state banks from operating ATMs within Iowa are preempted by the NBA and praying for the issuance of a preliminary and permanent injunction. Finding that the challenged provisions of Iowa law were not preempted and concluding that Bank One was unlikely to succeed on any of its constitutional claims. 649 (8th Cir. 1997) (reviewing a district court grant of a preliminary injunction and granting a permanent injunction because all issues were questions of law). We must determine whether a permanent injunction is appropriate. 3 In determining whether a preliminary injunction should be issued. The balance between this harm and the harm to the other party if the injunction is granted. The standard for granting a permanent injunction is essentially the same as for a preliminary injunction.
OPINION/ORDER
Robbins and Rubin & Rudman were on brief for appellants. Was on brief for Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture. Carens & DeGiacomo were on brief for Massachusetts Farm Bureau Federation. Based on findings that rising production costs and flat dairy prices were devastating the industry.1 The Commissioner determined that a price stabilization system was necessary. Into which each licensed milk distributor (dealer) in Massachusetts is required to pay monthly assessments (
OPINION/ORDER
The most significant issue on this appeal is whether the district court erred in holding that the PNC cash balance plan does not discriminate against older employees on the basis of their age. We will affirm the district court's November 21. Are not in dispute. PNC maintained a traditional defined benefit pension plan for its employees providing that a participant's normal retirement (age 65) benefit was calculated by multiplying a fixed percentage (1.3% for service up to and including 25 years and 1.0% for service in excess of 25 years) with the participant's years of service and final average pay. Which is a particular form of defined benefit plan. The accounts were
OPINION/ORDER
The court rejected the creditor's claim that reasonable reliance was an overly stringent standard or. Which was materially false under section 523(a)(2)(B)1. 1 The bankruptcy court concluded (1) Section 523(a)(2) provides that an individual debtor's debt incurred (2) for money. [or] (B) use of a statement in writing (i) that is materially false. (iii) on which the creditor to whom the debtor is liable for such money. There was no actual fraud. Even if there were false pretenses or false representations under section 523(a)(2)(A). City Bank was required to show reasonable reliance on Vann's representations and it failed to meet that standard. (3) that City Bank's reliance on Vann's materially false financial statement was unreasonable. False representation(s) or (iv) that the debtor caused to be made or published with intent to deceive.... will not be discharged in bankruptcy. added). § 523(a)(2) (emphasis actual fraud. Before the bankruptcy court will withhold discharge. Ends there. apparently are used by the circuit Three standards of reliance courts: (1) reasonable 2 The American Law of Torts provides that [i]t is a fundamental principle of the law of fraud throughout the United States.
OPINION/ORDER
Determining that the debts owed her were nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).1 Nangle appeals from this order. Which was entered on or about July 15. The appeal was thus stricken on or about December 8. Which is now final. 1 Because it was not necessary. Contacted her knowing she was represented by counsel. The judgment was
OPINION/ORDER
The court's assumption that 48 hours was
OPINION/ORDER
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > In re Vann United States Court of Appeals. The court rejected the creditor's claim that reasonable reliance was an overly stringent standard or. Which was materially false under section 523(a)(2)(B)
OPINION/ORDER
I. BACKGROUND Because we are reviewing entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendant. We will construe the facts in favor of the plaintiff. Floyd & Associates is a consulting firm that provides services to banks. Floyd would coordinate and assist in the installation of approved changes and install monitoring processes to track how the changes were working. The parties now dispute whether Star was obligated to pay for two changes that Floyd recommended. Was willing to do it for roughly one fifth of what Floyd intended to charge Star. The cost to Star would be
OPINION/ORDER
Is precluded from applying Chapter 13 plan payments from the Debtors' bankruptcy estates to postpetition interest on their nondischargeable student loan debts. Because we conclude that creditors are not precluded from applying bankruptcy estate payments to accrued postpetition interest on nondischargeable student loan debts. Which was confirmed on June 12. Will be paid in full through the Trustee.
OPINION/ORDER
Eighteen full service wholesalers who are also direct distributors for defendant R.J. Are full service distributors serving grocery and convenience stores and other retail outlets in a multi state region. All of the plaintiffs are direct distributors of defendant RJR. Cigarettes are divided into four price categories or tiers. Cigarettes are manufactured by defendant RJR (Camel and Winston cigarettes). Second tier and third tier cigarettes are also produced by the major manufacturers. Their prices are substantially lower than first tier cigarettes. Fourth tier brands are produced by smaller manufacturers (including Liggett and Commonwealth) and sell at prices somewhat lower than third tier brands. Non premium brands are collectively classified as
OPINION/ORDER
Paul Caruana was the sole shareholder and operator of a General Motors dealership. 000 cash into Tennessee Motors which it could do because Caruana was
OPINION/ORDER
Anna Marie Bowling Irrevocable Trust Page 2 The district court found that Spectrum's lien on the proceeds of a malpractice settlement was valid and enforceable. Therefore is invalid. Spectrum argues that the issue of the validity of the lien is precluded by two prior state court judgments approving the malpractice settlement. We conclude that the issue is not precluded by either of the state court judgments. That the lien on the settlement is prohibited by federal and state Medicaid law. I. BACKGROUND The material facts in this case are undisputed. Bowling has little or no control of her limbs and is unable to speak. Spectrum is the parent company of a group of providers of sub acute rehabilitation and nursing services. Bowling was admitted to GVHC in December 1998. The total customary cost of Spectrum's services provided to Bowling during the time she resided at GVHC was $639. The 1 It is unclear from the record how Bowling's co payments factor into the shortfall. Spectrum states that its total customary cost was $639.
OPINION/ORDER
The crux of this case is whether Nagle brought a successful action to enforce liability under the FCRA. Nagle contends that he was
OPINION/ORDER
Meagher & Flom were on brief. Frazier were on brief. Sanchez Betances & Sifre were on brief. McConnell Valdes were on brief. BACKGROUND This is presumably the final skirmish in a decade long conflict. Other jousts are chronicled in a series of published opinions. We believe that a condensed summary of the hostilities will suffice for the nonce. Although bureaucrats are reputed to abhor a vacuum. Ostensibly concerned that the oil companies were taking unfair advantage. Since large oil companies are not in business to lose money. A wholesaler could choose between paying a refund based on a retrospective GPM of 13 per gallon for the injunction period or paying one based on whatever profit margin would have allowed it to achieve an annual return on assets equal to the average return on assets for the electric utility industry. The wholesalers were not mollified. It revivified the court action originally instituted by the oil companies and filed a motion for restitution seeking an award equal to the excess profits that the wholesalers would have been forced to disgorge 2We refer to the three oil companies collectively as
OPINION/ORDER
The financing of the dish and the monthly service was to be provided through an agreement between Beneficial National Bank and Star Vision by way of an
OPINION/ORDER
Holding that Lewallen's claims were core bankruptcy proceedings. The loan was secured by a deed of trust on her trailer home. This arbitration agreement is made pursuant to a transaction involving interstate commerce. Lewallen's loan was in default at the time of the transfer. Lewallen attempted to refinance the loan with a new lender but her application was denied. Her home was the primary asset in the bankruptcy estate. That Green Tree's attorney's costs and fees were not a proper claim because they were attributable to Green Tree's own billing mistakes and failure to respond to Lewallen's inquiries. Although a hearing on Lewallen's objection was scheduled in the bankruptcy court for September 2004. The matter was continued several times. Counsel for Green Tree stated that an adversary proceeding was
Also committed common law fraud in transactions related to its financing of Turner's purchase of a satellite dish.
OPINION/ORDER
The financing of the dish and the monthly service was to be provided through an agreement between Beneficial National Bank and Star Vision by way of an
At issue is Southwestern Bell's domination of the Oklahoma pay phone market. The plaintiffs are nine independent pay phone service providers whose efforts to compete with Southwestern Bell succeeded only in whittling down the latter's market share to roughly 80 percent after two years of competition. We nevertheless believe that the challenged rulings were proper. Subject to certain regulatory requirements.
Pay phone service providers (
OPINION/ORDER
The question presented by this appeal is whether a claim by the Internal Revenue Service to recover an erroneous refund is dischargeable in bankruptcy even if as a consequence of the refund the debtor underpaid his taxes. It is dischargeable. What was assessed was a
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Jove Engineering v. We have resolved several issues which required clarification in this circuit. We remand to the district court to assess attorney fees consistent with 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19946372.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
171 B.R. 387 IRS cross appeals the district court's award of We have resolved several issues which attorney fees under § 105. required clarification in this circuit. All citations are to the 1994 United States Code. Initially we conclude we have jurisdiction to review the district court's order as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec2000/99-13381.man.html">TURNER V. BENEFICIAL CORP. (12/21/2000, NO. 99-13381)<BR></A><BR>
The financing of the dish and the monthly service was to be provided through an agreement between Beneficial National Bank and Star Vision by way of an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2001/99-13381.ma3.html">TURNER V. BENEFICIAL CORP. (2/22/2001, NO. 99-13381)<BR></A><BR>
Also committed common law fraud in transactions related to its financing of Turner's purchase of a satellite dish.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EB2B5317580712D08825728000567202/$file/0535167.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Among the named defendants were accounting firm KPMG. Swartz also sought a judicial declaration of defendants' liability for interest and penalties that might have arisen during an IRS audit. Believing amendment would be futile and that the request was procedurally improper. That the district court should have taken judicial notice of certain documents attached to his opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss. We affirm the district court's dismissal with prejudice of the RICO and WCPA claims as well as the request for declaratory relief because each was properly resolved on grounds independent of the reasonable reliance inquiry and because amendment would be futile in each case. Whether Swartz could demonstrate reasonable reliance on defendants' alleged misrepresentations was not properly settled as a matter of law under the allegations in the complaint. It would not have been futile for Swartz to amend. Swartz should have been given an opportunity to cure this defect through amendment. Swartz should have been granted leave to add alternative claims for securities fraud.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june96/94-4463.opa.html">VEALE V. CITIBANK<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Veale v. The loan was secured by a first security interest in the Veale's primary residence. The rest of the loan was used to pay $269.05 to Epic Mortgage. The loan was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1009.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Warner & Stackpole LLP were on brief. Procter & Hoar LLP were on brief. Viewing them as favorably to SMS as reason and the record will permit. These models were more powerful and more versatile than their predecessors and embodied certain distinctive technological advances. A three year warranty in the mid range server market was uncommon in 1994. One year warranties were the norm indeed. DEC's conception of a warranty as an instrument of competition is scarcely original. Because a warranty is a mechanism through which a consumer can protect himself against the uncertainties inherent in owning a product that likely will require parts and service over time. This attraction is magnified in some cases because a strong warranty signals a manufacturer's faith in the quality of its product. SMS's claim that DEC's warranty is anticompetitive appears odd at first blush. There is. The aftermarket for servicing computers is both dynamic and lucrative. SMS an ISO that operates nationally and specializes in servicing DEC equipment puts a sinister cast on DEC's introduction of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june99/98-6055.opn.html">RANDOLPH V. GREEN TREE FIN. CORP. (6/22/1999, NO. 98-6055)<BR></A><BR>
Sitting by designation.</P> <P>** This decision is rendered by a quorum. We conclude that the district court's judgment was an appealable
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200403/00-1012b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june99/98-6055.opn.html">RANDOLPH V. GREEN TREE FIN. CORP. (6/22/1999, NO. 98-6055)<BR></A><BR>
Sitting by designation.</P> <P>** This decision is rendered by a quorum. We conclude that the district court's judgment was an appealable
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0192p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The lawsuit was based upon allegations that PNC violated the Truth in Lending Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961814A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It is an authority constrained by no less a power than that of the People themselves. The constitution is written.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2003/023647.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Adderall is a central nervous system stimulant used in treating attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) available only by prescription 3 and dispensed to patients in pharmacy vials labeled
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2643.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. He argues that three conditions are overbroad and involve a greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary for the purposes of his supervised release. We review for plain error only. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/10/043192P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which held that Laura Susan Reynolds's student loans were discharged in bankruptcy. Reynolds contends that undue hardship is not a strictly pecuniary test and that the bankruptcy court correctly held that the detrimental effect of the loans on Reynolds's precarious mental health warranted discharging the debts. She was treated by a psychiatrist for agoraphobia and depression. She was able to make up the missed coursework and to graduate cum laude in 1992. She passed the Colorado bar exam and was admitted to practice law in that state. She was never The Honorable Ann D. She is married. She was only able to make the payments by paying for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug96/94-6372.opa.html">JOVE ENGINEERING V. IRS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Jove Engineering v. We have resolved several issues which required clarification in this circuit. We remand to the district court to assess attorney fees consistent with 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/100D75881883DBAE88256E58007285A8/$file/0117059.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on the briefs. Were on the briefs. Were on the briefs. 3290 CHURCHILL VILLAGE v. Although some were sold to individual consumers. The dishwashers were considered
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june96/94-4463.opa.html">VEALE V. CITIBANK<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Veale v. The loan was secured by a first security interest in the Veale's primary residence. The rest of the loan was used to pay $269.05 to Epic Mortgage. The loan was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/12/992007P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were given as security for the loan. The Clarins began to have trouble making payments in September 1996. Clarin's car was about to be towed from the company parking lot.5 Ms. Claims to have no documentation of the arrangement. This factual dispute has no bearing on our resolution of this case since it is undisputed that the Clarins failed to comply with the terms of the loan agreement. 5 4 Ms. Two men employed by Minnesota Repossessors were preparing it for towing. She did not further protest the repossession and the car was towed. The district court found that there was no breach of the peace under the UCC. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act was not violated. Clarin's oral protests was a breach of the peace violating the UCC. They argue that Minnesota Repossessors did not have the right to possess the Clarins's car because of the breach of the peace causing a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.6 Minnesota Repossessors made a motion to supplement the record. Note that the supplemental information is not relevant to our decision. 3 6 II.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec2000/99-13381.man.html">TURNER V. BENEFICIAL CORP. (12/21/2000, NO. 99-13381)<BR></A><BR>
The financing of the dish and the monthly service was to be provided through an agreement between Beneficial National Bank and Star Vision by way of an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19986699.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19986699.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may99/98-6699.opn.html">MS DEALER SERV. CORP. V. FRANKLIN (5/28/1999, NO. 98-6699)<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1460.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Palou & Miranda were on brief for appellant. Roberto Boneta and Mu oz Boneta Gonz lez Arbona Ben tez & Peral were on brief for appellee. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july97/96-9168.opa.html">JORDAN V. AVCO FIN. SERVS. OF GA., INC.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Jordan v. Senior District Judge.<p> <p> Plaintiffs/appellees are consumers who have filed suit against defendants/appellants.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1988.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: Cover sheet: Jay S. Reavis & Pogue were on brief for The Life Insurance Company of North America. Reavis & Pogue were on brief for The Life Insurance Company of North America. That are available through UHS. Two supplemental insurance options are available. That is. It lessens the risk that the LINA premium and the UHS clinic fee will reflect redundant coverage 1Graduate students are not required to pay the UHS clinic fee. Provided they have health insurance coverage that meets URI's requirements. for the same medical procedures.2 As a second option. Students who do not opt out of the LINA
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul29/03-21112.0.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. We have not decided whether to view collection notices from the standpoint of the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/08468E0D5E386A2F882572AC0077AD1A/$file/0457143.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That CCBill and CWIE were immune from liability for state law unfair competition and false advertising claims based on the Communications Decency Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-1098a.html">LA ENGY & POWER AUTH V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2A31B9ADAD5C7C56882572EC000096D9/$file/0457143.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 3577. Neither party in that case raised the question of whether state law counts as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974024.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
No. 97 4024 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Alami and three co defendants were charged with cooperating in a two year scheme by which high mileage automobiles were bought at auctions. Virginia to facilitate and conceal the fact that they were obtaining new titles for their vehicles which showed a falsified low mileage. Of which 84 were rollbacks. The sentencing guideline applicable to odometer tampering is USSG § 2N3.1. There is a cross reference to USSG § 2F1.1. The loss is the difference between the amount paid by the victims for the product and the amount for which the victim could resell the product. The probation officer estimated that Alami was responsible for rolling back the odometers on 273 cars and that. An average loss of $4000 per car was *United States Sentencing Commission. Presented no evidence when he was jointly sentenced with his codefendants. The district court decided to consider only the 84 cars which were proven rollbacks. Found that Alami was involved with only 80 of those cars.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-21112.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. We have not decided whether to view collection notices from the standpoint of the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may99/98-6699.opn.html">MS DEALER SERV. CORP. V. FRANKLIN (5/28/1999, NO. 98-6699)<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8D407A8FAA1E2A6C88256ABF004CE62A/$file/9936115.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Remanding these state suits to the courts from which they were removed. 000) is present in the consolidated action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review the district court's order 12498 dismissing the consolidated complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We must determine whether we have jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to the district court's order remanding the original actions to the state court from which they came. Six state actions were filed in Washington. [the Panel] is authorized to transfer civil actions pending in more than one district involving one or more common questions of fact to any district court for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings upon its determination that transfer `will be for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and will promote the just and efficient conduct of such actions.'
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BFC9ACF715B8958388256D980059BD38/$file/0115970.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2003 is amended as follows: At slip op. p.7821. The sale was completed. That holding is unexceptional in the context of the case where the court dwelt on the difficulty of using a later date.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Apr2002/013700u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge Vincent Monaco was the class representative in a consumer class action against Mitsubishi Motors Credit of America (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july97/96-9168.opa.html">JORDAN V. AVCO FIN. SERVS. OF GA., INC.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Jordan v. Senior District Judge.<p> <p> Plaintiffs/appellees are consumers who have filed suit against defendants/appellants.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06b0005p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The bankruptcy court's order is AFFIRMED. The bankruptcy court's order denying relief from the automatic stay is a final. The order confirming the Debtor's chapter 13 plan over Tidewater's objection is also a final order for purposes of appeal. 469 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 1998). 2 Because the parties to this appeal have stipulated to the facts underlying this dispute. A bankruptcy court's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. FACTS The underlying facts are undisputed. The vehicle was the collateral that secured the Debtor's obligation under the Contract. The Contract was subsequently assigned to Tidewater and its security interest was duly perfected. The accelerated balance owed pursuant to the Contract as of the filing of the chapter 13 petition was $10. The Debtor proposed a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="290"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F6FB9B2BEE8A48EE88256E5A00707CA6/$file/9936115.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Remanding these state suits to the courts from which they were removed. 000) is present in the consolidated action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review the district court's order 12498 dismissing the consolidated complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We must determine whether we have jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to the district court's order remanding the original actions to the state court from which they came. Six state actions were filed in Washington. [the Panel] is authorized to transfer civil actions pending in more than one district involving one or more common questions of fact to any district court for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings upon its determination that transfer `will be for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and will promote the just and efficient conduct of such actions.'
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0214p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Among those claims are two student loans totaling $94. ECMC argues that Barrett was required to provide corroborating evidence in the form of expert medical proof to establish that the circumstances underlying his inability to repay the loans will likely continue for a substantial portion of the repayment period. Barrett was diagnosed with Hodgkin's disease in the summer of 2000. Barrett was diagnosed as being at the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051409np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(2) the District Court's adverse credibility finding following trial was not supported by substantial evidence. Therefore Ricciardi should have prevailed on his claim under the Truth in Lending Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199913381.OP3.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court determined that detrimental reliance was a necessary element to each of Turner's claims and. 1369 (11th Cir. 1993) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199913381.MA3.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court determined that detrimental reliance was a necessary element to each of Turner's claims and. 1369 (11th Cir.1993) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jul1998/98a1925p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is a trademark action brought by Iberia Foods against Rolando Romeo. Because the Mistolin products sold by Rol Rom are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06b0001p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. ISSUE ON APPEAL The issue presented is whether the claims of Petitioning Creditors are subject to bona fide disputes. An order dismissing an involuntary petition is a final order that may be appealed by right under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). An order granting involuntary bankruptcy relief is a final order. Findings of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3422.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
These rules are called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/032411.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. I. Gordon is the class representative for purchasers of lessons from the J. The state court entered a proposed order that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1999/985526.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will remand for a reduction of the amount assessed. Defendant Taiwo Adeshola Akande was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment and directed to pay restitution of $83. Defendant was liable as a co conspirator under a separate provision in the statute. She stated that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1766.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.A. were on brief for appellants. P.A. and Julianne Cloutier were on brief for appellee Amy Bierbaum. Cabell and Hale and Dorr were on brief for appellees Verrill & Dana. McClennen & Fish were on brief for appellee RECOLL Management Corporation. Hochadel & Libby were on brief for appellee Fleet Bank of Maine. The issue is one of first impression. We have attached them in an appendix to our opinion. 2. As will be discussed infra. We believe the court erred in determining that this action was jurisdictionally barred. Section 3730(e)(3) states:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2103.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Woodworth & Evarts was on brief for Provident Life & Accident Insurance Company. Procter & Hoar were on brief for Pediatricians. Claiming that the coverage amount at the time of Flaherty's death was $200. Pediatricians also contends that it is entitled to attorney's fees. Final Judgment was entered September 20. Background The material historical facts are not in dispute. Of which he was president and 50% shareholder. The amount of this premium was $598.50 (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991944.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Section 1 the status is changed from
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-5160.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argue that Oklahoma's statutory scheme for specialty motor vehicle license plates is unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Motorists contend that Oklahoma's laws unlawfully discriminate against their views by permitting drivers to obtain license plates bearing the messages
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991944.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
No. 99 1944 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Alston was required to pay a ten percent fee for any late payments. Alston made late payments on several occasions and was charged a ten percent late fee. It is undisputed that under Virginia law. Crown Auto was not permitted to charge Alston a late fee in excess of five percent. Crown Auto repossessed Alston's car because she did not have required insurance. The district court found that Alston had produced no evidence to prove that the $85.00 fee was incident to the extension of credit and not charged in comparable cash transactions. The district court held that the fee was not a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/07/983586P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0022p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Judge Rogers would affirm the summary judgment against plaintiffs who have purchased indirectly from defendant. Judge Katz would find that all violations of the Act are properly analyzed under §§ 2(d) and (e) and not § 2(a). Summary judgment is therefore REVERSED on Count I as to all plaintiffs and on Count II as to those plaintiffs who purchase directly from defendant and AFFIRMED on Count II as to those plaintiffs who do not purchase directly from defendant. The case is REMANDED for further proceedings. Holding that eight out of ten of the plaintiff vendors did not have standing because they did not purchase cigarettes directly from Philip Morris. No plaintiffs proved that they were in competition with the other retailers. That the remaining plaintiffs who have standing are in competition with the other retailers.2 I. The Robinson Patman Act The Robinson Patman Act was passed in 1936 as an amendment to the Clayton Act.3 The Clayton Act is an antitrust law that primarily protected against
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="284"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/09/022894P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case was brought under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act by the Washington Post Company and its wholly owned subsidiary Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company. Purdy1 from appropriating Internet domain names2 that incorporate and are confusingly similar to their trademarks and servicemarks. Purdy was later found in contempt and fined for violating the injunctions. I. Both the common law and Congress have provided protection to the holders of recognized trademarks to prevent others from appropriating or copying them and taking advantage of the owner's good will for their own benefit. One legislative purpose of that act was to ensure that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="268"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200503/02-7057a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Fernando R. Perkins were on the brief of amici curiae AT&T Corporation. Were on the brief of amici curiae States of New York. With him on the brief were Michael K. Were on the brief for amicus curiae Commonwealth of Virginia. Were on the brief of amici curiae The United States and Federal Communications Commission supporting neither party. Roth and Laurence Gold were on the brief of amicus curiae Communications Workers of America in support of appellees. Ellis were on the brief of amici curiae BellSouth Corporation. Arguing: (1) the allegations in its complaint relative to the 1996 Act are materially different from the allegations held deficient in Trinko. (2) at least some of its allegations are of conduct independently proscribed by the Sherman Act.* We conclude that most of the allegations in Covad's complaint do not state an antitrust claim. The baseless and bad faith patent suit only the alleged refusal to deal states an antitrust claim and therefore should not have been dismissed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="268"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/055460np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs' claim was based on four grounds: newly discovered evidence. For the reasons set forth below we will affirm the District Court's order.2 The Defendant Banks include Bank of America Corp. The predicate acts of the RICO claim are mail and wire fraud. We noted that the term
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="268"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2308.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which are known also as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="268"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2002/01-10559.opn.html">BAILEY V. ALLGAS, INC. (3/8/2002, NO. 01-10559)<BR></A><BR>
The district court held the expert testimony with respect to key elements of the Robinson Patman Act claim was inadmissible. The district court held Appellants' claims failed even if the testimony was admissible. (Allgas) is a distributor and seller of liquid propane gasoline operating in Alabama. With the price of propane gas varying from office to office.</SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="268"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/02/971403P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. 1 securities law claims because the CD was not a security. Welter were shareholders in a corporation called Iowa Wisconsin Capital (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="268"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972492.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Some of the video footage was used by ABC in a PrimeTime Live broadcast that was sharply critical of Food Lion. 402 was entered on the various claims. I. In early 1992 producers of ABC's PrimeTime Live program received a report alleging that Food Lion stores were engaging in unsanitary meat handling practices. The allegations were that Food Lion employees ground out of date beef together with new beef. ABC reporters Lynne Dale (Lynne Litt at the time) and Susan Barnett concluded that they would have a better 5 chance of investigating the allegations if they could become Food Lion employees. Some of the videotape was eventually used in a November 5. The truth of the PrimeTime Live broadcast was not an issue in the litigation we now describe. Food Lion sought to recover (1) administrative costs and wages paid in connection with the employment of Dale and Barnett and (2) broadcast (publication) damages for matters such as loss of good will. Punitive damages were also requested by Food Lion. Diminished stock value or anything of that nature
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="268"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/942200A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lines 1 2 the sentence is changed to begin
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="268"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2002/01-10559.opn.html">BAILEY V. ALLGAS, INC. (3/8/2002, NO. 01-10559)<BR></A><BR>
The district court held the expert testimony with respect to key elements of the Robinson Patman Act claim was inadmissible. The district court held Appellants' claims failed even if the testimony was admissible. (Allgas) is a distributor and seller of liquid propane gasoline operating in Alabama. With the price of propane gas varying from office to office.</SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="268"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/07/984051U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The financing addendum stated that it was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="268"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7DFE0CEAE02C4E5988256CEE00808B5A/$file/0136076.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from an order granting summary judgment to Trust One Mortgage Corporation (Trust One) in a class action involving residential mortgages. The class is composed of all mortgagors whose Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage loans were funded by Trust One and whose mortgage brokers were paid compensation in excess of 1% of the aggregate loan amount (the Bjustrom class). Bjustrom is the representative class member. Such claim was not contained in Trust One's motion for summary judgment. I. There are no disputed facts. Trust One is an Irvine. Mortgage brokers are paid for this work. The amount of compensation they receive is regulated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The charge not to exceed: (i) $20 dollars or one percent of the original principal amount of the mortgage . . . whichever is the greater. 24 C.F.R. § 203.27(a)(2)(i). TRUST ONE MORTGAGE CORP. 3957 At issue are the lender paid broker fees denominated as yield spread premiums (YSP)2 and service release premiums (SRP).3 Both are disclosed to a borrower on a HUD 1 Settlement Statement.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="268"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1592.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case was tried to a jury. Which Softbelly's had abandoned in the district court and (though it is anyway too late) seeks halfheartedly to resuscitate on appeal. The issues at the trial were three. The first was whether
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="268"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/99-6099.htm">99-6099 -- PADDOCK V. FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA -- 04/26/2000<BR></A><BR>
The judgment provided compensation to the plaintiff class and ordered that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="268"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1670p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Profession or trade
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="268"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTEyNzgtY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-1278-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Dependents are persons that a defendant is legally responsible for supporting. affirm. Should have been less severe given the uncertainties of his financial situation. BACKGROUND Jaffe was a Vice President of Salomon Smith Barney and a longstanding Bank of New York (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="268"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1996/96a1272p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are confronted with a question of first impression for us: if a debtor. No bar date bankruptcy proceeding fails to list a claim on its schedule of creditors and the bankruptcy case is closed. Is the debt nonetheless discharged pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 727(b) and 523(a)(3). Dischargeability is unaffected by scheduling. After a case is closed. The debt in question was either discharged or excepted from discharge based on sections 523 and 727(b). The filing of a motion to reopen is not necessary to discharge the debt if the statutory exceptions to discharge do not apply. I.[fn1] Susan Judd and Lawrence Wolfe were married on December 27. 1990 and subsequently were divorced on April 26. Was listed under Schedule
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="268"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0101n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Arising out of the making of a series of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="268"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/05/953913P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case raises the question whether a judgment debt resulting from a medical malpractice action is dischargeable in bankruptcy. The Kawaauhaus maintain that it is not. Because it is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="268"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/192E3ECD8134788788256C2C00579F18/$file/0055293.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The question in this case is whether Thane has violated the federal trademark laws by its choice of name for its product. Trek products are sold through more than 1. Trek is the country's most popular and most respected bicycle brand. Trek was granted a United States trademark for the use of TREK on bicycles and bicycle frames. The most prominent athlete Trek sponsors is cancer survivor Lance Armstrong. Pictures of Armstrong with a TREK bicycle have appeared in The New York Times and on Wheaties boxes. Thane maintains that this venture was a failure. This stationary trainer would not have pedals. Because it is meant to be used while standing. 13384 THANE INT'L v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="268"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul28/03-20834-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With the district court's finding that the statement in the body of the letter is not deceptive and in violation of § 1692e(10). The letter leads an unsophisticated consumer to falsely believe that the settlement offer is a one time. It sent a collection notice letter to Goswami A second form letter was sent on January 25. The second letter was sent to Goswami in an envelope which bore a half inch thick blue bar across the entire envelope which contained the words
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="268"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/02/034057P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Michelson advised First Bank that Schmitt was unable to pay the debt. That Schmitt was advised of his Chapter 7 bankruptcy rights. Warning that interest will accrue on his account. Which prohibits a debt collector from contacting a debtor where the collection agency
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962674.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 1 the word
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1315.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Associates</SPAN> was on brief for appellant.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov94/94babbitt.html">BABBIT ELECTRONICS V. DYNASCAN CORP. BABBIT ELECTRONICS V. IT BECAME KNOWN TO THE PARTIES THAT COUNTERFEIT COBRA PRODUCTS WERE ENTERING THE LATIN AMERICA MARKET. BABBIT REQUESTED THAT DYNASCAN CONTACT THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN LATIN AMERICA ABOUT THE COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS BECAUSE BABBIT'S SALES WERE BEING AFFECTED BY THE COUNTERFEIT MARKET. THIS WAS NOT TRUE. DYNASCAN STATES THAT BY VIRTUE OF ITS USE OF THE COBRA TRADEMARK IN SOUTH AMERICA. DYNASCAN'S TRADEMARK IN THOSE COUNTRIES IS PROTECTED. THE COURT SEEKS TO ANSWER THE QUESTION OF WHAT THE LAW IS WITH REGARD TO TRADEMARKS IN EACH OF THE FOUR COUNTRIES. THE LAW AS SET FORTH IN THIS ORDER WILL BE THE LAW APPLIED IN DETERMINING THE APPROPRIATE ISSUES ON THE MERITS.[1] AT THE HEARING THE COURT HEARD FROM TWO EXPERT WITNESSES AS TO THE STATE OF TRADEMARK LAW IN THE FOUR COUNTRIES AT ISSUE. THE BRAZILIAN PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. THE CRITICAL LEGISLATION REGULATING TRADEMARKS IN BRAZIL IS THE INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY CODE."><BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2289.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Murray with whom Lorusso & Loud was on brief for Aastar Mortgage Corp. P.C. was on brief for Star Financial Services. The court should have granted its motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed. Reversal of the denial of the motion is warranted
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1738.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for the petitioners.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTU1MTktY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5519-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1132.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellants. Were on brief for Colour Library Books. Were on brief for The Winston Company. Although the photograph was meant to appear in a coffee table book titled Boston: City of Dreams. It was never published or distributed. Provides information about dining and entertainment in France and is sponsored by the Cooperation Gesellschaft fuer Markendiversifikation mbh. At least 305 copies of various French magazines containing the advertisements were distributed to. At least 183 of these were sold from. Fellow police officers told Noonan that a magazine with a picture of him on the back cover was circulating. As a result of what Noonan felt was an attack on his reputation. Defendant Lintas:Paris is a French corporation. Reynolds Tobacco (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2002/021036u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm the district court's judgment. We recount the facts and the procedural history of the case only as they are relevant to the following discussion. Inc. (hereinafter referred to collectively as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/50894307526F028E882573470051A54F/$file/0556642.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Although DeGeorge's disability income would have been explicitly exempt from the judgment lien under California law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The federal property exemptions do not override California's property exemptions.1 I DeGeorge was indicted in January 1999. He pled guilty and was The only issue addressed in this opinion is DeGeorge's argument that his civil judgment award is exempt from execution to satisfy the government's judgment lien. All other issues raised by DeGeorge are addressed in a separate memorandum disposition. From 1989 until DeGeorge was arrested for the above criminal charges in April 1999. Before DeGeorge was convicted in the above case. This case was tried before a jury. While DeGeorge's civil case against the Insurers was proceeding. The government later moved to have the judgment lien enforced. Rule 69(a) provides in part that the procedure to execute a judgment
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1403.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Was on brief. The employee concedes that the Title VII claims involved in this case are arbitrable. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6458491CFD1E4B9F88256EDD00770497/$file/0315453.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ruling that Verizon's state law claims against Covad were barred by the filed rate doctrine governing the charges of regulated carriers. That there is no barrier to Verizon suing to enforce what it has filed. COVAD COMMUNICATIONS motions to strike Verizon's complaints but hold that summary judgment against Covad's counterclaims was improper because Covad was not given adequate notice that the sufficiency of its claims would be at issue or an opportunity to respond. FACTS The several telephone companies here denominated
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov94/94babbitt.html">BABBIT ELECTRONICS V. DYNASCAN CORP. BABBIT ELECTRONICS V. IT BECAME KNOWN TO THE PARTIES THAT COUNTERFEIT COBRA PRODUCTS WERE ENTERING THE LATIN AMERICA MARKET. BABBIT REQUESTED THAT DYNASCAN CONTACT THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN LATIN AMERICA ABOUT THE COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS BECAUSE BABBIT'S SALES WERE BEING AFFECTED BY THE COUNTERFEIT MARKET. THIS WAS NOT TRUE. DYNASCAN STATES THAT BY VIRTUE OF ITS USE OF THE COBRA TRADEMARK IN SOUTH AMERICA. DYNASCAN'S TRADEMARK IN THOSE COUNTRIES IS PROTECTED. THE COURT SEEKS TO ANSWER THE QUESTION OF WHAT THE LAW IS WITH REGARD TO TRADEMARKS IN EACH OF THE FOUR COUNTRIES. THE LAW AS SET FORTH IN THIS ORDER WILL BE THE LAW APPLIED IN DETERMINING THE APPROPRIATE ISSUES ON THE MERITS.[1] AT THE HEARING THE COURT HEARD FROM TWO EXPERT WITNESSES AS TO THE STATE OF TRADEMARK LAW IN THE FOUR COUNTRIES AT ISSUE. THE BRAZILIAN PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. THE CRITICAL LEGISLATION REGULATING TRADEMARKS IN BRAZIL IS THE INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY CODE."><BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/780E8DE27F08D8A98825728F000085F7/$file/0417190.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Kistler is substituted for her predecessor as United States Trustee. Was affirmed by the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=07&date=01&year=04">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8E6D00949CDFE6D38825705B004F17C8/$file/0316194.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We affirm the district court's conclusion as to preemption under the Bank Act but hold that the per diem loan interest statute is not preempted by the DIDMCA. The purpose of the audits was to ascertain whether the mortgage subsidiaries had overcharged interest and provided unduly low estimates of certain classes of settlement fees. 3 WFHMI was licensed to engage in real estate lending activities under the California Residential Mortgage Lending Act (CRMLA). Wells Fargo's claims as to WFHMI are not moot. Even if they were. There is no distinction between WFHMI and NCMC pertinent to our disposition. 4 Specifically. Unless a person or transaction is excepted from a definition or exempt from licensure by a provision of this law or a rule of the commissioner. The licensing requirements referred to in the section are discussed in more detail below. 5 The CFLL does not apply to any loans made pursuant to the CRMLA. BOUTRIS Commissioner is the state official charged with enforcing those laws governing licensed home mortgage lenders.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAxLTE0OTlfb3BuLnBkZg==/01-1499_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who was a member of the panel. He also challenges the constitutionality of the federal statute requiring states to have a federally mandated scheme for licensing wholesale drug distributors engaged in interstate commerce. He contends that his sentence was impermissibly enhanced based on misinterpretations of the Guidelines and on facts not found by the jury. That he is entitled to be resentenced in any event because the Guidelines. Are unconstitutional. The only FDA approved distributor of Eldepryl in the United States was Somerset Pharmaceuticals. The only FDA approved distributor of Pergonal and Metrodin in the United States was Serono Labs USA. Metrodin distributed in the United States by these 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 companies were manufactured and packaged outside the United States in compliance with FDA standards. Of which three are relevant here. The law forbids distribution in interstate commerce of drugs that are misbranded. Prescription drugs are subject to the general federal statutory prohibition of trafficking in counterfeit goods.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07b0005p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Appellant asserts it is entitled to prime plus interest in accordance with Till v. The Appellant's claim is secured by a vehicle purchased for the Debtors' personal use within 910 days prior to the bankruptcy filing. The bankruptcy court's order is REVERSED and REMANDED. The parties to this appeal have not raised any issues regarding the Panel's jurisdiction. We must independently assess whether we have jurisdiction.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2003/013186u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Their complaint was dismissed under Fed. We will reverse. That their amended complaint was sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Fed. A. Whether the District Court Erred in Dismissing Plaintiffs' Complaint Our review of the District Court's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is plenary. A complaint must contain
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=09&date=01&year=96">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200608/04-7214a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Defendants Gillian and Uwe Siemon Netto are two among the hundreds of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1594.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A demand for immediate payment while a debtor is in bankruptcy (or after the debt's discharge) is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1995/95a1158p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are called upon in this case principally to perform one of our most delicate duties determining whether Congress exceeded its constitutional authority in enacting a federal law. At issue is the power of Congress to criminalize
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=09&date=01&year=04">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1998/98a1854p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have an independent duty to determine whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction. The town of Sea Bright is located on a narrow strip of land bounded by the Shrewsbury River on one side and the Atlantic Ocean on the other. The Van Holts' home is located in an area that floods frequently. Sea Bright was flooded. The Van Holts' home and personal property were again damaged by flooding which resulted from high winds and rain. The first was a homeowner's policy. The other was a flood insurance policy issued pursuant to the National Flood Insurance Program (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200308/02-1132a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/063977np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2007) OPINION PER CURIAM This is an appeal from the District Court's dismissal of Keith Dixon's amended complaint against the Defendants. We will affirm. The District Court primarily determined that Dixon failed to state a claim because the promissory note stated that the proceeds of the note
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-3415.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The question presented in this appeal is whether Kristin Kae Gowin. Although a Chapter 13 debtor has standing to litigate claims on behalf of the bankruptcy (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. The transaction was completed with three documents a sales contract. Gowin was required to make a $600 down payment on the car. Which was left blank. Autos did not have title documents for the car but appears to have received them on or around December 22. There are no written notes corroborating the conversation. The car was unlocked. The windows were rolled down despite the winter weather. The agent said the car appeared to have been abandoned. Gowin's version of events was slightly different. Alleging that the only conversation she had with Autos after the sale was to seek some minor repairs for the car. That she was dissatisfied with the car and had no desire to keep it by the time she filed for bankruptcy several weeks later. She claims to have last seen the car on January 1.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jul1998/98a1914p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will examine each of them in turn. 1. We also note that no parties have objected to this portion of the district court's analysis. 66 class support the settlement. Although the response rate in a 23(b)(3) class action is relevant to the fairness determination. The court found the small percentage of opt outs and objectors was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1995/94a0943p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who purchased or otherwise beneficially acquired securities that were incorrectly and misleadingly labelled or described as annuities from Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company during the period August 14. Because all of these claims were essentially grounded in fraud. Because federal jurisdiction over one of the claims is exclusive and there is an independent basis for federal jurisdiction over the remaining claims. We hold that the district court erred when it concluded that there is an opportunity for timely and adequate state court review of Plaintiffs' federal securities claims. We will therefore reverse the district court's order dismissing Plaintiffs' case without prejudice and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.[fn2] I. General Background Mutual Benefit was established in 1845. It was one of the country's largest life insurance companies. Until the late 1970's Mutual Benefit was a relatively conservative institution. These withdrawals were projected to reach $1 billion by the end of the year.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041951p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This matter is before us following issuance of an opinion by the Supreme Court of New Jersey in response to a question of law that we certified to it.1 See Delta Funding Corp. v. The certified question procedure is a useful vehicle for federal courts to give the state supreme courts an opportunity to elucidate an important issue of state law. Thereby avoiding erroneous predictions that will confuse rather than clarify the issue. A brief summary of the background and issue is called for. Harris's only basis for financial support in 1999 was the social security payment of approximately $900 per month. The annual percentage rate on the Delta loan was 14%. Harris was unable to afford the required monthly payments and Wells Fargo instituted a mortgage foreclosure suit against her in the Superior Court of New Jersey. Have been historically excluded from obtaining credit. That the arbitration clause was unconscionable under New Jersey state law because it (1) imposes prohibitive costs which preclude her from effectively vindicating her statutory rights.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-1652a.html">AMER SCHLST TV PGRM V. FCC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2338.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: p.48. Grasso & Mortensen were on brief for defendants. Berry & Howard were on brief for plaintiffs. *Of the District of Maine. This is an appeal from a final judgment of the district court in an action brought by a number of foreign reinsurance syndicates. At issue are reinsurance contracts (or
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/02/062102U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This printout was obtained by one of Bykov's employees. At the time Bykov's reservation was made. She further acknowledged that she would not have paid attention to this information even if she had seen it. This was $45.90 more than he had originally been quoted a difference that can be attributed to the different exchange rates used by the Slavyanskaya and the credit card company. Contending that the defendants' representations on the Radisson website regarding the room rates at the Slavyanskaya were deceptive and misleading. Stated that she would not have paid attention to it even if she had seen it. We conclude that the dismissal of Bykov's claims was proper for the reasons set forth by the district court.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1769.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Charset=utf 8
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/04/002661P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Freyermuth wrote fourteen checks which were returned for insufficient funds (NSF) to various merchants in Fremont. Six of the checks were referred to Checkmate in 1990. Two checks were then referred in 1994. Each Initial Notice was sent to Freyermuth at his last known address. One notice addresses the checks for which the principal balance and the service charges are outstanding. Freyermuth raised the new claim that Checkmate had further violated the FDCPA by attempting to collect on debts that were probably time barred. Holding that the entire claim was barred by the FDCPA's one year statute of limitation. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence. Demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact. The moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 1033 (8th Cir. 1997). other notice addresses those checks on which only the service charge is outstanding. 3 The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) makes it unlawful for debt collectors to use
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/55C6D1CAA4FAF1F888256FCB005E0D0C/$file/0315955.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on the briefs. Was on the brief. 3382 NAGRAMPA v. Were on the brief for appellee American Arbitration Association. Circuit Judge: We must decide who determines whether an agreement containing an arbitration clause is unconscionable: the arbitrator or the court. As the situs for any arbitration proceedings and provides that costs will be borne equally by each party.1 Nagrampa claims that the franchise agreement. Was non negotiable. That she was not given 1 The arbitration clause states. Any claim that this Agreement or any portion thereof is invalid. The situs of the arbitration proceedings shall be the regional office of the American Arbitration Association which is located in Boston. Which claimed that it was still owed $80. Alleging that MailCoups was liable for common law misrepresentation and fraud. Nagrampa argued that the arbitration clause was unenforceable on grounds of unconscionability. The district court concluded that the agreement was valid and granted MailCoups' motion to dismiss.2 Nagrampa timely appealed. 2 The district court denied MailCoups' motion to compel arbitration because § 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-1098a.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
King argued the cause and was on the briefs for <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>petitioner.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> . Argued the cause for respondent.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the brief were David R. III was on the brief for amicus curiae <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>FCM Coalition for Regulatory Fairness.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> . Circuit Judge:<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>First American Discount Corpo <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>ration seeks review of an order of the Commodity Futures <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Trading Commission (CFTC) holding the company jointly and <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>severally liable for the acts of a commodities broker whose <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>liabilities First American had agreed to guarantee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>First <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>American contends that the CFTC regulation pursuant to <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>which it entered into the guarantee agreement is substantive <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>ly and procedurally invalid.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/11/01-4229.htm">01-4229 -- U.S. V. BROWN -- 11/04/2003<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/06/01-4028.htm">01-4028 -- JOHNSON V. RIDDLE -- 06/27/2002<BR></A><BR>
The central question presented by this case is whether the defendants are liable under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The district court held that the defendants' actions were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/99-3331.htm">99-3331 -- WRIGHT V. ABBOTT LABORATORIES INC. -- 08/06/2001<BR></A><BR>
BACKGROUND</strong></center> <p> Eric Wright was born on November 10. The Wrights argue that Abbott had a duty to warn the hospital about the risk of inadvertent administration and that Abbott's failure to do so was the proximate cause of Eric's brain damage. <p align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/05/98-9027.htm">98-9027 -- CONSOLIDATED MANUFACTURING INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE -- 05/08/2001<BR></A><BR>
The price that the company agrees to pay its customers for such replacement cores is called the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/10/99-6116.htm">99-6116 -- MANCHESTER V. ANNIS -- 10/19/2000<BR></A><BR>
<strong> </strong>Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E64D5E6A0401273788256C39005336AA/$file/0055293.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: The caption is changed to reflect the addition of Case No. 00 55599. This case number was inadvertently omitted from the opinion as filed. The question in this case is whether Thane has violated the federal trademark laws by its choice of name for its product. Trek products are sold through more than 1. Trek is the country's most popular and most respected bicycle brand. Trek was granted a United States trademark for the use of TREK on bicycles and bicycle frames. The most prominent athlete Trek sponsors is cancer survivor Lance Armstrong. Pictures of Armstrong with a TREK bicycle have appeared in The New York Times and on Wheaties boxes. Thane maintains that this venture was a failure. This stationary trainer would not have pedals. Because it is meant to be used while standing.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/52C7E06D0044D65488256D24007F5BE8/$file/9956570.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a). Ingle was required to sign an arbitration agreement for Circuit City to consider her employment application. The district court entered an order denying the motion on the ground that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable under Duffield v. Arguing primarily that its arbitration agreement is enforceable under Duffield2 and California contract law. 788 n.10 (9th Cir. 2002) (declining to rule on district court's alternative conclusion that arbitration agreement was invalid under Duffield because the court's conclusion under state contract law disposed of the appeal). 2 INGLE v. Because the 1998 Rules and Procedures were in effect at the time Ingle's civil rights claims arose. We examine these rules in analyzing whether this arbitration agreement is enforceable. 782 (9th Cir. 2002). [1] It is a settled principle of law that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3A95CF272053DC6E882570510054C594/$file/0415228.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on the briefs. Were on the briefs. Circuit Judge: We must decide whether developmentally disabled recipients of Medicaid funds and their service providers have a private right of action against state officials to compel the enforcement of a federal law governing state disbursement of such funds. We are also asked to decide. Or are at risk of living in. State institutions because community based services are inadequately funded. All members of the class are entitled to services under Title XIX of the Social Security Act. Are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/01/993575P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that USDA's determination that the petition is not exempt from disclosure under FOIA's personal privacy exemption is contrary to law. I. The assessments at issue in the requested referendum are imposed under the Pork Promotion. Which is the Board's general contractor. $36.5 million is allocated for contracts with the Council. Authority for such a referendum is found in the Act. Which provides that USDA shall conduct a referendum to determine whether pork producers and importers favor the termination or suspension of the order implementing the checkoff program
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=08&date=01&year=98">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3003_013.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The pseudoephedrine was converted into almost a half million dollars' worth of methamphetamine. We agree with the district court that summary judgment for the government was required. One of these products is the cold medicine Release. The active ingredient in Release is pseudoephedrine. Which is a chemical regulated by the U.S. Global was registered and licensed with the DEA to distribute products containing pseudoephedrine. Which is above the sales amount that triggers compliance with the Drug Abuse Act. He claimed that he did not know proof of identity was required. Fatayer was making purchases under the name of Last Call Liquor. Which sets out a regulated person's obligations in ensuring and recording purchasers' identities before a sale of a controlled chemical is completed. It is important to define exactly what requirements the Controlled Substances Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3995_016.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs are charities that Indiana's Telephone Privacy Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3894_016.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is a former employee of James Cape & Sons (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-2383_022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The action was transferred to the Northern District of Illinois. McDonald's was promoting sales of its food products by sponsoring a game called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1901_041.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Facts The facts of this case are. F&G was a direct mail marketing company engaged in the marketing of gifts. A leveraged purchase of a large number of F&G shares by the ESOP was proposed. F&G had been enjoying record profitability for several years and was forecasted to continue this trend into the future. F&G's largest subsidiary was Michigan Bulb Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1269_016.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gordon Johnson claims that he was terminated from his job at ExxonMobil Corp. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0291p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Page 2 who pose an extreme escape risk or who have a clearly demonstrated history of violent acts toward other prisoners and staff. Sibert concluded from his investigation that the allegations were baseless. He was the only person with authority to order redactions. Stamping each page with a statement identifying that it was being delivered to the prisoner. Because it was not marked for possible redaction. Thus was not ruled on by Jackson. This information would be exempt from release and would not have been given to prisoners under internal prison policy and the department's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) policy. Lowery stated in an affidavit that if he had noticed the social security numbers he would have removed them. Prisoners have threatened and taunted the officers. Often incorporating the plaintiffs' social security numbers (which they have committed to memory) into the taunts. Prisoners have even accurately described plaintiffs' children to them. The district court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against Fritz Jackson because it found he was entitled to absolute judicial immunity.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06b0003p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. ISSUES ON APPEAL Whether the second prong of the Brunner test requires corroborating evidence in the form of expert medical proof to establish that the circumstances that cause a debtor's inability to repay his loans will likely continue for a substantial portion of the repayment period. An order is final if it
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04b0004p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are vendors who filed timely reclamation claims against the Debtor. Appellants now appeal the bankruptcy court's decision finding that their reclamation claims are not entitled to administrative expense priority pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 546(c)(2) and relegating their claims to the status of general unsecured. I. ISSUES ON APPEAL (1) Whether the bankruptcy court erred in denying administrative expense priority or a lien to reclaiming sellers whose goods were proposed to be consumed by the Debtor in its manufacturing activities. (2) Whether the bankruptcy court erred in determining the validity and priority of reclamation claims pursuant to motion rather than adversary complaint. (3) Whether the bankruptcy court erred in determining that the Appellants were not entitled to require a marshaling of the assets to protect their reclamation claims. Neither party has timely elected to have this appeal heard by the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 158(b)(6). The order and judgment on appeal are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0394p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Background The background facts of this litigation are more fully set forth in the Court's published opinion in Inge v. A creditor who fails to make the required disclosures is liable to the consumer for damages. Clarifies that document preparation fees are excludable only
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0423p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which is an oral polio vaccine. Poliomyelitis (or polio) is a disease of the central nervous system that causes illness. That this scourge did not continue through the second half of the twentieth century is a credit to the work of several scientists. The Salk vaccine is known as an inactivated polio vaccine (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/055301np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. 1 In January of 2002. Okpor was dismissed from Rutgers undergraduate School of Business. While Okpor's motion for reconsideration was pending in Superior Court. Arguing that these claims had already been or should have been raised in state court. Because he presented no facts in support of his claims that were not already addressed in the state court proceeding. He was barred from litigating his § 1983 claims in federal court by the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Submitting letter certifications from two individuals who claimed to have overheard racially discriminatory comments made about Okpor by certain agents or employees of Rutgers. The District Court held that neither of the letter certifications constituted
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051374p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We review the District Court's determinations that: (1) a debtor's right to a surplus generated by a pension plan is a property interest. (2) an amendment to that pension plan that irrevocably decreases the surplus is a transfer of the property interest. (3) the value surrendered and the value gained as a result of the transfer need not be precisely calculated in this instance in order to conclude that they are not reasonably equivalent. In 1995 Fruehauf entered into contracts with several of its top executives that would pay them significant benefits if the Company or its assets were sold. As the benefits would not accrue to the beneficiaries unless they were still employed by Fruehauf at that time. B. The Emergency Board Meeting Fruehauf continued to have financial difficulties. Although the parties dispute what was considered at this meeting. They discussed an amendment (known as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042564np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. I. Mason Cook was employed as a driver for Atlantic Express Transportation Group. Atlantic Express was insured under a policy of a multi state commercial automobile insurance. 000 for Pennsylvania
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034762p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At issue is whether this action on behalf of a putative class of Salomon Smith Barney retail brokerage customers is preempted by SLUSA. We will affirm. I. Salomon Smith Barney is one of the world's largest stock brokerage and investment banking firms. Among its customers are corporate clients who receive investment banking services such as equity and debt underwriting. This action alleges that Salomon Smith Barney's research was unlawfully biased in favor of the firm's investment banking clients. The gravamen of the action is the allegedly
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034033p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At issue is whether a putative class representative's claim is mooted by a Rule 68 offer of judgment so as to defeat federal subject matter jurisdiction in a suit requesting class wide relief. We will reverse and remand. That case was vacated and reheard by the Court en banc. Arguing Weiss's claim was rendered moot because the Rule 68 offer provided him the maximum damages available under the statute.3 For this is accepted. An offer not accepted shall be deemed withdrawn and evidence thereof is not admissible except in a proceeding to determine costs. If the judgment finally obtained by the offeree is not more favorable than the offer. Weiss argues his claim was not rendered moot by the Rule 68 offer. Is whether defendants' Rule 68 offer mooted the claim. When the issues presented in a case are no longer
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTkyMjJfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-9222_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This civil antitrust action was instituted by plaintiffsappellants Apothecon. The suit was brought under §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Plaintiffs' antitrust claims are based on the alleged anti competitive conduct of defendants appellees Barr Laboratories. Which is the primary chemical ingredient used to make warfarin sodium. This litigation is about protecting the operation of our competitive markets. Safeguard consumers by protecting 1 The code of rules that most directly influenced modern boxing was first published in 1867 under the sponsoring of John Sholto Douglas. There are 12 rules in all. Are not designed to protect competitors from one another's conduct. (Apothecon) is a wholly owned subsidiary of pharmaceutical giant Bristol Myers Squibb. Is a wholly owned subsidiary of Novartis. (Barr) is a competing manufacturer of generic warfarin sodium. Inc. is a Canadian corporation that. Was known as ACIC (Canada) Inc. (hereafter ACIC/Brantford). ACIC/Brantford is a supplier of various chemicals used in manufacturing pharmaceutical drugs.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200312484.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ala.).1 Daiwa's indemnity claim against Goldome was based on a loan portfolio sale agreement in which (1) Daiwa bought a portfolio of loans from Goldome and (2) Goldome agreed to indemnify and defend Daiwa against any claim arising out of the origination of loans within the loan portfolio and filed within three years of the sale. We hold that the loan portfolio sale agreement is not a contract of insurance and. Alleging that Daiwa was a successor in interest to Goldome and that it ratified and joined in Goldome's fraud by taking assignment of the loans it bought from Goldome without disclosing the alleged fraud and lending law violations. There was already litigation pending alleging that Goldome had perpetrated fraud in connection with the origination of home mortgage loans. In the event the class were decertified and former class members filed new suits after the three year anniversary of the loan portfolio sale (which was the limitations period set out in the sale agreement). Unless Goldome were willing to waive the three year time limit for such suits.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200215981.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Regions seeks reversal on the ground that the district court erred in ruling that Regions's state law claims were preempted by Article 4A of the Uniform Commercial Code (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200114688.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This case implicates the tension between the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200114688.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This case implicates the tension between the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-2228.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP were on brief. Gaztambide & Plaza were on brief. Francisco Silva were on brief. The agreement in turn was approved by the Telecommunications Regulatory Board of Puerto Rico (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1695.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
<SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2470.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.S.C.</SPAN> were on brief. P.A.</SPAN> were on brief. This case involves the circumstances under which Puerto Rico Act 75 is intended to protect local dealers from termination of their distribution agreement in market withdrawal situations.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/September2004/034033p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At issue is whether a putative class representative's claim is mooted by a Rule 68 offer of judgment so as to defeat federal subject matter jurisdiction in a suit requesting class wide relief. We will reverse and remand. That case was vacated and reheard by the Court en banc. Arguing Weiss's claim was rendered moot because the Rule 68 offer provided him the maximum damages available under the statute.3 For this is accepted. An offer not accepted shall be deemed withdrawn and evidence thereof is not admissible except in a proceeding to determine costs. If the judgment finally obtained by the offeree is not more favorable than the offer. Weiss argues his claim was not rendered moot by the Rule 68 offer. Is whether defendants' Rule 68 offer mooted the claim. When the issues presented in a case are no longer
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1995/95a1164p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm the judgment and orders of the district court. We therefore will refer to the plaintiffs singularly as Duquesne. It is beyond doubt that during these negotiations the parties had sophisticated technical. The steam generators for the first unit were installed in 1972. Those for the second unit were installed in 1981. Duquesne discovered corrosion and cracking in the generators'
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1997/97a1580p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
SER contends that PP&L impermissibly curtailed purchases of SER generated electric energy and that SER was therefore unable to compete with PP&L in the provision of electric energy to consumers in the retail market and resellers in the wholesale market. SER is PP&L's supplier. That PP&L's generation curtailment policy does not create an injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent. We will affirm. Any person who owns or operates facilities used to transmit or sell electric energy in interstate commerce is subject to the jurisdiction and regulatory power of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1994/94a0696p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
These questions are extremely important in light of the widespread and increasing use by district courts of confidentiality orders to facilitate settlements. The Newspapers' purpose for intervening was to gain access to the Settlement Agreement which was entered into between Pansy and the Borough. The Newspapers argued that either the Agreement was a judicial record to which it had a right of access. The district court ruled that the Newspapers' motion for intervention was untimely. The district court held that the Agreement was not a judicial record. We will reverse the order of the district court and direct that the Newspapers be permitted to intervene. We will remand the case to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The standard of review for each issue raised in this appeal will be discussed in the analysis of the issue. He was investigated and later arrested by agents of the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office. Pansy was charged with offenses relating to the alleged improper handling of parking meter money.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1997/97a1527p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case is before this court on appeal from an order of the district court granting summary judgment on all counts to the appellees in this antitrust action brought against them by the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover. An examination of the parties and conduct in question is first necessary. A national professional organization of attorneys whose membership is open to members of any bar in the United States. There were 177 ABA accredited law schools in the United States and over 50 unaccredited schools with some form of state approval such as MSL enjoys. Many states have methods of satisfying the legal education requirement other than graduation from an ABA accredited school. The AALS is an association of 160 law schools which serves as a learned society for law schools and legal faculty and as a representative of the law school community with the federal government and other education organizations. D.C. have granted petitions of graduates of MSL to take the bar. The ABA allows graduates of non accredited schools to join the ABA once they are admitted to a bar and does not prohibit its members from hiring or otherwise dealing with graduates of such schools.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/995082.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Contending that the Bankruptcy Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain Custom's claim for refund and offset because Custom did not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1994/94a0801p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude that the district court erred and will vacate its judgment and remand the cause for further proceedings.[fn2] I. Mainframes and Upgrades The facts underlying this nine year old dispute are minutely detailed and quite voluminous. We will present only a brief summary here. IBM is the world's largest manufacturer of large scale mainframe computers. These machines have the capacity to process millions of records at a time and manage a tremendous volume of information. Mainframes are physically large machines. They are quite expensive. Mainframes are available in a wide range of computing capacities. One common measure of capacity is computing speed. In what is known as a MIPS upgrade. Many IBM mainframes are not purchased outright from IBM by their end users. Are instead leased through third party leasing companies such as CMI and Comdisco.[fn3] A mainframe will typically be leased to several end users during its life cycle. Then when obsolete will be scrapped. The computer will need to be reconfigured to meet the needs of the next lessee.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200008/99-1098a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
King argued the cause and was on the briefs for petitioner. With her on the brief were David R. III was on the brief for amicus curiae FCM Coalition for Regulatory Fairness. First American contends that the CFTC regulation pursuant to which it entered into the guarantee agreement is substantive ly and procedurally invalid. I First American is regulated under the Commodity Ex change Act (CEA) as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199903/97-7195a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With them on the briefs was Jean Constantine Davis. Because his income was too low. Although the monthly payment was $100 more than he had been paying. Although the term of the loan was longer than he wanted. Williams was receiving $1. Water were cut off. First Government's primary claim is that section 28 3904(r) of the CPPA does not apply to the transaction in this case. It first argues that the district court should have applied Mary land law instead of the D.C. consumer protection statute because First Government is not a D.C. corporation. Its offices are located in Maryland. Because Williams's CPPA claim against First Government is a diversity action.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199902/98-3080b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were David G. With them on the brief were Laura S. Owen moved in the district court to dismiss an indictment charging tax evasion and related crimes on the ground that the indictment was beyond the prosecutorial jurisdiction of Independent Counsel Kenneth W. It gave Indepen dent Counsel Starr jurisdiction to investigate whether any individuals or entities have committed a violation of any federal criminal law. Who are reasonably believed to have committed a violation of any federal criminal law arising out of such matters. Including persons or entities who have engaged in an unlawful conspiracy or who have aided or abetted any federal offense. The Special Division ordered that the Independent Counsel have prosecutorial jurisdiction to fully investigate and prose cute the subject matter with respect to which the Attor ney General requested the appointment of independent counsel. These grants of authority were under 28 U.S.C. s 593(b)(1). Secret Service records indicate that James Riady had made several visits to the White House in the days before the payment to Hubbell was made.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199902/98-1071a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Jeffery A. With him on the brief were Joel I. With him on the brief was Allen R. Hahn were on the briefs for intervenor Airports Council Interna tional North America. Reasoning that the City's attempt to recoup its
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199812/98-1062a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Jacob H. Circuit Judge: Petitioner Gerald Stoiber is an Illi nois broker associated with American Investment Services. AIS is a member of the National Association of Securities Dealers. Stoiber was sanctioned by the NASD and appealed to the Securities and Exchange Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982774.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Dutch Miller's financial personnel represented that 14.75 percent was the best interest rate available. The total cost of financing the vehicle at this rate was $9. It is undisputed that FMCC was not a party to this agreement. Dutch Miller was paid the difference (known generally as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/974157.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. R. Crim P. 11(d) was not harmless error. I. Vaid was charged in an eleven count superseding indictment alleging that he and Youdh Gyani committed fraud by interstate commercial carrier. On September 30 (the day Vaid's trial was scheduled to begin). An independent attorney the court appointed to advise Vaid were present. Who Vaid claimed was pressuring him to plead guilty. Finding that it was not timely made and that the independent attorney was available to Vaid throughout trial. 2 After the ex parte hearing. The court also reviewed the other rights Vaid was giving up by pleading guilty. Vaid informed the court that he was a high school graduate. Was educated in the English language. The court reiterated that there was no plea agreement in the case. The court ensured that Vaid understood Gyani was not acting as an agent for the government when Gyani spoke to Vaid before the trial began. The government presented the evidence it would have produced at trial.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971604.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Challenging the FDA's jurisdiction over tobacco products and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.1 Plaintiffs then filed a 1 When the complaint was filed on August 10. All references in this opinion are to the final version of the rule published in the Federal Register on August 28. They have been added for emphasis unless otherwise indicated. 13 motion for summary judgment in the district court. Jurisdiction over the consolidated appeals is proper in this court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1292(a)(1) and 1292(b). We are of opinion that the FDA lacks jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products. 1996 regulations of tobacco products are thus invalid. All 50 States have already banned the sale of tobacco to minors under state law. Tobacco products fit within these definitions because they are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031029.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. They contend that at closing they were charged a number of fees including: a funding fee ($195). Their loan was allegedly assigned to GMAC Residential Funding Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/014311.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
HARVEY Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The probation officer also recommended an additional four level enhancement based upon a finding that Harvey was a leader in a criminal enterprise that involved five or more participants. That restitution was required in the amount of $39.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4216.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. R. 36.3. <hr> This is a products liability action alleging that plaintiff appellant. The radiofrequency device This procedure was performed by Dr. Rosenthal was well experienced in use of the radiofrequency device. As was the nurse who <hr> assisted him. The device is designed to therapeutically destroy painful nerve tissue by creating lesions in the tissue. An electrode was then inserted into the needle to produce the radiofrequency waves. The device was designed to operate in two basic modes. The usual procedure is to use the stim mode to locate the tissue to be lesioned. Which are controlled by a rate select button. The higher frequency setting (50 Hz) is used to stimulate the sensory part of the nerve. A lower frequency setting (2 Hz) is used to stimulate the motor portion of the nerve. <hr> b. Voltage adjustments There are also voltage adjustments to be made within the stim mode. The closer the needle is to the affected tissue.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1261.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Figa & Will P.C. Of the Homeowners were awarded damages against Goodyear only. Believing that the Entran II hose was causing the leaks. Heatway filed a counterclaim alleging that the Entran II hose was defective. Between 1998 and 2000 a number of suits were filed in Colorado state and federal courts by homeowners against Goodyear. Eight of these cases were consolidated. Homeowners claimed that Goodyear was liable for the costs of removing and replacing the Entran II hose installed in their homes. Reasoning that her damages were too speculative. Damages were not appropriately apportioned to it as a nonparty at fault. Goodyear argued that the Holzwarths and Sutterley/Kilgore presented evidence and were awarded damages for future repair costs that they had not incurred and would never incur because they had already sold their homes. The district court held that Homeowners were entitled to prejudgment interest from the date on which the hydronic heating systems. Were originally installed in the Homeowners' respective homes.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-4234.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court's subject matter jurisdiction was based on 28 U.S.C. 1331. P&G now challenges the district court's dismissal of that remaining Lanham Act claim on the grounds that (1) P&G failed to preserve and produce to defendants relevant electronic data and (2) P&G's expert testimony was inadmissible at trial. I. P&G is the manufacturer and distributor of numerous products for personal care. Announced that he (the president of P&G) was associated with the Church of Satan. Stated that a large portion of the profits from forty three different P&G products were used to support the Church of Satan. McDonald turned to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="247"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1760.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Urmy LLP</SPAN> were on brief for appellant.</SPAN> <BR WP=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1098.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov95/95-5008.man.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>In re First Nat'l Bank of Boston United States Court of Appeals. BACKGROUND
The origin of the present petition is the related federal case filed in 1989 by Society for Savings in the Southern District of Florida concerning a consumer loan. That case was settled by surrender of the vessel to Society for Savings and the agreed payment of $13. Which he alleges is the successor to Society for Savings with offices in Palm Beach County. Bank of Boston represented that it is a national banking association with its principal place of business in Massachusetts. That Rogers is a Florida citizen. The district court determined that Bank of Boston's failure to allege the state in which it is incorporated constituted an inadequate showing of its citizenship for diversity jurisdiction:
A review of the Notice of Removal reveals that Defendant has failed to adequately demonstrate that the controversy is between citizens of different states.
OPINION/ORDER
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > In re First Nat'l Bank of Boston United States Court of Appeals. BACKGROUND
The origin of the present petition is the related federal case filed in 1989 by Society for Savings in the Southern District of Florida concerning a consumer loan. That case was settled by surrender of the vessel to Society for Savings and the agreed payment of $13. Which he alleges is the successor to Society for Savings with offices in Palm Beach County. Bank of Boston represented that it is a national banking association with its principal place of business in Massachusetts. That Rogers is a Florida citizen. The district court determined that Bank of Boston's failure to allege the state in which it is incorporated constituted an inadequate showing of its citizenship for diversity jurisdiction:
A review of the Notice of Removal reveals that Defendant has failed to adequately demonstrate that the controversy is between citizens of different states.
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Delta Air Lines v. A petition for panel rehearing is pending. Is being denied by separate order filed simultaneously herewith. Because all three judges on this panel have personal accounts in the Delta Frequent Flyer Program. We deny Sasser's motion for recusal. <p> The frequent flyer account which is accumulated in the name of any airline passenger is part and parcel of the services which the passenger buys when he or she buys an airline ticket. We readily conclude that such a frequent flyer account does not represent a gift.<p> We conclude that a frequent flyer account is not a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/nov96/95-3246.wpd.html">FIRST SAVINGS BANK V. FIRST BANK SYS.<BR></A><BR>
(2) that FirstBank was. Further hold that a reasonable jury could not conclude that the FirstBank mark is confusingly similar to the 1971 federal registration
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/03/961541P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-5223a.html">AMFAC RESORTS, L.L.C V. U.S. DEPT OF INTERIOR<BR></A><BR>
Geller argued the cause for appellants.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov97/96-8813.man.html">DELTA AIR LINES V. SASSER<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Delta Air Lines v. A petition for panel rehearing is pending. Is being denied by separate order filed simultaneously herewith. Because all three judges on this panel have personal accounts in the Delta Frequent Flyer Program. We deny Sasser's motion for recusal. <p> The frequent flyer account which is accumulated in the name of any airline passenger is part and parcel of the services which the passenger buys when he or she buys an airline ticket. We readily conclude that such a frequent flyer account does not represent a gift.<p> We conclude that a frequent flyer account is not a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199710/95-1563a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Phillips were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Nace were on the brief. Most of the LECs' costs in operating their facilities do not vary depending on how often the facilities are used. Such costs are known as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19955008.OP.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND The origin of the present petition is the related federal case filed in 1989 by Society for Savings in the Southern District of Florida concerning a consumer loan. That case was settled by surrender of the vessel to Society for Savings and the agreed payment of $13. Which he alleges is the successor to Society for Savings with offices in Palm Beach County. Bank of Boston represented that it is a national banking association with its principal place of business in Massachusetts. That Rogers is a Florida citizen. The district court determined that Bank of Boston's failure to allege the state in which it is incorporated constituted an inadequate showing of its citizenship for diversity jurisdiction: A review of the Notice of Removal reveals that Defendant has failed to adequately demonstrate that the controversy is between citizens of different states. Defendant merely alleges that it is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1995/95a1187p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It seeks to have the County's flow control plan declared unconstitutional under the dormant Commerce Clause. Pennsylvania was no exception. Methods less protective of the environment generally have lower capital and operating costs. Most waste disposal facilities were privately owned and operated.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/April1995/95a1019p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because we concur that PNI could not have recouped the investment in predation it might have made. We will affirm. Those appearing directly on newspaper editorial pages are called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-8022.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for Philip Morris appellants. Were on brief for United States Tobacco Company appellants. Were on brief for appellees. The specific plaintiffs appellants are Philip Morris Incorporated. The specific defendants appellees are L. We consider the statutes' respective texts along with the relevant historical and legislative contexts in which they were enacted. Normally we consider the record evidence with respect to each motion separately
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=03&date=01&year=04">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7C81F03FE01AD572882572D400599507/$file/0456880.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
ORDER The plaintiff appellant's petition for panel rehearing is GRANTED. 2007 WL 446582 is WITHDRAWN. Is filed with this Order. The parties are not precluded from filing further petitions for panel and en banc rehearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Food and drug inspectors are peace officers and carry firearms. Adams was offered the position she sought. Her actual hiring was conditioned upon her successful completion of a background investigation. CDHS then advised Adams it was unable to accommodate her medical restrictions. The SPB granted Adams's appeal and advised her she would be appointed to the FDI position within 120 days unless she was unsuccessful in the balance of the selection process. Arguing that she should be appointed to the FDI position immediately because the selection process ended when she was deemed medically qualified. Sending emails and letters to CDHS employees in which Adams's tone was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1090.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom Hardy Wood Tabor & Chudacoff was on brief. The House's head doorkeeper.1 The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of House Rule 45 a rule that purports to ban both lobbyists and lobbying from the floor of the House while the House is in session on its face and as applied. Among them was Rule 45 (the full text of which is reproduced in the appendix). Rule 45 banishes all lobbyists from the floor of the House (and the House lounge) while the House is in session. The rule permits members of the public to be on the House floor while the House is in session. The legislator plaintiffs have not appealed and. Government officials who lobby are given considerably more leeway. Are otherwise exempt from the Act's provisions. Neither elected officials nor other public employees are required to wear identification badges. The House provided two galleries overlooking the chamber which were accessible to all members of the public.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19955008.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND The origin of the present petition is the related federal case filed in 1989 by Society for Savings in the Southern District of Florida concerning a consumer loan. That case was settled by No. 89 6167 CIV PAINE (S.D.Fla.1989). surrender of the vessel to Society for Savings and the agreed payment of $13. Which he alleges is the successor to Society for Savings with offices in Palm Beach County. Bank of Boston represented that it is a national banking association with its principal place of business in Massachusetts. That Rogers is a Florida citizen. The district court determined that Bank of Boston's failure to allege the state in which it is incorporated constituted an inadequate showing of its citizenship for diversity jurisdiction: A review of the Notice of Removal reveals that Defendant has failed to adequately demonstrate that the controversy is between citizens of different states. Defendant merely alleges that it is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DE0A0455C5FD97BE88257280008234DF/$file/0456880.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 28 USCA § 1291. Food and drug inspectors are peace officers and carry firearms. Adams was offered the position she sought. Her actual hiring was conditioned upon her successful completion of a background investigation. CDHS then advised Adams it was unable to accommodate her medical restrictions and it withdrew the conditional job offer. SPB granted Adams's appeal and advised her she would be appointed to the FDI position within 120 days unless she was unsuccessful in the balance of the selection process. Sending emails and letters to CDHS employees in which Adams's tone was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200403/03-1008a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971215.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
No registration is for the word PETRO alone. The PETRO mark is almost always displayed in white letters with a green rectangular background. Was placed on the Principal Register of the Patent and Trademark Office (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A1BC4AC7A3CC2CE58825728900823407/$file/0455838.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: We are asked to determine whether and if so. Under what circumstances a criminal defendant's retirement benefits are available as a source of funds to compensate crime victims. Underlying each statute is a weighty policy determination: MVRA rests on the recognition that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0261p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Her counsel petitioned the District Court for an award of costs and attorney's fees.1 That petition was denied in its entirety. Although the statutes and cases are all over the lot (some using that term. CHESNY For purposes of this appeal Rule 68 is just as important for what it does not say as for what it says (emphasis added): At any time more than 10 days before the trial begins. If within 10 days after the service of the offer the adverse party serves written notice that the offer is accepted. An offer not accepted shall be deemed withdrawn and evidence thereof is not admissible except in a proceeding to determine costs. If the judgment finally obtained by the offeree is not more favorable than the offer. It is totally silent on the subject of attorney's fees. Hence the only way in which Rule 68 directly implicates awards of attorney's fees is in situations where such fees are made an element of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200203/01-5223a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were David M. With her on the brief were Roscoe C. Circuit Judge: These are four consolidated cases on appeal from the judgment of the district court sustaining regulations of the National Park Service governing concession contracts in the National Park System. Many of the issues are tied to the history of the National Park System and the functions concessioners perform in the operation of the parks. The history begins with the discovery of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=08&date=01&year=00">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991529.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The completed building was structurally defective and failed to comply with the North Carolina Building Code. The judgment was not appealed. This ruling was affirmed by the District Court's Order of March 15. The parties have stipulated to the validity of the contract entered into between the Armors and Division and its terms. Any holder of this consumer credit contract is subject to all claims and defenses which the debtor could assert against the seller of the goods or services obtained pursuant hereto or with the proceeds hereof. It is undisputed that Empire. Is the holder of the contract and that Division was the seller of the goods and services relating to the construction of debtors' building. The state court judgment specifically held that Division and Alphin were jointly and severally liable for the breach of contract and unfair and deceptive trade practices claims. Were resolved. Empire argues that the application of the doctrine of claim preclusion under North Carolina law dictates that a final judgment on the merits is conclusive not only as to matters actually litigated but also to matters properly within the scope of the pleadings which should have been adjudicated.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07b0008p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
000 down payment on the Lodi property was. That the Versailles property was property of the Debtor's estate.1 For the reasons that follow. The bankruptcy court's judgment is AFFIRMED. I. ISSUES ON APPEAL The issues on appeal are: (1) whether a loan in the amount of $157. 000 loan
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/04/056055P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an appeal of the bankruptcy court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs on their complaint that unliquidated debts allegedly owed to them by the Debtors should be excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(b). The application of collateral estoppel is a legal question. BACKGROUND The factual background to this appeal is limited by the paucity of factual findings in the judgment on appeal. The record on appeal is devoid of any findings regarding the Plaintiffs' identities and injuries. DISCUSSION The Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on their complaint that the debts allegedly owed to them by the debtors are nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6). That the Debtors were collaterally estopped from re litigating the District Court's findings and that those findings were sufficient to maintain a claim under § 523(a)(6). We are concerned that the District Court Judgment may not be entitled to collateral estoppel effect.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/99-9546.htm">99-9546 -- QWEST CORP. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION -- 07/31/2001<BR></A><BR>
We do not decide the underlying issue of whether the funding is in fact sufficient. We conclude that the FCC has not supported why the funding is sufficient. Several technical aspects of the model have been challenged. We affirm the Tenth Order. <p align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1168.html">LOCKWOOD V. AMERICAN AIRLINES<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1867.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Will &. Emery</U> were on brief. <U>McConnell Valdes</U> were on brief. Purchasers of certain Volvo automobiles claim that they were tricked into overpaying for their cars. This is essentially the same approach taken by the <U>Bonilla</U> plaintiffs in their earlier suit against Volvo. This case is more narrowly focused. The particular fraud allegations that matter here are those that we previously characterized as involving double invoicing and disclosure labeling. <U>Id.</U> at 72 75. AUM's ostensible role was as a guarantor of Trebol's debts to Volvo. Mirta Rivera<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1994/94a0855p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The lawsuit was the result of years of friction between Blanche Road and Township regarding the development of certain parcels of land located in Township. Arguing that the new language added to the exclusion clause is inconsistent with the parties' reasonable expectations. The court imposed a $2000 sanction on Township after finding that it had failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry when it filed a motion to determine the Rule 59(e) motion in the district court while a petition for rehearing was pending on appeal. Township contends that the motion was reasonable under the circumstances because a premature appeal does not divest the district court of jurisdiction to consider a pending Rule 59(e) motion. We will reverse the dismissal of the complaint and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We will also reverse the order imposing a Rule 11 sanction against Township. Township apparently believed it was receiving essentially the same type of insurance policy it had always received from Insurers.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/06/992853P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Perry plant is divided into three sections: the kill floor. Where hogs are killed. The sections are organized into numerous production lines. Each of which is responsible for a different facet of hog processing. The lines are composed of line workers. A utility position is usually the first step towards promotion to such management support jobs as trainer. The lines are managed by front line supervisors and general supervisors. Supervisors are managed by plant superintendents. Who are responsible for all production functions. Who is the highest level manager in the plant. The Perry plant also employs a personnel director who is responsible for addressing employee grievances. The authority to terminate employees is vested in the plant manager and the personnel director. She was dating James Madison. An African American man who was also employed at the Perry plant. The couple married in 1996 and have two children. Was a reliable worker. 3 Madison presented a great deal of evidence at trial to show that she was subjected to a continuing pattern of racial and sexual harassment during her employment and that supervisors and managers failed to take action in response to her complaints.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2001/002236.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We must decide whether the district court erred in determining that r egistering domain names that are intentional misspellings of distinctive or famous names constitutes unlawful conduct under the Act. Many of which are sold at gift stores acr oss the country. Visitors were trapped or
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0399n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court concluded that the arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties was unenforceable. The registration form contained the following provision:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0081p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The bankruptcy court found that the petition was filed in bad faith and awarded JRH costs. I. BACKGROUND We set forth here an abbreviated version of the material events addressed by the bankruptcy court in adjudicating the merits of JRH's claim that Adell's petition for involuntary bankruptcy was in bad faith. Contending that it was only worth $1 million instead of $1.75 million. All of which essentially rested on two allegations: (1) that Shekerjian and JRH had orally told Adell that the land was worth $1. That the home they would construct for him would have a value of $2. Even though they knew that was impossible because there were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054168p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Laher's TIAA CREF retirement annuity is excluded from the bankruptcy estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 541(c)(2). We hold that it is. Will reverse the decision of the District Court and order that the case be remanded to the Bankruptcy Court for entry of an order excluding the annuity from the bankruptcy estate. Pre tax contributions were taken from his paycheck and accumulated into a sum that would be used to purchase a contract that would pay him an annuity over time after retirement.1 Salary
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/410347FABA0293F388257251006DF1D1/$file/0510067.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on the briefs. Were on the brief. 19790 UNITED STATES v. The government was also required to give up all notes made by reviewing agents. 1 UNITED STATES v. The subpoenas were returnable on February 5. Consists of two professional baseball leagues the National League of Professional Baseball Clubs and the American League of Professional Baseball Clubs. 4 The names of the players are under seal and are not disclosed in this opinion. 5 CDT is a third party administrator of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=08&date=01&year=99">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4A0A2711416534A188256C1300133BF7/$file/0155930.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We consider the extent to which the First Amendment and due process guarantees are implicated when a graduate student's thesis committee declines to approve a thesis that meets academic and professional standards in all respects except one: The acknowledgments section does not conform to established academic and professional standards. Who are university professors and officials. LI 11779 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff Christopher Brown was a master's degree candidate in the Department of Material Sciences at the University of California at Santa Barbara (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2004/024582p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Class members were entitled to opt out at various stages. Those who chose to opt out initially were freed to pursue their remedies elsewhere. Those who did not opt out at the beginning were afforded opportunities to opt out
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-2663_017.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Day was sentenced to 25 months' imprisonment and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $39. Day was involved in a scheme to profit from the resale of used vehicles by altering the odometers of the vehicles and misrepresenting the mileage at the time of sale. Day was charged with three counts of knowingly and willfully resetting and altering vehicle odometers. The exact restitution figure will be agreed upon by the parties prior to sentencing or. If the parties are unable to agree upon a specific figure. Restitution will be determined by the Court at sentencing. Day represented that the mileage was 59. The mileage was 159. No other vehicles or other aspects of the criminal scheme were discussed or were admitted by Mr. Day's sentence calculation was United States Sentencing Guidelines (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200312/02-1189a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/08/983265P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which was collateral for the defaulted loan. Alleging that he was charged for official fees never paid to public officials. We have jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals from orders granting permanent injunctions. We conclude there is no federal question jurisdiction over the interest overcharge class's claims. CAC supplies dealers with retail installment contract forms containing numerous blanks to be filled in by the dealer and the purchaser before the contract is signed. One blank is entitled charges
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200515976.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appellee Nucor is the dominant producer of hot rolled coil for the relevant geographic market. Which was later converted to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The Group was formed to purchase certain of its assets in the Gadsden mill that could be used to produce hot rolled coil (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jun2004/Jun29/03-30470-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court ruled that the two contracts that are the basis of the breach of contract claims barred the plaintiffs from pursuing trademark related claims. I. BACKGROUND As habitués of New Orleans are well aware. Members of the Brennan family are uncommonly blessed with a talent for restaurateuring. Was opened by Owen E. Dickie was not a signatory to the In the late 1990s.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1109.html">;AMAZON.COM, INC. V. BARNESANDNOBLE.COM, INC<BR></A><BR>
With her on the brief were <U>J. Of counsel was <U>John R. Of counsel on the brief were <U>David J. With him on the brief were <U>William G. Of counsel on the brief were <U>Michael N. Of counsel was <U>Stanton T. This is a patent infringement suit brought by Amazon.com. We have jurisdiction to review the district court's order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(1) (1994).</P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2509.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have consolidated for decision the appeals from the dismissal of two closely related cases under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The defendant was hired to collect credit card debt owed by the three plaintiffs. Your account may have or will accrue interest at a rate specified in your contractual agreement with the original creditor.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2234.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972582.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. In May 1995 the Bank sold the car on terms that Amond contends were commercially unreasonable and that unfairly reduced the sale price of the car. After a bench trial in December 1996 the state court awarded judgment to Amond on the Bank's claim for the deficiency because the Bank was unable to rebut Amond's assertion that the Bank had sold her car as a less expensive model. Her appeal was untimely. That is. Confirming that the stated balance on the loan was accurate. Amond was unable to obtain the loan to buy the condominium. She claimed that the lawyers violated the FDCPA by attempting to collect a debt that was not owed and by verifying an $11. 777 balance on the loan that was in error. If the papers filed in district court show there is no
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1995/95a1107p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court based its holding on the Providers' claim that the Pennsylvania statute is preempted by the Hyde Amendment. We conclude that the Secretary of Health and Human Services is owed deference regarding her interpretation of the Hyde Amendment mandates. Because the Secretary has determined that reporting requirements are permissible under the Medicaid Act. Because the second physician certification requirement pursuant to § 3215(c) is contrary to a federal regulation. It is also invalid to the extent that it goes beyond the scope of that regulation. The purpose of the Medicaid program is to help provide medical treatment for low income people. Establishment of a Medicaid program is voluntary on the part of each state. While states are not obligated to participate in the Medicaid program. Each state that chooses to do so is required to develop its own state plan which must be approved by the Secretary. Certain categories of medical care are mandatory. While other categories of care are optional.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/12/036030P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota This is an appeal from an order of the bankruptcy court1 dated May 30. The bankruptcy court determined that the claim was protected against modification under 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2) as a mortgage secured solely by the McConnells' principal residence. On which their principal residence was situated (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/99-4092.htm">99-4092 -- HEARD V. BONNEVILLE BILLING AND COLLECTIONS -- 06/26/2000<BR></A><BR>
Who was not the signer nor any longer on the account. We affirm. <p> <center><strong>Nos. 99 4100 and 99 4202</strong></center> <p> Because the parties are familiar with the underlying facts. We do not reiterate them here unless they are necessary to explain our disposition. Heard was listed on the check as a joint account holder. Heard was liable for her daughter's bad checks. Was supported by Bonneville's failure to offer any evidence it maintained procedures designed to safeguard against collecting from joint account holders in all circumstances. The court found
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/09/98-3149.htm">98-3149 -- BAER V. MONTGOMERY -- 09/11/2000<BR></A><BR>
Chief Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2002a/021172.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At which advanced point the four studies were unfit for Food and Drug Administration review. Therefore were worthless. It defended on the ground that the nurses' actions were not dishonest because they had acted on their belief that strict adherence to protocol was unnecessary. That while their actions might have been negligent. Federal also maintained that even if the nurses' actions were dishonest. Federal contended that even if it were liable for Scirex's losses. Because the losses across the four ruined studies were related. 2 Following a bench trial. The nurses'
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5036.html">THE SHOSHONE INDIAN TRIBE OF THE WIND RIVER V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff cross appellant The Shoshone Indian Tribe of the Wind River Reservation.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Lynn E. Calkins</u> and <u>Maria Whitehorn Votsch</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Also on the brief was <u>Richard M. Who argued for plaintiff cross appellant The Arapaho Indian Tribe of the Wind River Reservation.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Brian W. Argued for United States.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2002/014397.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
An offer not accepted shall be deemed withdrawn and evidence thereof is not admissible except in a proceeding to determine costs. If the judgment finally obtained by the offeree is not more favorable than the offer. The District Court held that Rule 68 is fundamentally incompatible with class action litigation and granted Colbert's Motion to Strike the Offer of Judgment and his Motion for Class Certification. We hold that there is no longer federal jurisdiction over this litigation and the District Court's Order will be vacated. This Court has not determined that plaintiff 's class action is improper. Rule 68 is not applicable here. The Court will strike defendants' Offer of Judgment.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Apr2002/005201.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is whether an insurance company must turn over to its terminated agent $259. Because we recognized that this issue was one of first impression in New Jersey. Essentially at will or. That the termination was at will. The consequence of this ruling is that New Jersey's Agency Termination Statute requires Ohio Casualty to pay PIM commissions on all policies for one year following termination. PIM would have no right to these commissions. The remaining issues on appeal arise from the ruling that the termination was at will. (2) whether PIM is entitled to pre judgment interest on the commissions. We remand to the Bankruptcy Court to apply to the facts of this case the legal determination that the initial at will termination can become a termination for cause between the notice of termination and the effective termination date. The claims of constructive trust and contempt of court addressed by the District Court were not raised on appeal. Factual and Procedural Background The facts of this case are set out at length in previous opinions of this Court3 and the District Court.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1452.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judges.(2) The issues in this appeal are whether the district court erred in reforming an insurance policy and in dismissing various claims against The Hartford Insurance Group. The underlying lawsuit was based on an insurance coverage dispute arising from an accident in Denver. After the settlement was executed. Hartford claimed it was not obligated to provide any reimbursement despite its participation in the settlement agreement because its insurance policy did not cover the operations of Zone Cabs. Hartford insisted its insurance policy (1) This order is not binding precedent. This cause is submitted withoutoral argument. Plaintiffs appeal arguing that both reformation and summary judgment were improper. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. Inc. was a licensed and registered Colorado motor vehicle carrier regulated by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC). Though both were owned by Cabs. Paratransit Risk Retention Group Insurance Company was a mutual insurance company owned and operated by taxicab fleet owners.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june96/95-2077.opa.html">AQUATHERM INDUS., INC. V. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Aquatherm Indus. While we agree with the district court that Aquatherm's Lanham Act claims were barred. Remand.<p> BACKGROUND<p> <p> Aquatherm is a manufacturer of solar powered heating systems for swimming pools. FPL is a regulated utility that sells electricity in an area of Florida containing more than 250. Aquatherm's contention that these statements have unfairly advantaged the market for pool heaters reliant on electricity.<p> Aquatherm and FPL have expended a great deal of energy on their journey to this court. The state court's decision was affirmed by a Florida appellate court in March 1994.<p> Prior to dismissal of the state action. (3) by applying only two of the four elements required for res judicata under Florida law to hold that Aquatherm's Lanham Act claim was barred. Antitrust Claims<p> <p> This case presents the question whether a federal district court may give a Florida court judgment preclusive effect in a federal action brought under antitrust laws that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts and therefore could not have been raised in the state court proceeding due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2106.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
They were protected from liability by the bona fide error defense. Although it is unclear whether that was due to a mistake by the bank or Hyman. T & K also explained that although there was no formal agreement with Cross Country Bank. The district court concluded that even if T & K's collection letter technically violated the FDCPA because it was sent after her bankruptcy filing. It was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1711.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On page 8. Hamilton & Scheetz were on brief for appellant. Marquez and Drinker Biddle & Reath were on brief for appellee. After the suit was transferred to the district court in Puerto Rico. After the case was transferred to Puerto Rico. An amended complaint was filed. Since the amended complaint was later dismissed on the pleadings. What follows is SAS's version of the facts. PRTC is a Delaware corporation that provides about 90 percent of the telephone service within Puerto Rico and operates over 95 percent of the pay phones in Puerto Rico. All of the stock of PRTC was acquired about 20 years ago by the Puerto Rico Telephone Authority (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1998/98a1980p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Will & Emery 600 Thirteenth Street. Venue is proper pursuant to I.R.C. We will affirm in part. Each of ACM's three partners was created as a subsidiary of a larger entity several days before ACM's formation. Southampton was incorporated under Delaware law on October 24. Kannex Corporation N.V. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1712.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Richmond & Rothstein were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. Holding that Progressive's mortgage was not entitled to priority over the federal tax liens under the Massachusetts common law doctrines of equitable subrogation or unjust enrichment. The mortgage at issue is secured by real property located in Marshfield. 000.00 mortgage note which was properly recorded in favor of the Miles Standish Federal Credit Union (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=04&date=01&year=01">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/25DCAFFA6C110DD088256D870082947A/$file/0255848.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was charged a prepayment penalty of six months' interest on 100 percent of the balance of the loan. Governing Law Provision This Note and the related Security Interest are governed by the Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act of 1982. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. DISCUSSION [1] An award of fees and costs associated with removal or remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Although an order remanding a case to state court is not reviewable.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june96/95-2077.opa.html">AQUATHERM INDUS., INC. V. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Aquatherm Indus. While we agree with the district court that Aquatherm's Lanham Act claims were barred. Remand.<p> BACKGROUND<p> <p> Aquatherm is a manufacturer of solar powered heating systems for swimming pools. FPL is a regulated utility that sells electricity in an area of Florida containing more than 250. Aquatherm's contention that these statements have unfairly advantaged the market for pool heaters reliant on electricity.<p> Aquatherm and FPL have expended a great deal of energy on their journey to this court. The state court's decision was affirmed by a Florida appellate court in March 1994.<p> Prior to dismissal of the state action. (3) by applying only two of the four elements required for res judicata under Florida law to hold that Aquatherm's Lanham Act claim was barred. Antitrust Claims<p> <p> This case presents the question whether a federal district court may give a Florida court judgment preclusive effect in a federal action brought under antitrust laws that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts and therefore could not have been raised in the state court proceeding due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2A2CDB2924C8015F88256C5C005698E8/$file/0155930.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
ORDER The mandate is recalled for the limited purpose of correcting the caption. Is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 11773. We consider the extent to which the First Amendment and due process guarantees are implicated when a graduate student's thesis committee declines to approve a thesis that meets academic and professional standards in all respects except one: The acknowledgments section does not conform to established academic and professional standards. Who are university professors and officials. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff Christopher Brown was a master's degree candidate in the Department of Material Sciences at the University of California at Santa Barbara (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/11/00-3014.htm">00-3014 -- ADVANTAGE PROPERTIES V. COMMERCE BANK -- 11/13/2000<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff appellant Advantage Properties. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200606/04-5402a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the briefs was Allison M. With her on the brief were Kenneth L. Vehicle owners who are afforded recall notification of a safety related defect or noncompliance are entitled to a free remedy from the manufacturer. When a safety related defect was caused by exposure to atypical climatic conditions. Even if regional recalls are permissible in some circumstances.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1244_052.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case was brought by frustrated depositors of Superior Bank FSB (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul22/03-30470-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court ruled that the two contracts that are the basis of the breach of contract claims barred the plaintiffs from pursuing trademark related claims. I. BACKGROUND As habitués of New Orleans are well aware. Members of the Brennan family are uncommonly blessed with a talent for restaurateuring. Was opened by Owen E. Dickie was not a signatory to the In the late 1990s.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2B82E418A228C57C882571E60059FA5B/$file/0416539.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Rather requires courts to examine the totality of the debtor's circumstances on a case by case basis to determine whether retirement contributions are a reasonably necessary expense for that debtor. In this case the bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding that Lisa Hebbring's voluntary retirement contributions are not a reasonably necessary expense based on her age and financial circumstances. When she filed for bankruptcy Hebbring was thirty three years old and had accumulated $6. Arguing that she should not be allowed to deduct voluntary retirement contributions from her income and that her recent paystubs showed that her gross income was higher than she had claimed. Hebbring's monthly net income was actually $3. Hebbring argued that her recent paystubs were not representative of her monthly CPA). BAPCPA's amendments to the Bankruptcy Code are not relevant to the issues before us. All references herein are to the pre BAPCPA Code in effect when Hebbring's petition was filed. 11 U.S.C. §§ 101 1330 (2000). 11060 HEBBRING v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=01&date=01&year=98">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2177.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
McConnell Valdes were on brief for appellee. BACKGROUND1 BACKGROUND Welch is a major fruit juice manufacturer which has sold its products in Puerto Rico since the 1930's through various local distributors. Including a one year trial dealership 1The facts are stated in the light most favorable to appel lant R.W. The reader is referred to our two earlier decisions for additional detail. Welch juice sales were as follows: April 1988 1900 cases $ 42. [which] are significant and irreconcilable. 568 (1st Cir. 1994).5 The Legislature therefore prohibited a principal from 4We will uphold a grant of summary judgment if the competent evidence discloses no genuine issue of material fact and Welch is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The materiality of any disputed fact in genuine dispute is determined through reference to the appli cable substantive law. As soon as these have created a favorable 5 unilaterally terminating an established dealership
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/30F069FE0BC1EB8C882572DB0056BB91/$file/0456039.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Contending that it is unconscio 5606 DAVIS v. The merits of the underlying claims in her complaint are not at issue here. Because the arbitration agreement is unconscionable under California law. A cover memorandum stated:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/10/006021P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction over this appeal from the final order of the bankruptcy court. ISSUE The issue on appeal is whether under Minnesota law the Trustee. Because the Debtor was a retail operator of convenience stores. It had some inventory that was perishable and some dated inventory such as canned goods and other lower priced consumer products of the sort typically sold by a convenience store. Prompt liquidation of Debtor's inventory was necessary to get the highest possible liquidation value. The Letter Agreement expressly provided: It is agreed that the liens and lien rights which Fritz asserts against the inventory are preserved. The respective rights of Fritz and the Trustee with respect thereto are not prejudiced. That was the amount left over after Fritz offset a debit of $23. While Fritz was liquidating the Debtor's assets. The bankruptcy court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the Trustee finding that the Additional Payments were preferential. Are preserved and are not affected by this transaction. 3 STANDARD OF REVIEW The facts are not in dispute.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept2000/993873.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Claims on the ground that they were barred by the statute of limitations and (2) an order entered February 9. We will affirm the orders entered by the district court. Was an automobile dealership franchise selling and servicing Jeep and Eagle vehicles. 2 Frank Cuda. Cuda had been involved in the automobile industry since he was a child. Northview was a successful dealership consistently ranking as one of the top one hundred American Motors dealerships in the nation. There was testimony that Chrysler acquired American Motors in the summer of 1987 but even if this is so our result would be the same as that we reach. 3 Advertising Association. This Agreement will terminate automatically without notice from either party on: . . . (vi) the failure of DEALER to fully conduct its Dealership Operations for seven (7) consecutive business days . . . Northview presented evidence that it continuously was unable to obtain desired vehicles from Chrysler to sell to the public and was unable to fill a fleet order for Alamo Rent A Car.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0126p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
She was sexually harassed and constructively discharged. The district court held that the arbitration provision is invalid as a matter of Tennessee law because it is an unconscionable contract of adhesion and is insufficiently bilateral. Invalid as a matter of federal law because it did not make clear that Cooper was waiving her right to a jury trial. No. 02 5702 The district court also held that the arbitration provision is unenforceable. I. BACKGROUND Terry Rogers and Larry Mays are the sole shareholders of MRM. The then prevailing rules of the [FAA]) will apply. The parties agree MRM did not separately advise Cooper that she was giving up her right to a jury trial. She was forced to quit in August 2000. Standard of Review We review de novo the district court's holding that the arbitration agreement is invalid and unenforceable. Will be set aside only if they are clearly erroneous: If the district court's account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety. It would have No. 02 5702 Cooper v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0284p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The only question of law in this interlocutory appeal is whether similarly worded arbitration clauses in the plaintiffs' brokerage account agreements mandate arbitration of their claims. 03 3041/3042/ 3043/3045/3112/3113/3258 Frank Gruttadauria was a stockbroker for the defendant brokerage houses or firms that were purchased by them. While their actual value was only $1.8 million. He claimed that he was the only person involved in the scheme but implied that the brokerage houses were grossly negligent for not monitoring his activities. The district court held that the arbitration clauses were not binding because. The agreements were void ab intitio and there were effectively no accounts. The district court held that the fraud alleged here was not covered by the arbitration clauses. II We have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1). If a court determines that the cause of action is covered by an arbitration clause. It must stay the proceedings until the arbitration process is complete. 9 U.S.C. § 3.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA2LTE3OTRfc28ucGRm/06-1794_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1977.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1994 is amended as follows: Page 26. Line 6 should read
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2542_012.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He submits that the search of his vehicle and the seizure of his false identification found in the vehicle were unreasonable. He also contends that the district court erred in placing on him the burden to produce evidence that a two level sentencing enhancement for use of false identification to obtain another means of identification was improper. Hines was under supervised release at the time as a result of a prior conviction for possession of a firearm. He was traveling in a dark blue van with Illinois license plates. He and Agent Meyer left the Hines' residence to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1995/94a0962p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At issue is whether the waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States set forth either in the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/06/962120P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
After finding that both sets of plaintiffs have standing. We hold that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/03/99-8005.htm">99-8005 -- U.S. V. ASCH -- 03/29/2000<BR></A><BR>
We further hold that appellant Andrea Asch's guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. She completed a drug treatment program and began speaking in school drug prevention programs. <p> The day before her trial was scheduled to begin. It was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D3E88955B3DB7FB6882570FF00825FD7/$file/0335858.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Thereby extinguishing Plaintiffs' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims.1 Plaintiffs at pertinent times were tenants of boardinghouses inspected by public health officials and secured by Seattle police. Lee at pertinent times were employees of the Seattle King County Department of Public Health. Defendant Kerlikowske was Chief of Police for the City of Seattle during the events underlying this case. Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred by granting Defendants' motions for summary judgment and that Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the search underlying this case violated the Fourth Amendment. Plaintiffs argue that they were entitled to prevail on the undisputed facts. We agree that the material facts are not in dispute. We consider the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs to the extent there is any factual dispute. Plaintiffs were detained by the Seattle police unreasonably and thus unconstitutionally. Plaintiffs argue that if they are not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="223"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/96-4090.htm">96-4090 -- V-1 OIL CO. V. UTAH STATE DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY -- 12/22/1997<BR></A><BR>
At issue are V 1's facilities in Preston. V 1's vendors deliver propane to its storage facilities either by train or truck. <u>See</u> <u>id.</u> None of V 1's facilities or customers are served by pipeline. <u>See</u> <u>id.</u> at 99 100.<u></u> <p> <u> </u>Most of V 1's customers. Are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1117BB47DD0E835588256BBF0017B0DD/$file/0155656.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The bankruptcy court held that Su's debt to Carrillo was nondischargeable. Arguing that the bankruptcy court correctly applied the law and that Su's debt is nondischargeable. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). Carrillo was lawfully crossing a major downtown San Francisco intersec IN RE SU 7389 tion while walking to work. Who was driving a 14passenger van. He crashed into a car that was lawfully in the intersection and then careened into Carrillo. Alleging that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971808.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: This case is a study in the tensions that can beset the franchisorfranchisee relationship. Defendants maintain that the suit was erroneously certified as a class action and challenge several other legal rulings by the district court. Deprived defendants of a fair trial on the precise issue of contractual breach that is properly the focus of this case. I. The plaintiff class consisted of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=12&date=01&year=95">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971372.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Vacated the award of punitive damages in favor of each on the ground that the record contained insufficient evidence
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/964666.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gormley was indicted on one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 286 (West Supp. 1999) and nineteen counts of filing fraudulent claims in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 287 (West Supp. 1999). Gormley was convicted of the conspiracy charge and 16 counts of making fraudulent claims. Gormley is not an accountant and has no special training in the area of tax preparation. MDP was owned by Michael Pahutski. MDP Quick Tax was in the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1091.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Mills were delinquent in their loan payments on numerous occasions. As that appeal was pending. Appellants alleged that (1) Salem Bank was not the true owner of their mortgage. The 1998 foreclosure was null and void. The <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june97/95-4769.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-5045.html">WALTER PROCHORENKO V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for defendant appellee.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961814.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The victim alleges that these rapes were motivated by her assailants' discriminatory animus toward women and sues them pursuant to the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. Morrison immediately asked Brzonkala if she would have sexual intercourse with him.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2000/98-5917.man.html">HALPERIN V. REG'L ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC. (3/15/2000, NO. 98-5917)<BR></A><BR>
Multiple holders of defaulted student loans are subject to a cumulative garnishment limit of ten percent of the debtor's disposable pay and imposing an injunction against the Creditors. The district court did not have jurisdiction to enter injunctive relief against Education.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/953093.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will not consider the qualified immunity defense in this posture. I. Plaintiff Appellee Suarez Corporation Industries (SCI) is an Ohio corporation that markets its goods through direct mail sweepstakes promotions and other contests. Elizabeth Pishner are West Virginia residents who have purchased goods from SCI or participated in its promotions. Plaintiffs Appellees are collectively referred to as SCI. McGraw is the Attorney General of West Virginia and Rodd is a Senior Assistant Attorney General. Several of SCI's marketing schemes were temporarily enjoined by the state courts. While that motion was pending. Are brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§ 1983. The remaining claims are based on state law. The principal bases for these claims are that McGraw and Rodd accelerated enforcement proceedings against SCI after the newspaper ad. That McGraw and Rodd have disseminated derogatory information about other legal proceedings against SCI to the media and Dun & Bradstreet. The district court's only explanation was provided in a footnote: Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint is not a model pleading in several respects.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2001/98-6055.ma2.html">RANDOLPH V. GREEN TREE FIN. CORP.--ALABAMA (3/13/2001, NO. 98-6055)<BR></A><BR>
We held that the arbitration agreement in this case defeated the remedial purposes of TILA and was unenforceable because of the potentially high costs to Randolph of pursuing arbitration. The Supreme Court explicitly
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTEzODYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-1386-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Finding that the offer encompassed all the relief to which plaintiff was entitled. P. 68 moots the case so that entry of judgment in favor of the defendant is appropriate. Dismissed this case as moot and entered judgment in favor of the defendant when the defendant's offer of judgment was refused. Which was the fee he incurred when. After he was refused a loan by Sallie Mae. With costs then accrued.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/23BD0A16D9ED890A88256C840006015B/$file/9915185.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
There is not much dispute. Where there is. The facts are of course taken favorably to the verdict.3 On October 9. The driveway is sloped. The truck was parked on the slope This decision had to await the Supreme Court's decision in Cooper Industries. The Whites' three year old son Walter was playing outside. The Whites' theory of the case was that Walter pulled or kicked it out of first gear into neutral. The gearshift lever is a long stalk sticking up from the floor. So Walter may have been clambering after his lost piggy bank. The parking brake didn't hold the truck after it was shifted from first to neutral. The plaintiffs' theory of the case was that the parking brake let go despite being set. Ford knew the parking brake was prone to failure. He wouldn't have parked his truck on a slope. He would have brought the truck in immediately to be fixed. FORD MOTOR CO. 7 Ford offered alternative theories of how the accident could have occurred. One was that Mr. If this is how the accident occurred. That the parking brake sometimes allowed trucks to roll despite being engaged and that Ford should have warned its customers.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1291.html">RECOT, INC. V. M.C. BECTON<BR></A><BR>
On the brief were <u>Laurence R. ) dismissed the opposition on the ground that there was no likelihood that consumers would confuse FIDO LAY with Recot
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1494.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Capone LLP</SPAN> was on brief for appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021432.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are 4 BESKIND v. Who are permitted to sell and ship their wine directly to consumers. The district court held that North Carolina's ABC laws unconstitutionally discriminated against out of state wine manufacturers and sellers and were not saved by the Twenty first Amendment. The structure in North Carolina is a familiar three tiered one in which out ofstate sellers of alcoholic beverages may sell their alcoholic beverages only to licensed wholesalers. North Carolina General Statutes § 18B 102.1 provides that it is unlawful
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></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-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012511.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The Fishers intended to divide the property on which their house was situated into three parcels. A local attorney was then hired to prepare deeds vesting ownership of the other two parcels in the Fishers and one of their sons in joint tenancy. When this work was completed. The amount of the loan was $36. Which was the original principal amount of the loan less the total of the payments the Fishers had already made. The same day that the letter was sent. The Fishers asserted in an amended complaint that these statements were sent in violation of W. Which prohibits a debt collector from communicating directly with a consumer when it appears that the consumer is represented by counsel (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0153p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The following facts are taken from the complaint: Morgan Stanley. Are marketed to the public as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011502.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). Which contends that it has not engaged in the misconduct attributed to the major tobacco manufacturers and was not sued by any of the States. Asserts that it will be unjustly burdened by the requirements of the Master Settlement Agreement and the legislation that Virginia enacted pursuant to the agreement. Which was known as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0102p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Part II (Adverse Employment Action) of the majority opinion was joined by BOGGS. Part IV (Punitive Damages) was joined by MARTIN. In which he was joined by MARTIN. In which he was joined by BOGGS. We decide that a thirty seven day suspension without pay constitutes an adverse employment action regardless of whether the suspension is followed by a reinstatement with back pay. In which position Ellis earned more pay than he would have if he had continued working in the forklift position. White was the only female working in the Maintenance of Way department at the Tennessee Yard. White's immediate supervisor was foreman Bill Joiner. He also admitted that he did not believe that the Maintenance of Way department was an appropriate place for women to work. Joiner repeatedly expressed this belief to her while she was working under his supervision. Another Burlington Northern employee agreed at trial that there was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0278p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was hired by defendant at the age of nineteen. Anthony appeals the grant of summary judgment to BTR on his claims that BTR's refusal to promote him on four separate occasions was discriminatory based on his race and age.4 He also appeals the grant of summary judgment by the district court four days before trial because by that time he had already expended money on witness per diem and service fees for the trial. Anthony argues that he was a long time faithful employee of BTR with a good work record. Anthony contends a jury should have been permitted to hear how this early experience in Anthony's employment
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0282p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Claiming that it was unknowing and involuntary. Were dismissed. ANALYSIS Waucaush argues that his plea was unintelligent. The scope of Congress's commerce power was controlled by United States v. Although Waucaush would normally have lost his chance to challenge the plea. Bousley detailed two circumstances that would excuse a defendant's failure to raise such a claim on direct appeal: (1) there was both
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2101.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LLP</SPAN> were on brief. LLP</SPAN> were on brief. Benham argues that the district court's judgment is predicated upon a factual finding that has no support in the record. Christopher's bonus was directly proportional to the Bank's profits. This evidence led to the inescapable conclusion that she was fired so that the Bank could avoid paying her costly employee benefits.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2054.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Town Counsel for the Town of Wellesley were on brief for appellant.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0162n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Twenty nine full service wholesalers that are also direct distributors under distribution agreements with defendant appellee Philip Morris USA. Cigarette brands are divided into four price categories or
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/065028np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Before us is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs Appellants' motion for a preliminary injunction. We will affirm the order of the District Court.1 The District Court had jurisdiction over the motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Appellees Harmonay and Connors were portfolio managers at Huff. 2006) (quoting policy).2 There was no agreement not to compete with Huff after employees left the company. Huff chooses to analyze is a key proprietary component to the firm's entire research process.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0115p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ryan's is a Delaware corporation. Ryan's argued that Plaintiffs federal court claims were foreclosed by the arbitration agreements that each had executed at the outset of their employment. Holding that there was inadequate consideration for the arbitration agreements. The agreements were not founded upon mutual assent. The court also held that the arbitration forum provided for in the agreements is not able to provide for effective vindication of statutory claims and is an inappropriate substitute for the judicial forum. The second page of the packet notifies the applicant that he or she is required to complete and sign the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0128p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
While Dismas does have standing under the notice and comment requirements for informal rulemaking contained in § 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/063098p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was indicted on January 20. Claiming they are unsupported and politically motivated. His trial was scheduled to begin in October 2006. We have stayed it pending disposition of three applications that are before us: (1) Wecht's challenge of Local Rule 83.1 of the U.S. Wecht was indicted on January 20. This feud was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1842.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Were on brief. The roofs were installed on commercial buildings in Woburn and Burlington. The roofs were composed of unreinforced polyvinyl chloride membranes and were sold with ten year warranties. Cummings learned that such PVC roofs were subject to catastrophic failure and. 3) was suitable for use in the variable climate of Massachusetts. Unreinforced PVC roofs are most likely to shatter in cold weather. It is not clear how well known the shattering phenomenon was before that time. Although it was unclear whether there were any incidents of shattering during that period.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061776np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This proof of claim was later amended to $61. The Bankruptcy Judge held that FBCC was a secured creditor of the debtor's estate as a lien holder on real property owned by the debtor. The Bankruptcy Judge later held that the interest and attorneys' fees added to FBCC's proof of claim were prohibited by Pennsylvania's Loan Interest and Protection Law (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19954769.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Senior District Judge: Appellants Alice Sepulveda and Placido Mendez were convicted of possessing and conspiring to possess. Appellants contend that they are entitled to acquittal because the unprogrammed combinations are not additional access devices that can be added to the fourteen cloned telephones to establish the fifteen or more access devices required for conviction. It was established at trial. 1994 and that each time there were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200615516.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sitting by designation. * Plaintiffs Appellants are Georgia residents and subscribers of defendant Comcast Corporation (Comcast). Arguing the subscribers' individual claims were governed by written arbitration agreements. The class action waiver was unconscionable and therefore unenforceable as a matter of law. The court found the Arbitration Provision was binding and the class action waiver 4 was not unconscionable. The issue presented is whether the Arbitration Provision's class action waiver is unconscionable under Georgia law and thus unenforceable as a matter of law.2 If it is. Because we conclude the class action waiver clause is unenforceable. Thus the Arbitration Provision in its entirety is unenforceable. We look to state law to determine whether a provision in a contract is unenforceable. The entire Arbitration Provision is unenforceable. Written agreements to arbitrate a dispute arising out of a transaction involving commerce are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0216p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That exhaustion is not required for claims for breach of fiduciary duty. The Program's benefits include coverage for treatment of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/08/003210P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
K tel common stock was publicly traded on the NASDAQ National Market System (NMS). Thereby representing K tel was $226. The remaining documents filed with both courts reflect the name is spelled Kieves. This court will reference him as Kieves. 3 3 On October 19. K tel was not actually delisted as a result of the October 19. Almost 2.7 million shares of K tel common stock were sold by four individual defendants between May 8. There were only two other transactions by the individual defendants: on November 13. 000 shares which are at the end of or outside the class period) for approximately $532. The scheme was characterized by two circumstances. The Class asserts K tel knew in March 1998 of a $1.498 million loss due to the poor performance of a subsidiary and K tel was required by GAAP to write off the assets of the subsidiary in its March 10 Q filing. The Class alleged such overstating of assets in the March 10 Q and the later June 10 K is a violation of GAAP and is evidence of fraud and scienter because K tel's inclusion of the overstated assets concealed its inability to comply with the minimum necessary tangible net asset requirement for continued listing on the NMS.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-1182a.html">MONEY STATN INC V. FRS<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3FC68213410F1189882571DB005A0F82/$file/0171051ao.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nearly 200 petitions for review of the various FERC orders have been filed in our Court. Were the proper subject of the refund proceedings instituted by FERC. The net effect of our decision is to preserve the scope of the existing FERC refund proceedings. (2) FERC's denial of relief for energy sales in which CERS was the purchaser. Tucson Electric Power Company. 22 3 Also before us in this case are the Public Entities'4 and the Bonneville Power Administration's petitions for review of FERC's determination that it had authority to order relief for certain transactions known as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0421p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. The facts underlying this case are undisputed and uncomplicated. Mario Andretti was a successful and well known race car driver before he retired from automobile racing. Andretti is now a corporate spokesman for companies that contract with Andretti for the exclusive right to utilize his name. Borla's attorney attached his own declaration to the notice of removal stating that Andretti's pre suit demands to Borla were about $200. His claims were moot due to Borla's offer to enter a permanent injunction. The Judgment was in favor of Andretti and M.A. 500. The permanent injunction was worded identically to the preliminary injunction. The district court ruled that Andretti was a prevailing party and therefore that Borla was not entitled to costs or attorney fees as provided in Rule 54(d) and the Lanham Act. The court also determined that Borla was not entitled to attorney fees under the Copyright Act because. Even though Borla had argued that several of plaintiffs' claims were preempted by the Copyright Act.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0511n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a consolidated appeal involving two cases. Because under the proper interpretation of that provision plaintiffs are left without a MVISCA claim. It is undisputed that the RISC contained all the disclosures mandated by the federal TILA and state MVISCA. It is also undisputed that Daenzer did not receive her own copy of her RISC on the day she signed it. That its policy was to provide a copy of the RISC to the buyer upon execution in accordance with state and federal law. That Daenzer's TILA claim should be dismissed because statutory damages are unavailable under § 1638(b) of TILA (and Daenzer was not claiming any actual damages). Even though Wayland argued that § 1640(a) only provided for statutory damages under certain enumerated subsections and that § 1638(b) was not one of them. The district court also interpreted the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/08/026015P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The original judgment was entered on July 15. Siemer alleged that the amount of the Illinois state court judgment was $42. Found that the debts were nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). We affirmed the bankruptcy court's finding that Nangle was collaterally estopped from relitigating the matters that led to the Illinois judgment. We are unclear of the basis for her request. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court's finding that both the Illinois judgment and the Missouri judgment were nondischargeable. Due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the bankruptcy court to judge the credibility of the witness.4 We review the legal conclusions of the bankruptcy court de novo.5 In the United States the parties to litigation generally bear the cost of their own attorney's fees.6 Under this
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200613162.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We must determine whether the district court acted properly in concluding that the appellantsa group of plaintiffs alleging claims against appellee Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2004/022763p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm in part. TPC is a closely held corporation. It provided that Fields was to have the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-2328.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Hankins</U> and <U>Bingham Dana LLP</U> were on brief. P.A.</U> were on brief. <U>Chief Judge</U>.</STRONG></FONT><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-2291.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sons</U> were on brief. William Loeffler</U> and <U>Troutman Sanders LLP</U> were on brief. That is. Debtors have sought relief from both the federal bankruptcy courts and district courts attempting to put an end to this practice. The latest strategy for reform is to seek certification of a class of debtors against repeat offenders of the Bankruptcy Code that is. Specifically at issue in this case is the alleged misconduct of the appellee. Operating under a misunderstanding that it was powerless to provide a remedy to the appellant under the Bankruptcy Code. Because we have determined that a remedy was available through the court's equitable powers under § 105 of the Code. The reaffirmation agreement was not filed with the bankruptcy court and did not satisfy other general requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 524. The appellant's primary theory was that § 524 provides a private right of action. She contended that the district court is authorized to grant relief via 11 U.S.C. § 105(a). Or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6A9AA31F4AAD1F6888256AEF005A9B4A/$file/9936147.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Although much of what happened here was characterized as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1113.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
As is required by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2003/022666.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plaintiffs are five former employees of the nowbankrupt Allegheny Health Education and Research Foundation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/07/023856P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was obligated to identify and operate its pharmacy as a Medicine Shoppe Pharmacy. This pharmacy will no longer be run as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1232.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellee. </FONT></P> <BR WP=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/06/031236P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
These are adversary proceedings arising out of the personal bankruptcy of Leroy J. Who was a general partner in Crossroads U.S.A. Alleging it is still a Crossroads limited partner and seeking similar relief. Arguing that the district court erred in dismissing all claims by LIC because it was not a Crossroads limited partner. The applicable state law is the law of Missouri. Crossroads' share was reflected in a $450. The sale contracts recited that Lauer and Graves were acquiring all limited partner interests. The deferred payments to the Nangles were secured by a pledge of the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/06/033330P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
All that is at issue at this point is whether an arbitration agreement that the plaintiffs signed requires that their grievances be referred to an arbitrator. Or are in any way connected with the purchase and sale or financing of the Vehicle. The DRA also states that the parties agree that the DRA will be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). (Where arbitration is required by § 4 of the FAA. Arguing that the DRA is invalid because the vehicle transactions were unconscionable.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BBBA3E07A548B01B88256D57007097DA/$file/9915185.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows. The petition for rehearing is denied. There is not much dispute. Where there is. The facts are of course taken favorably to the verdict.3 On October 9. The driveway is sloped. The truck was parked on the slope pointing downhill. The Whites' three year old son Walter was playing outside. The Whites' theory of the case was that Walter pulled or kicked it out of first gear into neutral. The gearshift lever is a long stalk sticking up from the floor. So Walter may have been clambering after his lost piggy bank. The parking brake didn't hold the truck after it was shifted from first to neutral. The plaintiffs' theory of the case was that the parking brake let go despite being set. Ford knew the parking brake was prone to failure. He wouldn't have parked his truck on a slope. He would have brought the truck in immediately to be fixed. Ford offered alternative theories of how the accident could have occurred. One was that Mr. If this is how the accident occurred. That the parking brake sometimes allowed trucks to roll despite being engaged and that Ford should have warned its customers.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CF7CCDB0A79D0EF3882573330054DD2A/$file/0515189.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: These are consolidated appeals in two diversity actions brought under Nevada law. Where the meaning is not clear from the context. The dealership repays GMAC the portion of the loan attributable to an individual vehicle when that vehicle is sold or leased. GMAC enters into a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1764.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
L.L.P. were on brief for defendants Douglas L. The question presented on this appeal is whether a state plan deregulating the electric utility industry in New Hampshire was properly enjoined by the district court pending trial on the merits. The injunction was originally obtained by Public Service Company of New Hampshire (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D6D97F8B7B9FAE018825730D00567A4F/$file/0356601.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Richard Sherman (Sherman) was the attorney for several defendants in an enforcement action brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and in other actions in which those defendants were parties. Maintaining that there was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DD51CB5C3834F00F88256C1E0002A94D/$file/9955106.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who were eligible to access the website. Pilots Gene Wong and James Gardner were included on this list. Davis claimed he was concerned about untruthful allegations that he believed Konop was making on the website. Morella related that Nobles was upset by Konop's accusations that Nobles was suspected of fraud and by other disparaging statements published on the website. Konop believed Nobles had obtained the contents of his website and was threatening to sue Konop for defamation based on statements contained on the website. INC. 12459 claims to have learned only later from the examination of system logs that Davis had accessed the website using Wong's name. Because he claims the district court improperly quashed subpoenas for witnesses Konop sought to have testify at trial. DISCUSSION The district court's grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. We must determine whether there are any genuine 12460 KONOP v. Which was intended to afford privacy protection to electronic communications. Which was designed to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/11/033291P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E1796515EB13DA42882571BD007FC846/$file/0171051.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
McDermott Will & Emery. Nearly 200 petitions for review of the various FERC orders have been filed in our Court. Were the proper subject of the refund proceedings instituted by FERC. The net effect of our decision is to preserve the scope of the existing FERC refund proceedings. (2) FERC's denial of relief for energy sales in which CERS was the purchaser. Also before us in this case are the Public Entities'4 and the Bonneville Power Administration's petitions for review of FERC's determination that it had authority to order relief for certain transactions known as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-2152.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for Andrew Cuomo. Was on brief for Trafalgar Capital Associates. Complained that HUD miscalculated the amounts to which the project was entitled. The district court found that three decisions by HUD were arbitrary and capricious and that Trafalgar's claim on a fourth HUD decision was barred by the statute of limitations. The Moderate Rehabilitation Program is designed to encourage private individuals to rehabilitate low and moderate income housing through the award of rent subsidies. A permanent agreement once the rehabilitation is completed and the units are ready for occupancy. Residents eligible for Section 8 housing are required to pay rent based on their monthly income. The contract rent is based on two components: 1) the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1998/98a1990p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This appeal is from the dismissal of all counts of a complaint filed by Crossroads Cogeneration Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E9C571F39150FF1B88256C290056416C/$file/0057222.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction over Luce Forward's timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. His employment was at will. Will be heard before a retired State or Federal judge in the county containing the firm office in which you were last employed. The law of the State in which you last worked will apply. That he
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1999/967623.TXT">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
000 Three Mile Island area residents who allege that they have developed neoplasms2 as a result of the radiation released into the environment as a result of the reactor accident. The first appeal is that of a group of ten trial plaintiffs who were selected by the parties after the District Court adopted the plaintiffs' case management order. The critical issue there is the trial plaintiffs' ability to demonstrate that they were exposed to doses of radiation sufficient to cause their neoplasms. Defendants challenged the admissibility of the experts' testimony and the District Court was therefore required to hold extensive in limine hearings pursuant to its
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0427p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He also argues that he should not have to pay restitution. That the amount ordered was too high. Were interested in obtaining financing for vintage Cadillacs they wanted to purchase. Was listed as a personal reference. All of Midbanc's contacts with Gale were by telephone. Gale indicated that the purchase price for each vehicle was $35. After the loans were approved. Subsequent investigation revealed the bills of sale submitted to Midbanc by Gale were fraudulent. 000 when the actual purchase price was $15. The purchase price was $17. The other two counts were subsequently dismissed. It adjourned the hearing to give the parties time to gather additional evidence of any repayments Gale might have made to Midbanc. The district court issued its ruling: In this case I have weighed all of those factors under [18 U.S.C. §] 3553(a) and have carefully reviewed the memoranda that have been filed . . . . Is the history and characteristics of the defendant. I have already described that history and characteristics.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-3194.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are conceded to be) to collect any amount of money
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/96opinions/96-1459a.html">MCI WORLDCOM V. FCC<BR></A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Thomas </P> <P> . With him on the brief were Joel I. We reject their petition.</P> <P> I.</P> <P> Commission efforts to move to a nontariff environment for </P> <P>interexchange carriers insofar as those carriers do not exer </P> <P>cise market power have not had an easy time with this court </P> <P>and the Supreme Court. For over six decades a tariff regime </P> <P>was mandated by the Communications Act of 1934. They are prohibited from </P> <P>charging consumers except as provided in the tariffs. See 47 </P> <P>U.S.C. s 203(c) (establishing what is popularly known as the </P> <P>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2000/981215.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The defendants argue that the instruments that they offered to investors were not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F8B414C76D42798E88256E5A00707D26/$file/9936147.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Although much of what happened here was characterized as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1343.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A jury found Fairfield liable and judgment was entered in her favor. Which was approximately half of the amount McInnis requested. Fairfield is one of only two large employers in the area. McInnis worked as the assistant to the Vice President of Sales and (1) We are taking the evidence and any inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to McInnis because she prevailed before the jury. McInnis was promoted to Property Manager at Fairfield's site in Pagosa Springs. Thull was transferred to Las Vegas. McInnis was instructed to contact Thull while on a business trip in Las Vegas. Thull telephoned McInnis and told her he was returning to Fairfield in Pagosa Springs. Told him she could not take his harassment anymore and that she was going to tell someone at Fairfield. Gray contacted McInnis by email and told her that he was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1996/96a1310p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That it should have dismissed his VEVRA claim for money damages for lack of jurisdiction. We will affirm in part. I. Antol is employed by the Defense Logistics Agency as a Budget Assistant. He is also a veteran of the United States Army. There were two positions available in this job classification. Who each hold a college degree but are not disabled veterans. Antol was informed on November 18. Claiming that he was not selected for the promotion based on his disability. Antol contends that the Agency discriminated against him because he is disabled and violated VEVRA when. He also contends generally that the Agency did not select him for the position because he is disabled. Because the two successful candidates were female. We view the evidence de novo and in the light most favorable to the non moving party to determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact and. Whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. If the evidence is merely colorable or not significantly probative.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1618.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Matthew W. With him on the brief were John M. With him on the brief were James M. Of counsel were Rodney G. The central questions before the Commission were whether: (1) the cameras were first sold abroad (making their refurbishment infringing regardless of whether they were repaired or reconstructed). Fuji challenges the order on the ground that the Commission erred in finding that certain of Jazz's lensfitted film packages (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2186.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is corrected as follows: Page 2. Replace it with the following footnote: 9 Although a rape of any type surely is a sufficiently serious physical invasion to justify a sentencing enhancement. Was on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. Defendant Reynaldo Vazquez Rivera was convicted of carjacking in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2119. By increasing his sentence based on a finding that the rape constituted
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2000/981636.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before this court on an appeal from an order denying defendant ARCO Chemical Company's (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5074.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Peter D. Was subject to a $58. Because the cap had been reached and the available funds exhausted before the suit was commenced. Appellants' claim was barred. We agree that the appropriation was subject to a statutory cap. BACKGROUND The facts in this case are not in dispute. The per acre limitation was imposed as the productivity (and hence value) of fruit trees is inversely proportional to the number of trees planted per acre the lower the density. Limited the definition of acreage to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1599.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Marcy Hogan Greer. Of counsel was Shafeeqa Watkins Giarratani. With him on the brief was Thomas L. Of counsel was Stephen Walsh. BACKGROUND I Trans Texas is the assignee of both the '461 patent and the '673 patent. The '673 patent is a continuation of the '461 patent. Which are nearly identical. '673 patent col.2 ll.27 37 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-1333c.html">INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
Eastment argued the cause for petitioners Opposing Lifting of Rate Cap.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/M830.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
McDermott Will & Emery LLP. With them on the brief were Paul Devinsky and Natalia V. Also on the brief were Terrence P. With her on the brief were James T. Of counsel on the brief were Albert L. With him on the brief was Pankaj Venugopal. Also on the brief were Constantine L. With her on the brief were William L. With him on the brief was Steven C. Of counsel on the brief was Judith M. With him on the brief were Jay R. Of counsel on the brief was Keith A. With her on the brief was Peter J. Of counsel on the brief were Robert C. Of counsel on the brief were Scott A.M. With him on the brief were Steven C. With her on the brief were Harold J. Also on the brief were Charles S. With him on the brief was Richard J. With him on the brief were Kenneth W. Also on the brief were Marc S. Of counsel was Herbert C Wamsley. With him on the brief was Monica Mucchetti Eno. With him on the brief was Simon J. Of counsel on the brief was Vicki G. With him on the brief was Philip J. Of counsel on the brief were Peter J. LLC (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/08/95-3108.htm">95-3108 -- FINLEY V. U.S. -- 08/20/1997<BR></A><BR>
Was president and a member of the board of directors of Halsey Tevis. That Halsey Tevis was delinquent in paying federal social security and income taxes withheld from employee wages during the third and fourth quarters of 1988.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0452p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were found guilty of conspiracy UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Defendants Caver and Abdullah were sentenced to life without release. Defendant Cloud was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment. Argue that their convictions should be overturned because (1) the evidence was insufficient to support a conspiracy. (2) there was a prejudicial variance between the indictment and the proof at trial. (7) Defendants' sentences are unconstitutional or unreasonable under Booker. 2 and (8) Defendant Cloud was denied effective assistance of counsel. All Defendants were found guilty of one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of crack cocaine. Defendant Caver additionally was found guilty of one count of possession with the intent to distribute 12.04 grams of crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). Defendant Abdullah was additionally found guilty of one count of possession with the intent to distribute 20.8 grams of crack cocaine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B) and aiding and abetting under 18 U.S.C. § 2. 2 1 United States v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001707.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Parsons contends that the owner of the forfeited property was in default of a prior recorded land installment contract with Parsons. The relevant facts presented by the parties' papers are uncontroverted. Whose interest Parsons later obtained when the two were divorced acquired 4 Franklin Valley Circle in 1980. Schecter had run the property down and was misusing it. While Schecter was in possession of the property. 481.65 was allocated to pay Parsons' mortgage and $10. The district court concluded that Parsons had
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/96-8103.htm">96-8103 -- SMITH V. NORWEST FINANCIAL ACCEPTANCE INC. -- 12/03/1997<BR></A><BR>
Plaintiff alleged that she was subjected to a hostile work environment based on offensive and sexually harassing comments made by Mr. They argue that the statements made to Plaintiff over the course of her employment were neither sufficiently severe nor pervasive to create a hostile work environment. We review <em>de novo</em> the district court's legal conclusion that the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute a hostile work environment. <u>Mason v. We must view the evidence most favorably to the nonmoving party and will reverse only
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="193"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swt
