Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to
consider using additional terms to narrow it.
 |
PACRIM PIZZA COMPANY V. ROBERT PIRIE
Argued for appellee.
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
Whiting and
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
It is from this judgment that Mr. Although the parties have not raised the issue here. We are obliged to consider. Since he was neither a party to nor an intended beneficiary of that agreement. We do not have the power to entertain the appeal. The essential facts are these. Was originally chartered in 1963. The amendment was approved by referendum in the Town's November election. The Town Charter was amended to contain the provision:
|
|
ROBERTS & SCHAEFER CO. V. HARDAWAY CO. (8/31/1998, NO. 97-2664)
We also conclude that the damages award to Hardaway is not in error. We affirm the judgment. I. A. A detailed review of the facts is necessary to understand our holding. Construction was to proceed on a
|
|
BMC INDUS., INC. V. BARTH INDUS., INC. (11/18/1998, NO. 95-5137)
Therefore was liable under the theory of promissory estoppel for Barth's nonperformance. A jury resolved the breach of contract and promissory estoppel issues in favor of BMC. We conclude that the court should have granted Nesco judgment as a matter of law. Manufactures semi finished polymer opthalmic lenses that are used in the production of eyeglasses. These lenses are created by an assembly line process. The assembly is inspected and then heated and cured until the monomer solidifies into a plastic lens. The lens is removed from the mold assembly through a process called
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
On the brief were Peter D. With him on the brief was Michael J. Who was also the Project Manager (PM) during the performance period. The ROICC did not have actual express or Resident Officer in Charge of Construction and Resident Officer in Charge of Contracts are used interchangeably in the record. 1 implied authority to direct the contractor to perform compensable contract changes. We affirm the Board decision on claim 3 because that claim is independently sustainable based on a differing site condition. 37 to the Board to determine whether the ROICC's directives on these claims were ratified.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Murphy cross appeals the determination that Murphy was not entitled to attorney's fees with regard to Trivental's counterclaims. This is addressed below.
Background Murphy owns and operates gasoline service stations. Whereby Trivental was to perform work as the general contractor for the building of gasoline stations. Four of which were relevant to the litigation in this case. These counterclaims were submitted to the jury. The claims relating to the
Tulsa and Hugo stations were decided under Oklahoma law. While the claim relating to the New Iberia station was decided under Louisiana law. See id. at 1634 (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This is an appeal by defendant Ellwood Group. The most important issue involves the question whether the joint venture agreement was ambiguous as a matter of law as to whether Ellwood could properly claim rebates for its sales to third parties of ingots pr oduced by the Ellwood Uddeholm Steel Company (EUS). Or whether Ellwood was limited to rebates for sales by EUS to Ellwood for Ellwood's own use. We conclude that the District Court was correct in finding a contractual ambiguity. That it erred in instructing the jury that Ellwood had the burden of establishing the meaning of the disputed terms in the agreement because of the fiduciary relationship between the parties that was cr eated by the joint venture. Other important issues include: (1) whether Uddeholm's breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation of trade secrets claims were covered and thus precluded by its breach of contract claim. (2) whether Ellwood's potential liability on the civil conspiracy claim was for eclosed because the jury found no other conspirator.
|
|
NATIONAL LEASED HOUSING V. U.S.
|
|
DALTON V. CESSNA AIRCRAFT
|
|
WEST V. ALL STATE BOILER, INC.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Entered into a Credit Default Swap
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief was Edward D. Of counsel was David C. With him on the brief were Peter D. After the contract work was completed. TEG alleged that it was entitled to additional compensation under the contract based upon its removal of excessive quantities of asbestos. The Geneva Towers were two high rise apartment buildings in San Francisco. HUD solicited bids on a contract for asbestos abatement and TEG was awarded the contract on May 8. The deadline for finishing the abatement was changed to February 15. This delay was purportedly caused at least in part by disagreements between TEG and HUD over contract requirements. The parties disagreed as to (i) whether the contract required TEG to abate asbestos in the pores and cracks of the Geneva Towers' surfaces and (ii) whether TEG was required to comply with the contract specifications rather than TEG's work plan. Friable materials are capable. The original asbestos abatement standard was set forth at Section 2080. Shall be cleaned to a degree that no traces of debris or residue are visible.
|
|
97-1095 -- MORRISON KNUDSEN CORP. V. FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE CO. -- 05/11/1999
GIT's evidence of several of its categories of damages was insufficient. Its claims on behalf of its lower tier subcontractors were premature. This court cannot determine whether any parts of the jury's award were for allowable categories of damages supported by sufficient evidence. The contract price was roughly $9.3 million. GIT's central theory is that its plan to complete the project before the deadline displeased MK. The contract allowed MK to do so if GIT was not prosecuting the work with a diligence that would ensure its timely completion. The subs were demanding payment from GIT. GIT was still involved in litigation with Robinson and had not settled with or paid Bogue or GA Western. Arguing that GIT had changed its damage theory just weeks before trial and was using previously undisclosed documentation. Twelve days before trial. GIT's Alleged Discovery Violation MK argues that GIT's supplemental damage disclosure was subject to mandatory exclusion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1).
|
|
D & H DISTRIBUTING V. U.S.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Baer seeks compensation for what he perceives was his role in the creation and development of the popular and financially successful television series. Who originally was from New Jersey. Is the creator. Chase was producing and directing a Rockford Files
|
|
BEACON OIL CO. V. O'LEARY
|
|
MCA TELEVISION LTD. V. PUBLIC INTEREST CORP. (4/6/1999, NO. 98-2006)
PIC was a Florida corporation that owned and operated television station WTMV TV in Lakeland. Although it would not have chosen to license Harry if it did not have to do so in order to secure the licenses for the other shows. This document shall constitute a valid and binding Agreement and shall be deemed to include the standard terms and conditions known as
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Granting the motion of Defendant to dismiss for lack of Plaintiffs are independent contractors who transport the mail on highways for Defendant. Plaintiffs have fixed rate contracts: the rate that Defendant pays Plaintiffs is determined with reference to Plaintiffs' annual estimates of the cost and amount of fuel that will be needed in transporting the mail. Rendering inaccurate the estimates upon which the contract payments were determined. Then Plaintiffs have the contractual right to request an adjustment in the contract price. Because the fuel prices that Plaintiffs pay are passed on to Defendant in pre contract estimates and potentially in requests that are granted for adjustments during the life of the contracts. These contracts are referred to by Plaintiffs as
|
|
TRIAX PACIFIC V. SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
|
|
JOHNSON ENTERPRISES OF JACKSONVILLE, INC. V. FPL GROUP, INC. (12/18/1998, NO. 94-3324)
The structure of the opinion is as follows: Part I provides the factual background to the dispute. Part VII offers some concluding thoughts. I. The legislative backdrop against which this controversy arose was the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Randa A.F. Because we find that there are genuine issues of material fact as to the contract claim. BACKGROUND Lamle's contract claim is at the heart of this appeal. Shows the following: Lamle is the inventor of Farook. Spear & Sons PLC (collectively
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This is an appeal by defendant Ellwood Group. The most important issue involves the question whether the joint venture agreement was ambiguous as a matter of law as to whether Ellwood could properly claim rebates for its sales to third parties of ingots pr oduced by the Ellwood Uddeholm Steel Company (EUS). Or whether Ellwood was limited to rebates for sales by EUS to Ellwood for Ellwood's own use. We conclude that the District Court was correct in finding a contractual ambiguity. That it erred in instructing the jury that Ellwood had the burden of establishing the meaning of the disputed terms in the agreement because of the fiduciary relationship between the parties that was cr eated by the joint venture. Other important issues include: (1) whether Uddeholm's breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation of trade secrets claims were covered and thus precluded by its breach of contract claim. (2) whether Ellwood's potential liability on the civil conspiracy claim was for eclosed because the jury found no other conspirator.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
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.
|
|
BMC INDUS., INC. V. BARTH INDUS., INC. (11/18/1998, NO. 95-5137)
Therefore was liable under the theory of promissory estoppel for Barth's nonperformance. A jury resolved the breach of contract and promissory estoppel issues in favor of BMC. We conclude that the court should have granted Nesco judgment as a matter of law. Manufactures semi finished polymer opthalmic lenses that are used in the production of eyeglasses. These lenses are created by an assembly line process. The assembly is inspected and then heated and cured until the monomer solidifies into a plastic lens. The lens is removed from the mold assembly through a process called
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
To
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We will reverse and remand to the district court for further proceedings. We will limit the triable issues on remand to a determination of: (1) the definition of
|
|
APPLIED COMPANIES V. U.S.
|
|
TEXTRON V. WIDNALL
|
|
HCA HEALTH SERVICES OF GEORGIA V. EMPLOYERS HEALTH INS. CO. (2/2/2001, NO. 99-11241)
Circuit Judge:
|
|
JOHNSON ENTERPRISES OF JACKSONVILLE, INC. V. FPL GROUP, INC. (12/18/1998, NO. 94-3324)
The structure of the opinion is as follows: Part I provides the factual background to the dispute. Part VII offers some concluding thoughts. I. The legislative backdrop against which this controversy arose was the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (the
|
|
COYLE'S V. CUOMO
|
|
JOHNSON MANAGEMENT GROUP CFC, INC., V. MEL R. MARTINEZ
With him on the brief were Stuart E. Assistant Director.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
WHOSE IDENTITIES ARE PRESENTLY UNKNOWN). WHOSE IDENTITIES ARE PRESENTLY UNKNOWN). We will reverse and remand the following claims: (1) Breach of Contract (Eleventh Count). We find that summary judgment was properly granted against Ideal. We will therefore affirm the district court's order dismissing all of the antitrust claims. Is a New Jersey corporation owned by Mark Greenberg and Gil Levine. Tuscan was owned by Lou Caiola. Levine were aware that the contract had
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We also conclude that the damages award to Hardaway is not in error. A detailed review of the facts is necessary to understand our holding. Construction was to proceed on a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Therefore was liable under the theory of promissory estoppel for Barth's nonperformance. Was formed and received all of the assets and liabilities of Barth Industries. Which was the sole shareholder of Barth Industries. The remaining one percent interest was acquired by BIC Corporation. The final judgment in this case was entered against Barth Industries. We conclude that the court should have granted Nesco judgment as a matter of law. Manufactures semi finished polymer opthalmic lenses that are used in the production of eyeglasses. These lenses are created by an assemblyline process. The assembly is inspected and then heated and cured until the monomer solidifies into a plastic lens. The lens is removed from the mold assembly through a process called
|
|
ROBERTS & SCHAEFER CO. V. HARDAWAY CO. (8/31/1998, NO. 97-2664)
We also conclude that the damages award to Hardaway is not in error. We affirm the judgment. I. A. A detailed review of the facts is necessary to understand our holding. Construction was to proceed on a
|
|
DONALD H. RUMSFELD V. APPLIED COMPANIES
Filed a response to the petition for the appellant. With him on the response were Robert D. Assistant Director.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Which we have consolidated for decision. Aurora Christian Schools Ocean Atlantic is a real estate development company that is incorporated in Virginia and maintains its principal place of business in Alexandria. Will Counties three of the suburban
|
|
HCA HEALTH SERVICES OF GEORGIA V. EMPLOYERS HEALTH INS. CO. (2/2/2001, NO. 99-11241)
Circuit Judge:
|
|
SEABOARD LUMBER COMPANY V. U.S.
Argued for plaintiffs appellants.
|
|
VARILEASE TECHNOLOGY GROUP V. U.S.
Argued for defendant appellee.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Indian tribe[s are] the primary beneficiar[ies] of . . . gaming operations.
|
|
AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH V. US
With him on the brief was J. Of counsel on the brief were Thomas R. With him on the brief was David M. Of counsel on the brief were Robert D. With him on the brief were Elizabeth A. With him on the brief was Clarence T. Of counsel on the brief were L. Was void ab initio. We now hold that the contract was not void. Which were difficult to monitor using available technology and equipment. The contract was a
|
|
MCA TELEVISION LTD. V. PUBLIC INTEREST CORP. (4/6/1999, NO. 98-2006)
PIC was a Florida corporation that owned and operated television station WTMV TV in Lakeland. Although it would not have chosen to license Harry if it did not have to do so in order to secure the licenses for the other shows. This document shall constitute a valid and binding Agreement and shall be deemed to include the standard terms and conditions known as
|
|
02-2254 -- RIO GRANDE SILVERY MINNOW V. KEYS -- 06/12/2003
Senior Circuit Judge.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was formed and received all of the assets and liabilities of Barth Industries. Which was the sole shareholder of Barth Industries. The remaining one percent interest was acquired by BIC 2 1 of the contract. Therefore was liable under the theory of promissory estoppel for Barth's nonperformance. We conclude that the court should have granted Nesco judgment as a matter of law. Manufactures semi finished polymer opthalmic lenses that are used in the production of eyeglasses. These lenses are created by an assembly line process. The assembly is inspected and then heated and cured until the Corporation. The final judgment in this case was entered against Barth Industries. The lens is removed from the mold assembly through a process called
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The face of American poverty is changing dramatically. Minimum wage workers are unable to support their families' basic needs. At A1 (
|
|
97-8087 -- MONCRIEF V. WILLISTON BASIN INTERSTATE PIPELINE CO. -- 04/20/1999
Circuit Judge.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Even though Harley Davidson was seeking the equitable remedy of rescission rather than tort damages. Its misrepresentation claim was barred under Wisconsin's economic loss doctrine. This system is designed to enhance customer satisfaction with ownership. A failure to respond is deemed an approval. Then PowerSports would have had 60 days following that rejection to file with the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to determine if the rejection violated Florida law. No. 02 2095 3 dealers are required to have an on site owner operator.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
To
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
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.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was organized to build power plants and provide power for its members. Which is the subject of this litigation. The methodology Basin used for determining the cost of AVS II power was set out in Exhibit A of the contract. The Rural Utilities Service (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Entered into a Credit Default Swap
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The issues before us are jurisdictional. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The court found that: (1) the case was moot because the Tribe BIA contract had been completed and the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The issues before us are jurisdictional. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The court found that: (1) the case was moot because the Tribe BIA contract had been completed and the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The Dealers are CLM Equipment Company. Are Volvo Construction Equipment North America. Champion Road Machinery Limited (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Concerned Irrigators) argue that the District is violating both federal law. The project was operated by the Bureau. An organization formed by the landowners whose lands were irrigated by the project. The District and the Bureau have entered into several different contracts that require. Four contracts are relevant to this dispute: the 1949 contract. Those who owned less productive land were assessed at a lower rate for both construction debt and O & M costs: All assessments. All ratios being based on a ratio of 100 for class 1 land: Class 1 100 Class 2 88 92 Class 3 60 65 Class 4 40 50 Class 1 lands are the most productive. Class 4 lands are the least productive. The assessment method for these charges was the same as the method provided in the 1949 contract. The O & M costs were to be assessed equally based on the number of irrigable acres owned. Were to change. Allowing the project to benefit from the 4 sale of hydroelectric power in the basin.2 The purpose of the law was to modernize and improve the irrigation facilities in the District and to promote recreation and fish and wildlife preservation.
|
|
H.B.MAC, INC. V. U.S.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief was Perrin Rynders. Of counsel was Cynthia W. With her on the brief were Peter D. L.L.C. (
|
|
ADVANCED MATERIALS V. PERRY
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
NPPD argues that the award of attorney fees was contrary to Nebraska law and unsupported by the For the reasons discussed below. Is a public corporation and political subdivision of the State of Nebraska. Of three distinct sections which are separated by substations: Creek. NPPD wrote the contract as a unit price contract in which estimated quantities of work were provided to bidders in order to compare bids offered under the contract on a uniform basis. lowest and best bid of $769. NPPD awarded the contract to Lamb as the responsible bidder who submitted the The exact compensation payable to Lamb under the contract was to be determined on the basis of the unit prices for On January 18. Which was to be completed by June 5. Lamb encountered difficulties in performing the contract. circumstances giving rise to the difficulties are disputed. to fully perform the contract. Were given responsibility for administering the Contract and they never relented in their opposition to having Lamb perform the work.
|
|
KRYGOSKI CONSTRC. V. U.S.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were E. This contract was an indefinite delivery. The termination letter stated: This termination will not affect the rights and liabilities of the parties. IDP decided the warranty costs were threatening its survival and the survival of its parent company. IDP was no longer required to continue to provide warranty and upgrade services under the Desktop V contract. The trial court held that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Claiming that it was entitled to these funds as liquidated damages because of Hutton's delays. 500.00 in liquidated damages to which the City was entitled. (2) that the contract's liquidated damages provision was enforceable. (4) that Hutton was not entitled to prejudgment interest on its damages. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm. Contract and Performance The contract between Hutton and the City is dated March 28. The engineer designated for the project was Allgeier. Rather than specifying when construction was to begin. In no event will the Commencement Date be later than * (See Special Conditions) calendar days after date of approval of the Contract by the [City]. That [Hutton] will not be required to perform any construction on such days when in the judgment of the Engineer snow. The time of completion set out above will be extended if [Hutton] makes a written request therefor to the [City] . . . . Provided that it submitted requests for extensions in writing:
The time for Completion of Construction shall be extended for the period of any reasonable delay which is due exclusively to causes beyond the control and without the fault of [Hutton].
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
(2) Moog is liable for TSS's breach of contract under a veil piercing theory. (3) Moog is liable for tortious interference with the contract between TSS and SKI. This is an action in diversity. The breach of contract claim is governed by Japanese law. The other claims are governed by Michigan law. All three companies were involved in the business of servo valves. A servo valve is an electro hydraulically controlled mechanism used in such products as flight simulators. Moog is a large international distributor of servo valves. Moog servo valves were a substitute for TSS servo valves. Moog learned that SKI was TSS's largest foreign customer. Which were renewed automatically unless the other party gave notice to the contrary. The Agreement was dated February 8. Inc is the parent of a wholly owned subsidiary. Which is incorporated in Japan. Inc. and Moog Japan are collectively referred to as
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Will & Emery were on brief for appellant. With whom Luis Edwin Gonz lez Ortiz and O'Neill & Borges were on brief for appellee. SECOMAN was licensed to sell cotton only inside Peru. The joint venture focused on Pima rather than Tanguis cotton because Pima cotton is of higher quality and is generally in greater demand. At the time there was a substantial differential between the price at which Pima cotton could be purchased from cotton producers in Peru and the international market price. Is a subsidiary of the GE Supply Company. Which is in turn a division of the General Electric Company. GE del Caribe is engaged in the sale of General Electric products in the Caribbean. Was the president of GE del Caribe from 1986 to 1993. He was trying to increase his company's sales by penetrating different Latin American markets. Who was the president of Carmel Export Agency. Horizon was informed that there was a seller on the market ready to provide 1. That the seller was willing to pay a commission on the sale. As well as the fact that the international price for Pima cotton was $2.40 per pound.
|
|
BARRON BANCSHARES, INC., ET AL V. U.S.
Et al. Of counsel on the brief were Mark J. Argued for plaintiff appellant Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. On the brief were John V. Argued for defendant appellee. With him on the brief were Stuart E. Cl. 310 (2002). The
|
|
R & W FLAMMANN GMBH V. U.S.
Argued for defendant appellant. On the brief were David M. Trial Attorney. Of counsel on the brief were LTC Douglas K. Sub
|
|
97-6413 -- GAMBLE, SIMMONS & CO. V. KERR-MCGEE -- 04/09/1999
Introduction Gamble Simmons is a tax consulting firm specializing in the review and evaluation of audits by state taxing authorities. Penalties and/or interest ... heretofore paid by Kerr McGee ... and/or assessed by the Department ... are refunded or reduced.
|
|
NAT'L FIRE INS. CO. OF HARTFORD V. FORTUNE CONSTR. CO. (2/7/2003, NO. 01-15124)
District Judge:
|
|
97-6413A -- GAMBLE, SIMMONS & CO. V. KERR-MCGEE CORP. -- 04/22/1999
Is withdrawn. Is attached to this order. Entered for the Court PATRICK FISHER. Introduction Gamble Simmons is a tax consulting firm specializing in the review and evaluation of audits by state taxing authorities. Penalties and/or interest ... heretofore paid by Kerr McGee ... and/or assessed by the Department ... are refunded or reduced.
|
|
NAT'L FIRE INS. CO. OF HARTFORD V. FORTUNE CONSTR. CO. (2/7/2003, NO. 01-15124)
District Judge:
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
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
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
District Judge: The primary issue presented by this appeal is whether a surety on construction contract performance and payment bonds issued on behalf of a subcontractor has superior rights to retained contract balances in the possession of the general contractor when the general contractor completed the performance and has unsatisfied claims against the defaulting subcontractor. The performance bond and payment bond documents for the Winston Park project were standard forms issued by the American Institute of Honorable Roger Vinson. Sitting by designation. 2 * Architects.1 The performance bond and payment bond documents for the West Brickell project were drafted by National Fire with language that materially differed from the Winston Park bonds. Both projects were behind schedule by this time. There was some discussion about National Fire procuring a completion contractor and about the possibility that Fortune could complete construction. The West Brickell project was near completion. Negotiations were still ongoing when.
|
|
CIENEGA GARDENS V. US
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
PCC is an Ohio based company that provides castings for parts used in jet engines and power generating equipment. Even if those orders were not finalized until after the contract had expired. Commission payments were to extend for 18 months following the 1989 expiration date of the contract. Inc.['s] obligation to pay commission on sales of PRODUCTS promoted by AEREL hereunder shall cease except AEREL shall be paid commission on purchase orders then in force for castings to be delivered up to 18 months after the termination of the contract where the PRODUCTS covered thereby have not been delivered or paid for. Three provisions of the 2000 contract are at issue in the present case: 2 F PCC AIRFOILS. Tooling and fixtures 0% 2 G Commission to be paid for CF6 8OC2 and GE90 airfoils sold to any Italian customer will not exceed 2% Castings for any other program of PCC AIRFOILS. INC. 4% It is understood that higher or lower commissions may be required with regard to certain products or services. Was any language confirming Aerel's right to commission payments for timely placed orders delivered and paid for during the 18 months after the contract terminated.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Judge Berzon was drawn to replace Judge Henry A. Adopted for this litigation for reasons that will appear assert that they performed espionage activities on behalf of the United States against a former Eastern bloc country. The United States will neither confirm nor deny the Does' allegations. Their action is either appropriate only in the Court of Federal Claims or precluded by the venerable doctrine enunciated in Totten v. That the facts as alleged by the Does are true and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to their case. Are all. The Does allege that they were citizens of an Eastern bloc country formerly considered an adversary of the United States. Doe approached a person **Part II of the opinion is authored by Judge Canby. The Does recount that after this request was made. The Does further allege that the agents assured them that this assistance was approved at the highest level of authority at the CIA and was mandated by U.S. law. The Does state that although they were initially reluctant to conduct espionage activities.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The Internal Revenue Service contended the settlement agreement was not an executory contract. We will affirm. I. The facts are undisputed. TCO is Columbia Gas System's principal gas purchaser from producers in the Southwest. The district court certified as a class[fn2] the producers of natural gas in the Appalachian region who were parties to gas purchase contracts with TCO. For five years there was extensive discovery. At such time as this Order of the Court approving the Settlement as final is non appealable. Jurisdiction is hereby retained as to matters related to the interpretation. TCO was to pay $15 million into escrow by March 21. This schedule was apparently set for TCO's convenience. TCO's duty to make the second payment was not contingent on the class members' performance of any of their obligations. Class members were entitled to receive their share of the escrow monies only after they executed a release of claims and a supplemental contract. The settlement agreement stated
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Chambers argues that mandamus is necessary because the district court ignored that mandate. Will therefore grant a writ of mandamus and remand this matter once again for proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. When this matter was initially before us we observed that
|
|
RAYTHEON COMPANY V. THOMAS WHITE
Argued for appellant.
|
|
96-6235 -- RICH V. MED-NATIONAL INC. -- 01/30/1998
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff Joseph E. Wellborn were dismissed and are not part of this appeal. Raising issues relating only to his breach of contract and Oklahoma wage law claims. I The relevant facts briefly stated are these. Which was scheduled to end in 1998. There were several official complaints regarding his practice. The initial abeyance period was fourteen days. Which was extended another fourteen days on June 16. Whenever the Physician shall cease to be a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We find that the land installment contract is executory under controlling Sixth Circuit precedent and Ohio law and REVERSE the order of the bankruptcy court. I. ISSUE ON APPEAL The sole issue on appeal is whether the land installment contract is an
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. The Marvin companies are Minnesota and Tennessee corporations that manufacture and sell custom made wooden doors. Which is effective in preventing premature wood rot and decay caused by moisture penetration. The central allegation is that PPG's products did not meet Marvin's expectations in preventing wood rot and deterioration in Marvin's doors and windows. There are thirteen legal theories in the Amended Complaint: (I) contract. The procedural background of the case is somewhat complicated. There are three central issues in this appeal. We must decide whether Marvin's contract claims are barred by the governing statute of limitations. We decide whether Marvin is protected by the state statutes on which it bases its statutory fraud claims. This case is governed by state substantive law. Where the state law is uncertain. Our task 3 is to predict how the state supreme court would resolve the issue if faced with it. We believe there is a jury question as to the existence of a future performance warranty.
|
|
CITY OF TACOMA V. RICHARDSON
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. JDHP is a qualified health maintenance organization. Each of these hospitals is a member of the Highland Wellmont Health Network. If policies and procedures are inconsistent with this provision. Which includes but is not limited to authorization of coverage for medical services and the determination of availability and extent of coverage for services provided to a particular Member. The question for the arbitrator will be whether the decision being arbitrated should be set aside because the decision was arbitrary and capricious. Each party will bear its own costs and attorney fees. The expenses associated with the arbitration will be shared equally by both parties. The arbitrator shall have no authority to award exemplary or punitive damages. The 2001 Contract was signed by Wellmont on January 24. The term of the 2001 Contract for Medicare + Choice Product (which includes the services subject to the billing dispute in this case) was made retroactive to October 23. Which JDHP believed was inappropriate because.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Holding that Haus is entitled to
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Oracle argues that the district court erred in holding that the contract at issue is ambiguous and. Jurisdiction was proper in the district court based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Jurisdiction is proper in this court based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. He was entitled to receive commissions based in part upon his sales. The terms and conditions under which he was to earn salary. Bonuses were set forth in two documents entitled
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Which is an equity investment firm based in the United States and incorporated in Delaware. That suit was removed to the District Court for the District of Delaware. Though denying that it was bound by the contract Advent contends that the agent who signed the agreement on its behalf lacked authority to do so and that it had so notified Sandvik Advent moved to compel arbitration under an arbitration clause contained in the agreement. Was in dispute. Two issues are presented. We conclude that this argument is misplaced for three reasons. The issue that the District Court must decide in determining whether the arbitration clause is valid is closely bound with the underlying dispute as to whether an overall contract was entered into by the parties. It is precisely this sort of appeal that the FAA's interlocutory appeal provisions were designed to address. We thus have appellate jurisdiction. The second question is whether the District Court was correct in refusing to compel arbitration. Advent argues that the arbitration clause is severable from the contested agreement under the doctrine announced by the Supreme 3 Court in Prima Paint Corp. v.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Melvin C. Of counsel on the brief was Thomas R. With him on the brief were Stuart E. The plaintiffs argue that the 1993 legislation breached the contract because it changed the tax laws to abrogate tax benefits to which they were entitled at the time the contract was executed and because the legislation specifically targeted the benefits they enjoyed under the contract. Holding that under the pre 1993 tax laws they were entitled to the tax benefits in question and that * Paul R. The plaintiffs have cross appealed from the court's denial of their request for additional damages. Fixed rate mortgages created when interest rates were low. The acquisition was effected through a contract between FSLIC. FSLIC bound itself to make assistance payments to Texas Trust in an amount equal to the difference between the book basis of the covered assets and the value of those assets when they were sold or written down. The Consolidated Group expected to be able to take deductions for the built in losses on the covered assets as those assets were liquidated or written down.
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
Wright countered that not only was the technological knowledge provided by CERAbio 2 No. 04 1171 worthless and that it therefore had not performed its end of the deal. Which we agree was in error. CERAbio was strictly a research and development company which did not manufacture or sell Apatight or other products commercially. Wright markets and sells biologics worldwide and was looking to expand its product offerings in the bone replacement market. CERAbio informed Wright that it had an established and repeatable process for producing Apatight and that all of the raw materials necessary were commercially available. Wright agreed to pay $3 million for the CERAbio assets with $1.5 million payable upon closing and a second installment of $1.5 million due no later than three days after Wright verified that it was able to produce Apatight (
|
|
IMS PC V. ALVAREZ AIDA
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: We are presented with a simple set of facts on this appeal. A shipper's goods were damaged in transit. While the facts are simple. The statutory and regulatory context in which this case arises is complex and presents a question that is one of first impression in this and other circuits. That question is whether 49 U.S.C. § 13906(a)(3) (2000) (amended 2005). We are faced on this appeal with a situation where two parallel channels leading to the harbor were merged into one to provide a wider and more navigable trench through 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 which all ships may travel. The question we must answer is whether it was permissible for the Harbor Master to continue to impose this requirement. show. These groups included the We think it was. As the following discussion will Inland Marine Underwriters Association in support of the insurer. That the agency's discretion is entitled to deference. It is necessary to establish the legislative and regulatory framework in which this appeal must be decided.
|
|
METRIC CONSTRUCTORS V. NASA
Will &. With him on the brief were David M. At issue are three sections of those specifications relating to the installation of lamps. Section 16511. Maintaining that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
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
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Because all of Penncro's claimed damages are lost profits. Sprint argues the district court's judgment is fatally flawed. Sprint contends that Penncro's damages should be calculated on the basis of the work it was ready and able to perform. Arguing that it is entitled to an additional $6.5 million in damages. Penncro submits that the district court erred when it found that the company was able. While parties to a contract may define their terms as they please Ä a duck may be a goose Ä we see no evidence that Sprint's and Penncro's definition of the term consequential damages was designed to embrace (and thus foreclose the award of) profits lost as a direct result of Sprint's breach. Customers with overdue Sprint accounts trying to make outgoing calls were automatically routed to centers run by one of the three vendors. Informed callers that their accounts were past due. Attempted to collect monies owed to Sprint Ä a service known as first party inbound collections work.(1) (1) It is first party because Penncro's employees identify themselves as Sprint's agents.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
EMERY WORLDWIDE AIRLINES, INC., V. U.S.
Argued for plaintiff appellant.
|
|
HI-SHEAR TECHNOLOGY CORP. V. US
For defendant appellee. With him on the brief were Peter D. Because that method is not inconsistent with our decision in Applied Cos.. 100 of which were managed by CECOM in the procurement at issue in this case. Hi Shear. CECOM identified the particular spare parts that were appropriate for multi year contracts. It then grouped those parts into acquisition packages based on similarity of materials and components. Id. at 424. Once the parts were allotted between acquisition packages. Each part was assigned one of three quantity ranges for each year of the contract. Id. Because of well recognized economies of scale. Bidders were to provide unit prices for each of the quantity ranges for each of the five possible ordering
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
1992 as a term of an
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: The issue presented by this case is whether. A company which contracted to build a house is covered under its commercial general liability policy against claims brought against the company by the dissatisfied homeowners. Construction was completed. The gravamen of the homeowners' allegations was that Oceanic improperly designed and/or constructed the foundation of the residence causing earth movement and resulting in physical and structural damage to both the residence and the retaining walls on the property. At the time the counterclaim was filed. Oceanic was the named insured under a standard form commercial general liability (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. BACKGROUND This is another in a long line of cases involving the Central Valley Project (the
|
|
99-3117 -- TRI-STATE COMMODITIES INC. V. GSO AMERICA INC. -- 09/05/2001
GSO believed that it merely was a one year contract. That required GSO to purchase certain minimum amounts if the contract was to renew automatically for another year. Finding that the contract was only for one year. That GSO was required only to purchase certain limited amounts of mulch from Tri State. Which was denied. As GSO was concerned about a possible shortage of mulch. Was sued for breach of contract by Munson. Claimed the contract was procured by fraud. GSO was obligated to purchase all of its mulch requirements from Tri State. The motion was denied. The methodology of calculating a damage award is a question of law. While the amount of a damage reward is a question of fact. Thus is reviewed for clear error. Southern Colorado MRI. The standard of review for evidentiary rulings is abuse of discretion. Mitchell v. Is not required. These are minimum requirements and the parties may agree to greater amounts for any one year. . . . . 6. Supply. For each of the first six (6) months of this Agreement.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
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
|
|
AMFAC RESORTS, L.L.C V. U.S. DEPT OF INTERIOR
Geller argued the cause for appellants.
|
|
DALTON V. SOUTHWEST MARINE
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I ADT is a Delaware corporation that provides security services throughout the United States. Advantage is a Minnesota corporation that provides staffing and recruitment services for many companies. The relevant provisions of the contract prepared by Advantage provided that Advantage International will fill a minimum of 187 positions for the contract rate between June 1. All other positions are at a contract rate of $2500. There are 182 positions @ $1750 and 5 @ $2500. There will be a program cancellation fee of $750 for every remaining position unfilled. We note the five monthly payments would have actually been completed on November 1. Advantage further claimed it was entitled to cancellation fees because ADT cancelled the contract for a reason other than documented non performance. Was entitled to another $95. That the absence of terms addressing a refund showed no refund was contemplated should ADT cancel the contract early. II The first issue is whether ADT is entitled to a partial refund of its $220.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We will reverse. Arthur Pelullo is the president and owner of Banner Promotions. Antwun Echols is a professional boxer with a current record of twenty nine wins. If certain conditions were met. The Agreement gave Banner the right to be Echols's sole representative in negotiations with any third parties that were interested in having Echols box on their television networks. Banner's major obligation under the Agreement was to
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We remand the case for consideration of plaintiff's application for prejudgment interest. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 BACKGROUND Plaintiff is a nondenominational multi faith ministry providing religious services and other assistance to migrant farm workers in eastern New York State. Defendant is a national food service provider headquartered in Connecticut that provides food and related services for. Plaintiff was to receive between seven and eight percent of the gross sales of the food booths its volunteers managed. The parties dispute how many volunteers plaintiff was to provide under the contract. Plaintiff alleges that it was a maximum of twenty volunteers per booth per day. While defendant claims that it was a maximum of twenty volunteers per booth per shift (with several shifts each day). The individuals managing the festival were incapable of dealing with the severe weather and unruly crowds. Jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship. To their worth is their own private cause of action.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Decedent was over eighty years old and became interested in planning his estate so that Spendthrift would continue after his death. Retained exclusive control over the private placement: All sales are subject to the discretion of the Sellers including the right to accept each unit as purchased or none until the entire offering is purchased. INSURING CLAUSE If during the policy period any claim or claims are made against the Insured (as herinafter defined) or any of them for a Wrongful Act (as hereinafter defined) while acting in their individual or collective capacities as Directors or Officers. The Insurer will pay on behalf of the Insureds or any of them.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Because there is no demonstrated conflict with state law that would require federal common law rule making in this case. Federal common law rule making is only appropriate if the operation of state law would
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We will affirm in part. TPC is a closely held corporation. It provided that Fields was to have the
|
|
MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY V. U.S.
Of counsel on the brief were Robert L. Of counsel was Glenn S. With him on the brief were David W. Of counsel on the brief were Marc Johnston. The government has announced that it will not be able to begin such disposal until at least 2010. The government moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the only way the utilities could proceed was by filing an administrative claim with a contracting officer under the contract
|
|
96-8119 -- BROWN V. ROYAL MACCABEES LIFE INSURANCE CO. -- 03/03/1998
Is an illustration used to sell a universal life insurance policy considered part of the insurance contract when the illustration and the policy contain conflicting provisions and the insured party relied on the illustration in entering the insurance contract? We must also determine whether. Maccabees is estopped from asserting certain provisions of a universal life insurance policy. We ultimately conclude (1) an illustration is not considered part of an insurance contract under Wyoming law simply because the insured party relied on the illustration in entering the insurance contract and the policy and illustration contain conflicting provisions. (3) Maccabees is not estopped from enforcing the provisions of the insurance policy. The policy further provided
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We conclude that the novation theory providing one basis for Fanucchi's breach of contract claim should have survived summary judgment. Linda Limi were general partners in Fanucchi & Limi Farms. The 1994 Loan was memorialized in several documents. The Commercial Guarantees are individual loan guarantees by Larry Fanucchi. Both the Agricultural Loan Agreement and Agricultural Security Agreement have an integration clause that reads: Amendments.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
JN is primarily concerned with the production of oil. This gas was
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
(ii) all parties were performing under implied in fact contracts. (iii) those implied in fact contracts were illegal under § 2807 c. (iv) all parties were equally at fault for non compliance with § 2807 c. The District Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims for unjust enrichment on the ground that it was
|
|
CSX TRANSP., INC. V. CITY OF GARDEN CITY (3/27/2003, NO. 02-12261)
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of a municipality that had entered into such an agreement on the ground that it was ultra vires. Which are not in dispute. Were succinctly stated in our earlier opinion. His truck stalled on the tracks where it was hit by a National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) passenger train. Claiming that the indemnity agreement was void for a number of reasons. That
|
|
EXXON V. U.S.
Argued for plaintiff appellant.
|
|
CSX TRANSP., INC. V. CITY OF GARDEN CITY (3/27/2003, NO. 02-12261)
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of a municipality that had entered into such an agreement on the ground that it was ultra vires. Which are not in dispute. Were succinctly stated in our earlier opinion. His truck stalled on the tracks where it was hit by a National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) passenger train. Claiming that the indemnity agreement was void for a number of reasons. That
|
|
RANDA/MADISON JOINT VENTURE III V. GREGORY ROBERT DAHLBERG
With him on the brief was Elizabeth D. With him on the brief were David M. S claim is that it encountered excessive groundwater in the performance of its contract with the government. S determination that Randa did not prove either a Type 1 or Type 2 differing site condition is supported by substantial evidence and does not otherwise contain any reversible error. Which were to be ". S direction. Id.
|
|
98-1225 -- FISCHER IMAGING CORP. V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. -- 08/03/1999
The units are used in a medical imaging product produced by GE. Parties may
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The cash price for the truck was $27. The rate of interest specified in the contract was 18% per annum. Which were considered as part of the claim. Coors is a liquor distributor which does business as R.C. Distributing and is referred to as such in some of the relevant agreements and the parties' pleadings. Coors and Ross Perry have the same principals and owners and many of the same shareholders. The agreement was later assigned to Coors. Ross Perry is crossed out as the seller and R.C. Distributing is hand written in. Indicating that perhaps this transaction was a direct sale. The assignments which took place in August 1996 and May 1997 are. They look more like intercompany transactions. 2 2 1 Debtors acknowledged that Coors was an oversecured creditor. Because Coors was not the seller nor a licensed sales finance company. Debtors maintained that Coors could not legally charge 18% interest and was thus barred from collecting any interest at all. Debtors sought to have Coors' claim reduced to the principal balance due on the debt at the date of filing.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The first store is the subject of a
|
|
TECHNICAL V. U.S.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The district court held that 188's suit was barred by a limitation of remedies provision. Which it held was part of the contract as a matter of law. 188 contends that the limitation of remedies provision was never a part of the contract. I BACKGROUND A. 188 is in the business of leasing railroad tanker cars. 188 and Trinity negotiated a contract under which Trinity would repair approximately 168 of 188's tankers. On the first page of the Term Sheet was the following statement:
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
A Joint Venture Agreement (
|
|
WELLS FARGO BANK V. U.S.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: On page 25.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Inc. as principal and Capitol Indemnity Corporation as surety to recover on a bond issued pursuant to the Miller Act. 40 U.S.C. 3131 3134.(1) PMR subsequently filed for bankruptcy and proceedings against it were stayed. Accepting Capitol's defense that Cortez's claims were not within the scope of the bond's coverage. Capitol cross appeals on the ground that the court erroneously rejected its alternative defense that Cortez was a joint venturer with PMR and therefore ineligible for bonding protection under the Miller Act. Because the (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. R. 36.3. (1) At the time the bond and associated contract were executed. The Miller Act was codified at 40 U.S.C. 270a 270e. This order and judgment will cite to the statute's current codification.
language of bond and its associated contract unambiguously supports Cortez's position. The contract was an indefinite quantity contract. (2) meaning the government was required to purchase an agreed minimum amount of materials and services.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
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.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Valhal and Sullivan have both filed appeals from the order of the district court denying Sullivan's motion for partial summary judgment and granting Valhal's motion for partial summary judgment. The district concluded that the disputed clause was part of the contract but that it violated public policy and was therefore unenforceable. We will reverse. I. Factual and Procedural Background Valhal is a New York corporation which specializes in the management and development of real estate. Is a Pennsylvania corporation specializing in architectural. A document entitled
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is engaged in the retailing and servicing of personal computers. SBC was an unincorporated division of Sears that generally engaged in the same type of business as Inacom. Inacom was not familiar with government contracting. The BAA contained representations from Sears that it was not in material breach or default of its contract with the DOD and that Sears enjoyed a satisfactory relationship with the government with regard to the contract. The DOD informed Inacom that its proposed model was an insufficient replacement for the D500 and D1075 models. Sears argues that the most applicable portion of the Restatement is section 187(1). Which provides that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Mitchell was on brief for appellee.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
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.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
TVT was not entitled to assert a copyright claim. Because we also conclude that punitive damages were not recoverable for the breach of contract proved at trial. The facts are undisputed. IDJ and TVT are both major players in the recording industry. Is the nation's largest independent record label. IDJ is a division of Universal Music Group Recordings. Is one of the industry's most successful hip hop producers. CMC's members were Christopher Bristole. All were relatively obscure at that time. Most of which were not released. No albums incorporating the songs were produced. Ja Rule was released from his contractual obligations to TVT in 1994 and eventually followed Gotti to IDJ. It still owned the rights to old CMC masters that had been made while Ja Rule was under contract to TVT. Ja Rule's relationship with IDJ was highly successful. Was reluctant to give IDJ's consent to a new CMC album produced by TVT. Who were in the midst of renegotiating both the Murder. Cohen was concerned that a failure to accommodate Ja Rule's request to do the CMC project might.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Bowser Morner was to design a coal slurry impoundment for Lone Mountain's facility. Were briefed and argued in August of 2001. The court found that Lone Mountain was time barred from bringing this action pursuant to a contract statute of limitations. Noting that the District Court had ruled that all claims were controlled by the contract statute of limitations and had not addressed the additional claims of negligence. The District Judge reiterated his holding that there was
|
|
FORD MOTOR CO. V. U.S.
Argued for plaintiff appellant. With him on the brief were Charles J. Argued for defendant appellee. With him on the brief were Peter D. Director. Of counsel was Timothy P. Mso bidi language:AR SA'>[1] We conclude that Ford is entitled to recover the costs of the environmental cleanup that was required by Federal a
|
|
VULCAN ARBOR HILL V. REICH ROBERT
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
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'
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Line 1 the phrase
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Provided simply that a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Peter D. Sought to recover in quantum meruit the amount over and above the original contract price that it was required to pay in order to complete the project after the contractor defaulted. United Pacific alleged that it was entitled to quantum meruit recovery because the contract at issue was illegal and therefore void ab initio. The contract was illegal because it was entered into in violation of two statutes. We cite to the versions of sections 2805 and 2811 that were in effect in 1995 when the contract at issue was formed. 2
|
|
SCOTT TIMBER COMPANY V. U.S.
Argued for plaintiff appellant. With him on the brief were Ruth G. With him on the brief were Robert D. This court also reverses the holding that the suspensions were reasonable as a matter of law. This court affirms the rest of the issues on appeal and remands for further proceedings. 54 Fed. The Forest Service orally informed Scott that it was suspending operations under the § 318 contracts. The temporary restraining order expired ten days later. However. That agency s operations will have on any newly listed species. See 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). That it was entitled to participate in the consultation process. The formal consultation began on December 8.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Adee Honey's principal place of business is in South Dakota. Mel O is owned by William Sill. They bought the company in 1997 and were referred to Richard by Mel O's prior owners. The purchase order noted it was a contract with a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Lloyd R. Which held that Medlin is not entitled to recover certain increased costs incurred in performing Contract No. Because we find that Medlin's interpretation is the only reasonable interpretation that gives meaning to all of the Contract provisions. Unless otherwise indicated. 2.2.2 Precast Concrete Precast concrete units shall have a compressive strength of no less than 17 MPa. There is no dispute between the parties that paragraph 2.2 permits the contractor to choose between two materials for fiber void retainers: polystyrene rigid insulation (
|
|
ALLIANCE METALS, INC., OF ATLANTA V. HINELY INDUS. (8/15/2000, NO. 99-13836)
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because the district court did not err in concluding Hinely was obligated to comply with the non competition provision of his employment contract or in finding no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Hinely had infringed Alliance Atlanta's right to the trade name Hinely Aluminum. Among the assets acquired were the Hinely Aluminum. Alliance Atlanta and Hinely also entered into a five year employment contract under which Hinely was to serve as Alliance Atlanta's president. Hinely was to receive an annual salary of $138. He was to receive a percentage of Alliance Atlanta's net sales and net profits as incentive compensation. Hinely was entitled to review any information on which the calculation of his incentive compensation was based. Or any other matter described herein ... shall be promptly referred to a
|
|
ALLIANCE METALS, INC., OF ATLANTA V. HINELY INDUS. (8/15/2000, NO. 99-13836)
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because the district court did not err in concluding Hinely was obligated to comply with the non competition provision of his employment contract or in finding no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Hinely had infringed Alliance Atlanta's right to the trade name Hinely Aluminum. Among the assets acquired were the Hinely Aluminum. Alliance Atlanta and Hinely also entered into a five year employment contract under which Hinely was to serve as Alliance Atlanta's president. Hinely was to receive an annual salary of $138. He was to receive a percentage of Alliance Atlanta's net sales and net profits as incentive compensation. Hinely was entitled to review any information on which the calculation of his incentive compensation was based. Or any other matter described herein ... shall be promptly referred to a
|
|
96-1066 -- AVEDON ENGINEERING, INC. V. SEATEX -- 10/03/1997
Whose true names are unknown. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. Twist was formed in 1992 to design and manufacture clothing and accessories for the snowboard industry. Twist's principal place of business was Colorado and Seatex's principal place of business was New York. Some special conditions of performance were noted in small type at the bottom front of the confirmation form. Among which was a notice regarding arbitration.
|
|
AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY V. U.S.
Argued for plaintiffs appellants.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. I. Hursey Porter was a well established and well respected real estate broker in Salisbury. Porter also believed that he was not receiving the amount of relocation and referral business promised to him by Prudential. It was clear to Porter that he
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Were parties to a supply agreement by which Ferndale sold a prescription cream to R & C. That the court's calculation of damages for Block's contractual breach was clearly erroneous. Among the supply agreement's provisions was an anti assignment clause. The defaulting party shall have sixty (60) days from the date of such notice to cure such Default. If the Default is not cured during such period. We will reference the cream at issue in the parties' supply agreement as Analpram throughout the 3 1 Nos. 02 2256. Ferndale's complaint alleged that Block breached its supply contract with Ferndale by contracting with Schwarz and that Schwarz was unjustly enriched by this arrangement. It is around this period three years after the closing of the asset purchase opinion. 4 Nos. 02 2256. The district court found that Block's de facto assignment materially breached the supply agreement and that Ferndale was entitled to lost profits damages from Block and unjust enrichment damages from Schwarz. Summary judgment is appropriate
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Were valid and enforceable. 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. Brown & Root employees filed suits in Texas state courts claiming injuries from exposure to asbestos in Millennium workplaces and naming Millennium as premises defendant. 2 The 1973 amended provision was retitled and provided: ARTICLE 17. Loss or expense (a) is attributable to bodily injury. (b) is caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission of [Brown & Root]. Regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by [Millennium] (emphasis added). 3 The 1994 amended provision provided: ARTICLE 17. M i l l e n n i u m th e n f i l e d a declaratory judgment action in which it moved for partial summary judgment declaring that the indemnity provisions were valid and enforceable and that Brown & Root owed Millennium an indemnity obligation for the plaintiff's claims. Held that there was no valid and enforceable indemnity obligation.
|
|
97-6265 -- SHAW V. AAA ENGINEERING & DRAFTING INC. -- 05/18/2000
INTRODUCTION One of these consolidated cases is a qui tam . Plaintiff Debra Shaw is the relator. Shaw asserted she was terminated in retaliation for reporting Defendants' fraudulent activities to U.S. government officials at TAFB. Defendants AAA Engineering &. 2) whether the district court erroneously denied Defendants' Rule 50 motions on Shaw's FCA claim that she was terminated for her actions in furtherance of the FCA. Defendant AAA was awarded a government contract (the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
That the plaintiff is not entitled to recover damages based on a contract price/market price differential. Administrative decisions which denied the plaintiff's claims for actual damages are entitled to res judicata effect. Entered into a long term coal supply contract (the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Were valid and enforceable. 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. Brown & Root employees filed suits in Texas state courts claiming injuries from exposure to asbestos in Millennium workplaces and naming Millennium as premises defendant. 2 The 1973 amended provision was retitled and provided: ARTICLE 17. Loss or expense (a) is attributable to bodily injury. (b) is caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission of [Brown & Root]. Regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by [Millennium] (emphasis added). 3 The 1994 amended provision provided: ARTICLE 17. M i l l e n n i u m th e n f i l e d a declaratory judgment action in which it moved for partial summary judgment declaring that the indemnity provisions were valid and enforceable and that Brown & Root owed Millennium an indemnity obligation for the plaintiff's claims. Held that there was no valid and enforceable indemnity obligation.
|
|
HANSEN BANCORP, INC., ET AL V. U.S.
Argued for plaintiffs appellants. With him on the brief was Richard E. Argued for defendant cross appellant. With him on the brief were Stuart E. Line height:200%'>This is a Winstar related case. In Hansen Bancorp. The United States urges reversal of the court s ruling that its contract with the Hansens and Hansen Bancorp was totally breached. The United States also challenges the court s rejection of its contention that a $1.2 million dividend paid to the Hansens by Hansen Bancorp should be offset against any award of restitution to the Hansens. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
|
|
TOMMY G. THOMPSON V. CHEROKEE NATION
Argued for appellant. With her on the brief was Robert D. Argued for appellee. With him on the brief was Melanie B. New Mexico for amicus curiae Ramah Navajo Chapter. Of counsel on the brief was Carl Bryant Rogers. The Secretary s obligation to pay was subject to the availability of appropriations. and the Secretary was not required to reduce funding for programs. Mso bidi font family:
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The question presented to us is whether an arbitration clause in the distributor manufacturer contract requires the buyer. Which was installed at Westinghouse's plant in late December 1991. Westinghouse alleged that Wood acted as an agent for Schwabedissen and therefore Schwabedissen was liable under that purchase order. In which it added allegations based on the WoodSchwabedissen contract and asserted that it was a third party beneficiary of that contract. Reasoning that because Westinghouse sought
|
|
AVEDON ENG'G, INC. V. SEATEX
Whose true names are unknown. I. Twist was formed in 1992 to design and manufacture clothing and accessories for the snowboard industry. Twist's principal place of business was Colorado and Seatex's principal place of business was New York. Some special conditions of performance were noted in small type at the bottom front of the confirmation form. Among which was a notice regarding arbitration.(3) Two clauses relevant to arbitration appeared in full on the back of the form. Clause 11 provided that future transactions between the parties would be controlled by the terms of the sales confirmation form unless superseded by a signed contract.(4) (1) Defendant Seatex is a New York based division of Balson Hercules. Seatex is a converter of textiles which buys fabric in a
|
|
NICON, INC V. U.S.
With her on the brief were David M. Assistant Director. Of counsel was Thomas D. During which the government never issued a notice to proceed and Nicon was allegedly forced to remain on ". Line height:200%'>Nicon is a small contractor from Tampa. Which suspended action on the contract before any of the repair work was commenced. On April 24.
|
|
P.J. DICK INCORPORATED V. ANTHONY PRINCIPI
Argued for appellee Secretary of Veterans Affairs. With him on the brief were Robert D. 262 in damages to PJD for contract delays that were the fault of the government. P.J. 2001). For reasons of judicial convenience the two separately filed appeals were consolidated into a single proceeding before this court. With the Secretary s appeal treated as the cross appeal for purposes of briefing and argument. PJD appeals the Board s denial of its claims for unabsorbed home office overhead damages. The Secretary appeals the Board s conclusion that six separate contract changes (the combined directives ) should be treated as occurring on the same date in calculating the extent of the resulting delay to contract completion. Although we affirm the Board s conclusion that PJD was not on standby.
|
|
CIENEGA GARDENS V. U.S.
Argued for plaintiffs appellants. With him on the brief were Everett C. Argued for defendant appellee. With him on the brief was David M. Director. Of counsel on the brief were Carole W. Rental rates were held below market rates. On exiting the programs. The trial court granted summary judgment solely on the basis of that decision. This appeal is. We conclude a property right vested in the Owners that was temporarily taken. We also conclude that there is no reason this taking is not. Compensable under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We further hold with respect to at least the subset of Owners for whom there is a well developed record before us. That they are entitled to ". Mso bidi language:AR SA'>[3] This appeal is one in a series of proceedings.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
(2) are preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. (3) are unconstitutionally vague in the use of the term
|
|
MCDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION V. U.S.
For plaintiff appellant McDonnell Douglas Corporation. With him on the brief was Elizabeth A. Ferrell. Of counsel on the brief was John W. Argued for plaintiff appellent General Dynamics Corporation. With him on the brief were David A. Perrelli. Of
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
One of the buildings to be constructed was a steel clear span arena 286 feet long by 209 feet wide. Once the side wall columns are erected. Steel mainframes or rafters are set onto the columns and braced together with purlins. The second phase is the steelsheeting phase. The delivery of materials was to begin the week of April 6. Some of the materials needed for the early stages of the building were not delivered until later shipments. Construction was delayed. When Double Diamond was able to begin working on the building. Some of the mainframes were twisted. Other parts were missing or the wrong length. Double Diamond ceased working on the project and informed Mills and ABC that nothing else could be done until the problems were corrected. A climatologist testified that the wind speed at the approximate time of the collapse was thirty five miles per hour. The amount of the invoice was based on Double Diamond's estimate that phase one of the construction had a contract value of $149. Mills' project manager explained why these costs were reasonable.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Which was set to expire in the fall of 1998. Inc. (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The Act makes it a federal crime to defraud the United States in connection with a government contract that is valued in excess of $1 million. Each of which have a value of less than $1 million. Are within the purview of the Act when the underlying government contract has a value in excess of $1 million. AEC is an environmental consulting company headquartered in Pittsburgh and incorporated in Pennsylvania. Is a licensed professional engineer. Is the sole shareholder and president of AEC.2 It is well established that. Following is a statement of facts which the jury could have found based on the trial evidence. The Army entered into a consent decree with the State of Utah requiring the Army to treat the waste water it was generating at the depot and releasing into the ground water. The Army proposed to have a contractor build. AEC was selected. Once the price is established by the parties. The term of the contract was for one year followed by four one year options. Each of the tanks was designed to hold approximately 5.
|
|
97-6169 -- FORD AUDIO VIDEO SYSTEMS INC. V. AMX CORP. INC. -- 09/15/1998
At issue in this case is whether Counsel acted unreasonably and vexatiously by filing three motions on behalf of Ford Audio Video Systems. The motions attempted to revive a contract claim the district court had determined was barred. The case was removed to federal court. The claim was discussed in a May 1995 status report. AMX noted that Ford's contract claim was absent from the Second Amended Complaint. AMX asserted that the contract claim had therefore been dismissed by Ford and was no longer before the court. The district court ruled that because the contract claim was omitted from the Second Amended Complaint. Ford was barred from pursuing the claim. The court reasoned that
|
|
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS, ET AL. V. U.S.
Argued for plaintiff appellant. With him on the brief were Maureen E. Argued for defendant appellee. With him on the brief were Peter D. For amicus curiae American Chemistry Council. With him on the brief were Walter Dellinger and Jonathan D. As may be approved or ratified by the Contracting Officer and as are included in the following items: 8. It is the understanding of the parties hereto. That all work under this Title III is to be performed at the expense of the Government and that the Government shall hold [DuPont] harmless against any loss. Damage or liability is due to the personal failure on the part of the corporate officers of [DuPont]. The government terminated the MOW Contract and entered into a supplemental agreement with DuPont (the Termination Supplement ). Neither DuPont nor the government was able to locate a copy of the Termination Supplement.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The issues we address are whether the companies in the Bethlehem Steel corporate family and their agents were legally capable of engaging in an antitrust conspiracy with each other. We hold that the defendants were legally incapable of conspiring with one another or with their agents. We conclude that the defendants are not liable for breach of contract. We will affirm the judgment of the district court. Joruss Trucking were owned by Russell Siegel and his wife. Were based in Sparrows Point. It hoped to capture at least a portion of the revenue it was paying to outside truckers. Section 11343(e) authorizes the Commission to exempt an acquisition from regulatory oversight if it finds that regulation is not necessary to carry out the transportation policy of the Act. [fn3] and the acquisition is limited in scope or unlikely to result in an abuse of market power. 49 U.S.C. § 11343(e). Once the acquisition was finalized. Non exclusive agents in different parts of the country to make arrangements with owner operators or with other carriers who had access to trucks and drivers to carry the freight it was under contract to transport.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: The issue in this case is whether a district court may authorize the rejection of an executory 2 contract for the purchase of electricity as part of a bankruptcy reorganization. The district court held that a FERC proceeding was the proper forum for Mirant to seek relief from any of its power contracts. We find that the district court's jurisdictional ruling is erroneous. I Mirant is one of the largest regulated public utilities in the United States. PEPCO is also a regulated public entity responsible for servicing the power needs of residential and commercial consumers in the District of Columbia and Maryland. The Schedule 2.4 payments relating to these unassigned PPAs are referred to by the parties. The parties agree that the Back to Back Agreement's rate for electricity is higher than the market rate. The PPAs are long term fixed rate contracts to purchase electricity from outside suppliers that PEPCO used to supplement its energy needs before deregulation. 4 1 First. To require or coerce [Mirant] to abide by the terms of any Wholesale Contract
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
PCUA claims the earlier contract is unenforceable because the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy (DEP) did not grant the required approval. The parties and the court then plunged into a procedural miasma which is virtually impenetrable. Neither the magistrate judge nor the district court notified Chambers that they were considering granting summary judgment against Chambers or afforded Chambers an opportunity to present pertinent evidence in opposition to summary judgment. We are referred to none. It is undisputed that DEP had to approve the amendment to the Passaic County District Solid Waste Management Plan designating Chambers as the primary landfill system for Passaic County's waste disposal before the contract between Chambers and the Authority became enforceable. Is at issue in these proceedings. We will not review an order denying a motion for summary judgment. We will review the court's order entering judgment for the Authority on the issue of damages because it is
|
|
N:\DOCS\E-DOS\8-31\06-3063 168TH AND DODGE V. RAVE REVIEWS OPN 8.23.WPD
RED is a commercial property development company. Judge Shanahan was assigned to this case when it was filed and decided the motion to dismiss. The case was reassigned to the Honorable Joseph F. Painter expressed his belief that Rave was
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
SMG claimed CPI breached the contract by failing to make the final (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. As well as (3) the district court's threshold ruling that CPI's proffered expert testimony was inadmissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 702. Background Factual Background SMG is a marketing company that maintains lists of names and addresses of children. CPI is an education and career preparation company that provides products and services to college bound high school students. The significance of this provision will be discussed in greater detail below.
Rental Ag. IV. In the event any payment is more than ten (10) days late. Suspend Lessee's ability to utilize the High School Records until such time as all amounts owed to SMG are paid in full. It is agreed that a monthly payment not paid by its due date will be subject to a late charge of ten percent (10%). If collection efforts are required. The quantity term
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Thompkins (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Facts No. 05 4388 ABS is a company formed to facilitate contracts between pharmacy benefit managers (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This is now the fourth appeal to this Court regarding an arbitration award that was finalized in 1994. This Court reversed the district court's order holding that Award Eight of the arbitrator's 11 part award is ambiguous with regard to the amounts Behr owes M & C. The Eighth Award addresses M & C's claim that the parties' contract entitles M & C to commissions on customer orders for Behr parts that were placed after Behr terminated its contract with M & C. Are due to each party from the other under that award. All of the potential products for which M & C is seeking commissions were ordered by Behr's customers more than three years after Behr terminated its contract with M & C. M & C is not entitled to commissions on these orders. They are directed to advise the Court in writing of their respective positions. The Court will enter an appropriate final judgment resolving the issue of payments owed under the contract. I BACKGROUND A complete factual background is more fully set forth in this Court's three prior published opinions.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > In re Gen. The relevant portions of the district court's opinion are attached as an appendix.<p> AFFIRMED.<p> APPENDIX<p> <p> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT <p> <p> SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA <p> <p> IN RE: GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. 1993</i><p> <p> BEFORE THIS COURT is an appeal from the Bankruptcy Court's Order Granting Atlantic Gulf's Motion to Enforce Executory Contract. Currently pending before the Court are three motions: (1) Appellee General Development Corporation's (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug04/04-10001-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The issue in this case is whether a district court may authorize the rejection of an executory 2 contract for the purchase of electricity as part of a bankruptcy reorganization. The district court held that a FERC proceeding was the proper forum for Mirant to seek relief from any of its power contracts. We find that the district court's jurisdictional ruling is erroneous. I Mirant is one of the largest regulated public utilities in the United States. PEPCO is also a regulated public entity responsible for servicing the power needs of residential and commercial consumers in the District of Columbia and Maryland. The Schedule 2.4 payments relating to these unassigned PPAs are referred to by the parties. The parties agree that the Back to Back Agreement's rate for electricity is higher than the market rate. The PPAs are long term fixed rate contracts to purchase electricity from outside suppliers that PEPCO used to supplement its energy needs before deregulation. 4 1 First. To require or coerce [Mirant] to abide by the terms of any Wholesale Contract
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug04/04-10094-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The issue in this case is whether a district court may authorize the rejection of an executory 2 contract for the purchase of electricity as part of a bankruptcy reorganization. The district court held that a FERC proceeding was the proper forum for Mirant to seek relief from any of its power contracts. We find that the district court's jurisdictional ruling is erroneous. I Mirant is one of the largest regulated public utilities in the United States. PEPCO is also a regulated public entity responsible for servicing the power needs of residential and commercial consumers in the District of Columbia and Maryland. The Schedule 2.4 payments relating to these unassigned PPAs are referred to by the parties. The parties agree that the Back to Back Agreement's rate for electricity is higher than the market rate. The PPAs are long term fixed rate contracts to purchase electricity from outside suppliers that PEPCO used to supplement its energy needs before deregulation. 4 1 First. To require or coerce [Mirant] to abide by the terms of any Wholesale Contract
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5155.html">FRASER CONSTRUCTION CO. V. U. S.<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief was <u>Marvin T. <span class=SpellE>Fabyanske</span></u>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text align:justify'><span style='font size:12.0pt. Argued for defendant <span class=SpellE>appellee</span>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>On the brief were <u>Peter D. <span class=SpellE>Keisler</span></u>. 57 Fed. <span class=SpellE>Cl</span>. 56 (2003).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Because the trial court s decision is based on factual findings that have not been shown to be clearly erroneous. The Army Corps of Engineers was engaged in a flood control project on the South Fork <span class=SpellE>Zumbro</span> River in Rochester. A shallow reservoir located along the river.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The price of the contract was $744. 585.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The project was scheduled to begin on May 17. The water level in the lake was to be lowered by approximately eight feet to facilitate excavation of the lake bottom.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>At that water elevation most of the lake would normally be dry.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june96/95-4379.opa.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>In re Gen. The relevant portions of the district court's opinion are attached as an appendix.<p> AFFIRMED.<p> APPENDIX<p> <p> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT <p> <p> SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA <p> <p> IN RE: GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. 1993</i><p> <p> BEFORE THIS COURT is an appeal from the Bankruptcy Court's Order Granting Atlantic Gulf's Motion to Enforce Executory Contract. Currently pending before the Court are three motions: (1) Appellee General Development Corporation's (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="666"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-5004.html">CITY OF BURBANK, CALIFORNIA V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="666"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2003/01-16203.opn.html">IRAOLA & CIA., S.A. V. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP. (3/31/2003, NO. 01-16203)<BR></A><BR>
1) Iraola was an Argentine company specializing in distributing medical supplies to hospitals in Argentina. Was K C's international expansion manager for the medical product lines division. Iraola and K C entered into an oral agreement pursuant to which Iraola was to distribute K C's medical products in Argentina. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="666"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2001/99-14166.op2.html">SEGUROS DEL ESTADO, S.A. V. SCIENTIFIC GAMES (8/20/2001, NO. 99-14166)<BR></A><BR>
The district court effectively determined Appellant was in breach of an indemnification agreement because Appellant did not reimburse Appellee for its payment of $2.4 . This judgment is comprised of a principal amount of $2.4 million and pre judgment interest at an annual rate of 38.76%. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="666"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2003/01-16203.opn.html">IRAOLA & CIA., S.A. V. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP. (3/31/2003, NO. 01-16203)<BR></A><BR>
1) Iraola was an Argentine company specializing in distributing medical supplies to hospitals in Argentina. Was K C's international expansion manager for the medical product lines division. Iraola and K C entered into an oral agreement pursuant to which Iraola was to distribute K C's medical products in Argentina. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="666"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTMyOTItY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3292-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Town is located in Orange County. Meyers was Town Supervisor. Was chairman of its governing body. The Ambulance Corps is a New York not for profit corporation organized to. Many of the events prior to February 2004 are not in dispute and are set forth below as found by the district court in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law dated April 20. The Ambulance Corps was initially funded through contributions from members of the community. The contract covering calendar year 1974 also stated that the Town
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="666"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2001/99-14166.op2.html">SEGUROS DEL ESTADO, S.A. V. SCIENTIFIC GAMES (8/20/2001, NO. 99-14166)<BR></A><BR>
The district court effectively determined Appellant was in breach of an indemnification agreement because Appellant did not reimburse Appellee for its payment of $2.4 . This judgment is comprised of a principal amount of $2.4 million and pre judgment interest at an annual rate of 38.76%. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="666"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1774.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which is now known as Ikon.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="666"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/679D33FA3FF9F01588257321006FB13E/$file/0535477.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Golden Pisces and OneBeacon are not entitled to attorneys' fees absent statutory authorization. Because the parties' contract was void. Which at the time this action arose was based in Newport. It was never signed by the ship's manager. Nor was it signed by a representative of Fred Wahl. It was towed back to Dutch Harbor and missed the remainder of the fishing season. Fred Wahl raised the affirmative defenses that Golden Pisces was comparatively negligent. The parties stipulated to several facts but disputed whether Golden Pisces was comparatively negligent and whether the terms of the form contract controlled. It further found
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="666"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-5047.html">HARBERT/LUMMUS V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="666"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2001/00-10292.man.html">TELECOM ITALIA V. WHOLESALE TELECOM CORP. (4/18/2001, NO. 00-10292)<BR></A><BR>
We agree that arbitration was not required. Facts</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="666"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/032177.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
BEACH CLUB II 3 ers association is not a party to the general contract. The general contractor is not a third party beneficiary of the master deed and is not otherwise entitled to invoke its arbitration clause. Because the arbitration provisions and legal issues are identical in the three cases before us. The facts are as follows. Is not a party to the deed. Nor is it referred to anywhere in the deed's provisions. Griffin alleged that the Association was subject to mandatory arbitration based on provisions in the general construction contract and The Beach Club master deed. Griffin argues that the Association is compelled to arbitrate its negligence and breach of warranty claims under two separate arbitration provisions. Griffin asserts that it is a third party beneficiary of the master deed. Griffin says in the alternative that the Association is equitably estopped from avoiding the master deed's arbitration provision. A. Griffin's main argument is that the arbitration clause in the general contract is enforceable against the Association through the doctrine of R.J.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="666"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2001/00-10292.man.html">TELECOM ITALIA V. WHOLESALE TELECOM CORP. (4/18/2001, NO. 00-10292)<BR></A><BR>
We agree that arbitration was not required. Facts</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/08/953916P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The parties to this dispute came together for the purpose of The constructing and operating a tribal casino on trust lands within the boundaries of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in North Dakota. modern era of tribal gaming in this country was ushered in with the 1988 passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Whereby Lien was to assist in the financing. The agreement was submitted to the Area Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Said agency having interim authority under IGRA to The agreement was executed by Wilbur Wilkinson and John Rabbithead on behalf of the Tribes. Arikara collectively comprise the Three Affiliated Tribes and are federally recognized Indian tribes which exercise their sovereignty under a federally approved constitution adopted pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. At the time the agreement was executed Wilkinson and Rabbithead were the TBC's Chairman and Secretary. Which was granted overall regulatory authority for Indian gaming conducted pursuant to IGRA. 25 U.S.C. § 2704.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043589p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
One of these subcontractors was 2 Hull. Various logistical and timing issues plagued the manufacture and delivery of the freeze dryers before they were eventually installed at Huadu's facility in China in April 1997. These tests would have held the freeze dryers to even more stringent standards than did the failed start up test. Satisfaction of the performance tests was required by the Huadu Contract. The result was an agreement among Huadu. March 1998 was set as the date by which modifications would be completed and Huadu would grant final acceptance. Several particular provisions of the APA are relevant to our discussion. The first is a list of purchase assets. The second provision at issue is Section 7.8. Which states that: Purchaser will. At the location of the customer) or accept returns of products of the Business shipped by [Hull] on and prior to the Closing Date ... which are defective or which fail to conform to the customer's order in accordance with the following provisions (but [SPI] does not hereby assume any liability to any third party claimant. ...).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0423p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court also held that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Henkel's promise to honor Gage's higher prices upon Chrysler's approval amounted to fraud. 2001 quote was based on the prices that Gage had quoted and that Chrysler had been reviewing since November 2000.2 Four months earlier. The March 2001 prices quoted to Henkel actually were higher than the increased prices Gage sought from Chrysler in November 2000. Which were to have taken effect the preceding November 15. Hohauser responded that Gage was expecting Chrysler to authorize its higher prices. Henkel
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1998/98a1885p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because the equipment being used at each well site was in high demand on the island. Were hired to perform security and maintenance service at the wells 24 hours a day. Water was pumped into storage tanks and then into pressurized distribution lines. Which was apparently owned. By early October the new system was in place. The wells themselves were located in remote areas. Until several employees were threatened by persons who were attempting to steal the generators and pumps. WAPA acknowledges that providing the security was hazardous work. Gardiner had previously worked for WAPA and was already doing work for WAPA on another project. Gardiner was told at this initial meeting that WAPA would be reimbursed by the federal government for the payments to Gardiner. There was no written contract. Gardiner and his crews were resourceful and highly successful. Rounsaville wrote that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5036.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the brief was Monica A. Of counsel was Lesley A. Of counsel on the brief were Richard C. Of counsel on the brief were Melvin C. With her on the brief were Stuart E. Of counsel on the brief were Kenneth M. Because the Court of Federal Claims erred in holding that the Individual Plaintiffs have standing to sue for breach of contract. Although we agree that the Institutional Plaintiffs are entitled to the categories of damages awarded to them. There are issues with the calculation of those damages that require further fact finding to fully resolve. A. BACKGROUND Overview of Winstar Litigation This is a Winstar related case involving claims against the government stemming from Congress' enactment of the Financial Institutions Reform. FIRREA was passed as part of the government's response to the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s. The circumstances surrounding the crisis in the savings and loan industry are well documented elsewhere. An understanding of the government's response to that crisis and the resulting litigation is.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/06/981809P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It stated that it was effective through December 31. He testified at trial that among the factors contributing to his decision was A/C's failure to keep its account with Lennox current. The letter noted that A/C's location in Tulsa was not a franchise location authorized under the January 2. Did not inform A/C that its delinquent account was a reason for Lennox's decision to terminate the franchise. 1996 was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1065.html">KINETIC BUILDER'S, INC V. F. WHITTEN PETERS<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were <u>David W. S claim for extended job site overhead costs for the delay in contract completion that was caused by the Department of the Air Force
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1227.html">BURNSIDE-OTT AVIATION V. DALTON<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/96-4198.htm">96-4198 -- ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS INC. V. SFR INC. -- 01/28/1999<BR></A><BR>
Seeking declaratory relief against EDI that he was entitled to a one third share of a promissory note issued by SFR and naming EDI as the payee. The case was tried to the court and judgment was entered on October 4. Have timely appealed the judgment. 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="661"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/05/042354P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court found that Coldwell Banker was not likely to succeed on these claims. They are not a subject of this appeal.). We hold that the district court correctly decided that Coldwell Banker is likely to prevail on the merits of the breach of contract claim. Erred as a matter of law when it concluded that Coldwell Banker is likely to prevail on the merits of the breach of implied covenant claim. Abused its discretion in ruling that Coldwell Banker will suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction. I. Iowa Realty is a real estate brokerage firm in Des Moines. MLXchange is a database management system used to store. Coldwell Banker decided that the MLXchange system was better than the system it was using. Passport Plus is an office exclusive program. Meaning that if a seller were to agree to sell his or her house pursuant to it. When two 2 brokerages are involved in the sale of a house in the Des Moines area. The primary breachof contract claim is that the program would violate the provisions of the contract that entitle Coldwell Banker to access data that Iowa Realty stores on the MLXsystem.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/05/061695P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Rambo is an architectural firm and an educational facilities consultant based in Nebraska. South Tama is a school district in Eastern Iowa. South Tama was considering building a new school. Contacted architectural firms to ask whether they were interested in conducting a study to determine what would be necessary to put South Tama's existing buildings in condition to provide its students with a quality education for the next thirty to fifty years and to determine what new construction might be needed. South Tama maintains that the parties agreed only that Rambo would prepare the study and assist the school district in passing a bond issue to fund a new school building that was included in the study. We note that the agreement here is as far from a model of clarity as any that we can recall ever having reviewed. 2 was signed by the parties. Attachment B was a standard form contract between an architect and an owner. After explaining what was included in the study (Phase One). Definitions of these services and 3 other terms and conditions integral to this Agreement are provided in Attachment B.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1516.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Levinson LLP</SPAN> were on brief. Black</SPAN> and <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/04/98-3011.htm">98-3011 -- HAMPTON V. DILLARD DEPT. STORES INC. -- 04/24/2001<BR></A><BR>
Hampton
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-5008.html">DAFF V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-5128.html">DJ MANUFACTURING V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-7279a.html">ELENA STURDZA V. UNITED ARAB EMIRATES<BR></A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Alyza D. Baker were on the brief for appellee The Government of the United Arab Emirates. <span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3476_021.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
One for breach of contract and one for violating the Illinois (continued...) 2 No. 05 3476 mined that Caremark was not an ERISA fiduciary and therefore granted Caremark's motion to dismiss. One of the benefits provided is prescription drug coverage which entitles the union members to obtain brand name or generic prescription drugs for a small copayment. One of the nation's largest Pharmaceutical Benefit Management (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D9DDFE4693D792A588256D81005BD0C9/$file/0016521.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs Appellants (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200203/00-7279b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Alyza D. Baker were on the brief for appellee The Government of the United Arab Emirates. Concluding that District of Columbia law bars such claims by architects who (like Sturd za) have no D.C. architecture license. Concluding that foreign governments are not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200203/00-7279a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Alyza D. Baker were on the brief for appellee The Government of the United Arab Emirates. Concluding that District of Columbia law bars such claims by architects who (like Sturd za) have no D.C. architecture license. Concluding that foreign governments are not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/02/97-3009.htm">97-3009 -- MIDWEST GRAIN PRODUCTS INC. V. ENVIROFUELS MARKETING INC. -- 02/17/1998<BR></A><BR>
That it was not entitled to recovery on its quantum meruit counterclaim. <p align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1925.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. Cuebas</SPAN> were on brief. With whom <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-7279b.html">ELENA STURDZA V. UNITED ARAB EMIRATES<BR></A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Alyza D. Baker were on the brief for appellee The Government of the United Arab Emirates. <span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="658"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTUzMDgtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-5308-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
When the steel coils were subsequently loaded onto SK Shipping's vessel. Were the governing contract of carriage and that their South Korea forum selection clause controlled. SK Shipping is bound to the terms of its contract. BACKGROUND As is often the case in intercontinental ocean shipping. The litigants are connected to a network of affiliated companies.1 Asoma is apparently affiliated with four companies MUR London. A key price term was FOB Kaohsiung. The steel was to be shipped to the United States during October or November 1999. 1 1 2 3 4 5 As the Supreme Court recently stated:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="658"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199914166.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court effectively determined Appellant was in breach of an indemnification agreement because Appellant did not reimburse Appellee for its payment of $2.4 million in accordance with an obligation on a bond. This judgment is comprised of a principal amount of $2.4 million and pre judgment interest at an annual rate of 38.76%. (2) a bond which was required under the Lottery Contract. 1 and (3) an indemnification agreement which required Appellant to reimburse Appellee for sums paid to Ecosalud and for any interest paid on such While this document is entitled
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="658"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1448.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Claiming that Arguss failed to pay the commission on the sales. (1) This order is not binding precedent. R. 36.3. <hr> The case was tried to a jury. Arguss is a telecommunications contractor. Arguss contracted with a predecessor of AT&T Broadband (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="658"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1390.html">MONSANTO COMPANY V. HOMAN<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="658"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199914166.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court effectively determined Appellant was in breach of an indemnification agreement because Appellant did not reimburse Appellee for its payment of $2.4 million in accordance with an obligation on a bond. This judgment is comprised of a principal amount of $2.4 million and pre judgment interest at an annual rate of 38.76%. (2) a bond which was required under the Lottery Contract. (3) the entry of summary judgment for Appellee While this document is entitled
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="658"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971808.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: This case is a study in the tensions that can beset the franchisorfranchisee relationship. Defendants maintain that the suit was erroneously certified as a class action and challenge several other legal rulings by the district court. Deprived defendants of a fair trial on the precise issue of contractual breach that is properly the focus of this case. I. The plaintiff class consisted of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="658"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1147.html">T.BROWN CONST. V. PENA<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="658"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3E40CE3EDE33AD6788256D730070C8E7/$file/0116987.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A. Factual Summary Central Valley Project The Central Valley Project (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="658"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991443.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Senior Circuit Judge: Arnold Whitmore is a fast food executive employed by La Van Hawkins InnerCityFoods. UCF were personally liable for breach of the employment agreement that he signed with ICF. He also alleged that he was entitled to receive the equitable value of the shares that he owned in ICF and UCF. The district court dismissed Hawkins and UCF pursuant to Rule 50 and determined that Whitmore was not entitled to the fair market value of his shares in either company. We agree with the district court that UCF is not liable to Whitmore and that Whitmore is not entitled to receive the value of his equity interest in either ICF or UCF. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY La Van Hawkins is the President and CEO of ICF. The initial paragraph of the employment contract states: This employment agreement is made and entered into .. . by and between La Van Hawkins InnerCityFoods. Although the employment contract states that it is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="658"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3770.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
All of which we will refer to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="658"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-4217.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is granted. The Clerk is directed to reissue the Order & Judgment as a published decision. The published opinion is attached to this order. A default judgment was entered against Nightime on January 20. Some of these insurance payments were made pursuant to contracts between Nightime and various insurance companies (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="658"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2004/032977p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Though there were many factual disputes at the trial. The basic circumstances of the case are clear and we set forth the facts in the light most supportive of the district court's result. 1 The origin of the case may be traced to March 30. 000 in United States OPINION OF THE COURT Certain of the various orders and determinations to which we make reference have not been appealed. Berg's principal place of business is in Toronto. At various points in the record reference is made to other Chinese corporate entities related to Huadu. For simplicity's sake we will refer to the entities collectively as Huadu. We also note that Huadu sometimes is referred to as Hua Du. 2 3 2 1 GREENBERG. Berg was in constant contact with Hull regarding the freezer dryers' technical specifications.6 On April 20. Start up and testing of the freeze dryers.7 The freeze dryers were 6 At trial Donald Berggren. So it was a back and forth process of negotiation.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0016p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The District Court held that the arbitration provisions contained in five agreements between the Plaintiff Appellee and the DefendantsAppellants were not enforceable because four of those provisions were fraudulently induced. Because a fifth agreement was superseded by subsequent criminal conduct and the other four agreements. JURISDICTION We have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. We also have jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(A). While a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1277.html">EMPIRE ENERGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. V. JAMES G. ROCHE, SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE<BR></A><BR>
Argued for appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Virginia A. Argued for appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Robert D. Empire and the Air Force entered into a contract under which Empire was to provide cogeneration<a style='mso footnote id:ftn1' href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2493.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LLP</SPAN> was on brief for appellants Pot O'Gold Money Leagues Inc. and David R. LLP</SPAN> were on brief for appellee.</SPAN></P> <BR WP=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1197.html">HRE INC. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-5038.html">LEWIS V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug95/94-5106.html">SCHUSTERMAN V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR>
That the prevailing market interest rate in September 1980 was eleven and one half percent. That is. 551 which is $3. Taxpayers and the United States stipulated
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962811.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Only a few days before the GSBCA was to issue a decision on the protest (April 19. Joel Lipkin was the principal negotiator for Zenith. When the Air Force took the position that a Microsoft Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="653"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5168.html">ADMIRAL FINANCIAL CORPORATION V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Alan G. Florida.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Lynn F. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>Stuart E. Line height:200%'>This is a <u>Winstar</u> related breach of contract case.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>See</u> <u>United States v. Admiral could not recover because it was not harmed by the government s breach.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>For the reasons set forth below. Admiral and Haven entered into an acquisition agreement under which Admiral agreed to contribute $6.4 million in real estate and cash in order to bring Haven into compliance with the Bank Board s minimum capital requirements.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The agreement was conditioned on the Bank Board s giving Adm
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="653"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1999/981803.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
In pertinent part: If you are a girl between 7 and 12 years old and 4 Č6<!DAG> or under. Annie's director/lyricist . . . will pick the lucky actress 1. The Actors' Equity Association requires producers to attach its standard
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="653"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200212261.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of a municipality that had entered into such an agreement on the ground that it was ultra vires. Which are not in dispute. Were succinctly stated in our earlier op inion. His truck stalled on the tracks where it was hit by a National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) passenger train. Claimin g that the in demnity agreement was void for a number of reasons. Relying on our
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="653"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sep1999/99a2274.html">99A2274- PACITTI V. MACY'S<BR></A><BR>
In pertinent part: <p>If you are a girl between 7 and 12 years old and 4'*6
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="653"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1288.html">NORTHROP V. GOLDIN<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="653"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-5161.html">ELLETT CONSTRUCTION V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="653"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5162.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Alex D. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel was Jane K. With him on the brief was Robert L. The Secretary [of Energy] is authorized to enter into contracts with any person who generates or holds title to high level radioactive waste. Will dispose of the high level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel involved as provided in this subchapter. The government asserts that sixty six such claims have been filed. The United States courts of appeals shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over any civil action (A) for review of any final decision or action of the Secretary. Is commonly known as Yucca Mountain. Courts of appeals have asserted jurisdiction under section 119 over claims brought challenging DOE actions under the NWPA. The first of these cases was General Electric Uranium v. Although section 302(a)(3) fell within Title III of the Act and section 119 was in Title I and only conferred the courts of appeals with jurisdiction over agency actions
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="653"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5141.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Stuart E. Of counsel were Scott Austin and Elizabeth M. The breach was the elimination of the regulatory capital by the enactment of the Financial Institutions Reform. Is foreclosed by our recent decision in American Capital Corp. v. I. BACKGROUND CHTE is an irrevocable trust. Donald Crisp (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="653"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972158.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Senior Circuit Judge: This is a diversity action in which Managed Care Professionals. Is the corporate entity that controls WHC. 2 for partial summary judgment on $3.8 million of the $5.5 million of MCPI's claimed damages. WHC's motion for judgment as a matter of law was denied. MCP was then responsible for undertaking collection efforts. The agreement specified that MCP was still entitled to 50% of the funds collected from identified accounts. The agreement was to remain in effect until collections of all underpayments were complete for reviewed accounts from January 1993 to March 1995. After the agreement was signed. 000 accounts identified as potential candidates for underpayment and concluded that WHC was owed almost $17.5 million. After the amount was approved through WHC's review process. Was paid $37. Both Wagner and Manselle realized that MCPI was seeking to be paid on accounts that were clas4 sified as open and active. Whose duties were to bill and collect payments on open accounts.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="653"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5130.html">D & N BANK, A FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Melvin C. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Stuart E. Deputy Assistant Attorney General.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Jeanne E. N has not demonstrated that there was a contract that could have been breached by FIRREA. Which was lengthy and had many attachments. Contained no specific reference to a commitment for long term amortization and gave no hint that assurances were requested against changes in the law or that anything was requested other than approval of the merger under the then current regulations. </p> <p class=MsoBlockText>Nothing about the merger transaction suggests that plaintiff was looking for a guarantee. That the documents and the testimony support its assertion.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>It also argues that the circumstances involved in its merger were analogous to those in other cases in which this court and the Supreme Court found that the parties had formed a valid contract and were entitled to damages as a result of the passage of FIRREA.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Finally.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="653"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011254.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Were intended to grant Big Red an exclusive right to distribute Davines' hair care products within designated territories of the United States. Stat. § 75 4 (1999) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="653"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/01/011947P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Olander was charged with murder after a violent altercation with a neighboring landowner. When Olander refused to take a leave of absence until the criminal charges were resolved. Concluding that Section III.A. of the written State Farm Agent's Agreement unambiguously made the parties' contractual relationship terminable at will. Section III.A. provides: This Agreement will terminate upon your death. You or State Farm have the right to terminate this Agreement by written notice delivered to the other or mailed to the other's last known address. In the event no date is specified. The date of termination shall be the date of delivery if the notice is delivered. If the notice is mailed. The panel concluded that two other provisions of the Agreement create an ambiguity as to whether it was terminable only for cause. Summary judgment was inappropriate because extrinsic evidence is admissible to construe this essential contract term. If the Agreement was terminable at will by either party. United States Magistrate Judge for the District of North Dakota. 2 1 and his related claims were properly dismissed as well.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTM4MjMtY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/05-3823-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court lacked jurisdiction because the action was not brought as an appeal of an agency decision pursuant to IGRA § 2714. We hold that the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain the action and we affirm the dismissal. The other half shall be paid into the Treasury for the use of the Indian or tribe by or for whom it was so paid. 3 Management Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sep1999/99a2274p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
In pertinent part: If you are a girl between 7 and 12 years old and 4 *6<!DAG> or under. Annie's director/lyricist . . . will pick the lucky actress for final callbacks . . . at Macy's Herald Square. The Actors' Equity Association requires producers to attach its standard
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/05/00-6183.htm">00-6183 -- MCCURDY GROUP, LLC V. AMERICAN BIOMEDICAL GROUP, INC. -- 05/21/2001<BR></A><BR>
1291 and affirm. <p> <center>I.</center> <p> Dave McCurdy is a former Oklahoma Congressman. McCurdy's intent was for MG
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/04/951754P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At issue is whether an amendment to a Minnesota statute. Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Minnesota. The Association is a nonprofit Minnesota corporation created pursuant to the Minnesota Life and Health Insurance Guaranty Association Act (the Act). The Investment Plus Plan of Honeywell the Honeywell plans is First Trust National Association. App. 1987). business in Minnesota are To provide this protection. Who was a Minnesota resident (as is the current trustee). GICs are unallocated annuity contracts. Or Id. annuity contracts
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1512.html">CELERITAS V. ROCKWELL<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1480.html">ESSEX ELECTRO ENGINEERS, V. RICHARD J. DANZIG<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were <u>David W. Of counsel was <u>Anthony H. The Board held that Essex was entitled to compensation for certain government caused delays to its contract performance. The Board held that Essex was not entitled to compensation. Including any that were necessary to correct the government
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-5131.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Thomas G. With her on the brief were Stuart E. Of counsel was Maureen A. This appeal is another in a series of Winstar related cases. The Court of Federal Claims determined that the government breached its contract and that Westfed is entitled to approximately $305 million in reliance damages. Westfed is a thrift holding company. Which was subject to regulatory approval. The Federal Home Loan Bank Board (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1615.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. were on brief. Souls & Woodbine was on brief. Circuit Judge. as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2001/991590.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The primary issue is whether US W ATS improperly denied Mark Scully the right to exer cise his stock option following his wrongful ter mination. (3) Parker and Brown were individually liable under theories of conspiracy or
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1995/95a1144p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Amana is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1684.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Were on brief. The district court determined that NDI should receive some of the payments it claimed were due under its contract with ISSI. That it was not entitled to the full amount because it had failed to render complete performance under its agreement with ISSI. Background</STRONG></FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1998/98a1959p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The first question is whether the parties entered into a legally enforceable
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1148.html">STATISTICA, INC. V. CHRISTOPHER<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/10/952937P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The judgment was entered after a jury found that Deere breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing when it refused to approve Midcon's proposed assignment of its dealership to a willing buyer. Because there was no proof that Deere failed to exercise
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2326.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. Steinke is a former SFS employee. SIS was a multi service company whose primary business involved providing software and related services to self clearing broker dealers. Steinke was the President and Chief Executive Officer of SIS. Phase3 was renamed SunGard Brokerage Systems. When Wismer told Steinke that he understood SIS was well run and that he could use that type of management at Phase3. Mann also told Steinke during the meeting that if Steinke was to work for SFS. He would have one year to get to know the operations of Phase3 and two years after that to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-5105.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031761.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. is a real estate agency that operates in Loudoun and Fauquier counties. Is a licensed real estate agent. Is a Delaware limited liability company whose principal is Maureen Brennan's father. Rachel Lambert Mellon is the former owner of a large tract of land near both Slater's land and Miss Brennan's Foxmount farm. There is no evidence that Miss Brennan and Slater were acquaint T.G. Slater told Miss Brennan that he was not interested in renting out his farmland. Slater also told Miss Brennan that he was a real estate broker. That he was leasing as a tenant adjoining land on the Mellon property. That he believed the Mellon property was about to go on the market. The fax was on letterhead that stated:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=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-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021918.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Walston's relationship with GMAC was then terminated. Walston also claimed that GMAC was unjustly enriched. I We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. II The Walston Meredith contract was scheduled to terminate in 1998. The contract term was extended through April 4. The fact of sale and transfer were made known to the public.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/09/993404P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Stipulated final judgments reserving appellate rights were entered. The interpretation of which are in dispute. The Growers' main argument is that Herider breached the terms of the contract by terminating the contracts without cause. Namely that Herider was committed to placing chicks with the Growers during the useful lives of the barns. Addenda to the contracts provided that the Growers were entitled to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1809.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Cranwell with whom Cranwell & O'Connell was on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellees. The independent contractor is required to pay its employees certain minimum wages and fringe benefits and to meet certain minimum standards of safety in working conditions.2 The failure of a contractor to comply with the SCA and the regulations promulgated thereunder3 may result in liability and debarment from contracting with the government for three years.4 Pursuant to the set aside program for minority contractors of Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act. 5 Vigilantes was awarded ten contracts to provide security 1. 41 U.S.C. 351 et seq. 2. 41 U.S.C. 351(a)(1). The complaint was amended in 1984 to include an allegation that Vigilantes failed to pay certain service employees overtime pay as required under the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act.7 Based on these violations. The DOL claimed that appellants were not only liable for the amounts owed. These tripartite agreements were between the government agencies as the contracting agencies.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200117064.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. were convicted of a variety of federal offenses stemming from an affirmative action fraud scheme they perpetrated regarding federally funded road construction projects. I. Because the defendants are challenging their convictions. The FDOT was contractually obligated to ensure that at least 12% of the USDOT's funds ultimately went to 2
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2003/023764p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Conclude that this agreement to arbitrate is unenforceable pursuant to the well established doctrine of unconscionability. We therefore will reverse. I. Plaintiffs have worked for over twenty years as heavy equipment and certified crane operators at the Hess oil refinery on St. It announced in June 1996 that the equipment contract was awarded to Anthony Crane. Are not limited to. In no event may EMPLOYEE bring a claim of any nature against ANTHONY unless the claim is filed as set forth in this paragraph within thirty (30) days of the last day EMPLOYEE was employed by ANTHONY. If notice is given by hand delivery. If notice is given by certified mail. In the event that timely notice is not provided to the Company as set forth herein. It is agreed that the EMPLOYEE has waived EMPLOYEE's right to assert the claim. Shall have no further remedy against the Company. It is further agreed that this time limitation is to be strictly enforced by the arbitrator. The employee is bound to provide reimbursement.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1277.html">SPENCER ABRAHAM V. ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORP<BR></A><BR>
Argued for appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Robert D. Assistant Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Marc Johnston</u>. Argued for appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel were <u>Scott James Preston</u>. Mso bidi font family:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/05/97-6004.htm">97-6004 -- OKLAND OIL CO. V. CONOCO INC. -- 05/19/1998<BR></A><BR>
When the price of gas was deregulated. Were for production related costs (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6231.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We must determine whether a contract between two defendant general contractors and a plaintiff subcontractor requires the general contractors to pay the subcontractor for the work the subcontractor performed only if the general contractors are first paid on their own contract with the project owner. (2) this clause is enforceable under both Texas and New Mexico law. Because Defendants have not been paid by project owner PathNet. The parties' agreement was embodied in a written contract (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1469.html">LOCKHEED V. WALKER<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982758.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Regarding a breach of contract claim brought by Mike Mitchell and S&D Land Clearing (S&D) and denying its motion to set aside an award of attorneys' fees.1 Mitchell cross appeals the ruling of the district court that he failed to present sufficient evidence of damages resulting from 1 This action was brought by the United States for the use and benefit of S&D and Mitchell. We will refer to the action as having been prosecuted by Mitchell. 3 D'Elegance's fraud and accordingly was not entitled to treble damages for the fraud under North Carolina's unfair and deceptive trade practices statutes. Waste Control Services (Waste Control) was the prime contractor with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) by virtue of a written contract covering eight counties in North Carolina. Removing vegetative debris is quicker. The loading costs would have been an additional $1.00 per cubic yard. That he would not have entered into 2 C&D debris consists of building and demolition materials. 3 C&D debris must be sorted by type of material and hauled to different locations. 4 the subcontract had he known that he would not be allowed to remove the vegetative debris.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001006.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The question presented on appeal in this breach of contract action is whether Humility of Mary Health Partners (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5137.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Et al. were Thomas M. Et al. was Thomas R. With him on the brief were Stuart E. Of counsel were Delisa M. This is a Winstar breach of contract case. The primary question on appeal is whether. A subsidiary question is whether there was a contractual or third party beneficiary relationship with the government that would confer standing on the shareholders of the thrift holding company. BACKGROUND I Morristown Federal Savings and Loan Association (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1327.html">VHC V. PETERS F. WHITTEN<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief was O. Of counsel were Paul W. With her on the brief were David M. Of counsel on the brief was Nancy Sumption. Its labor learning would have reduced the average unit cost over the entire contract. VHC therefore requested the equitable adjustment to compensate for the increased labor costs on the unterminated units that it would have recovered through production and sale of the Option II units.<p> In a final decision dated June 30. The Board concluded that VHC was not entitled to an equitable adjustment on the unterminated portion of the contract. Because VHC's pricing was not level over the entire contract. The Board reasoned that VHC could not have expected to recover its unamortized labor learning costs of early production through decreased labor costs later in production. 764:<p> [I]t is not only relevant but indeed crucial to the concept of amortization over all contract quantities that one fixed unit price is to be paid for all quantities. There is no longer any expectation that costs of early production will be recovered from the unit price to be paid for all quantities including later and less costly production.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2001/991907.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an appeal from an order of the District Court vacating an arbitrator's award. Kayser exercised his contractual right to demand arbitration and was awarded substantial damages. We will affir m. Both of which are currently the subject of circuit splits. The first question is whether contracting parties may opt out of the FAA's default vacatur standards and fashion their own. Because the LCOA is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTM4MjMtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-3823-cv_opn.pdf">MICROSOFT WORD - 05 CV 3823 U.S. V. ST. REGIS MOHAWK FINAL.DOC<BR></A><BR>
The district court lacked jurisdiction because the action was not brought as an appeal of an agency decision pursuant to IGRA § 2714. We hold that the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain the action and we affirm the dismissal. The other half shall be paid into the Treasury for the use of the Indian or tribe by or for whom it was so paid. 3 Management Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="646"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTM4MjMtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-3823-cv_opn.pdf">MICROSOFT WORD - 05 CV 3823 U.S. V. ST. REGIS MOHAWK FINAL.DOC<BR></A><BR>
The district court lacked jurisdiction because the action was not brought as an appeal of an agency decision pursuant to IGRA § 2714. We hold that the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain the action and we affirm the dismissal. The other half shall be paid into the Treasury for the use of the Indian or tribe by or for whom it was so paid. 3 Management Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-5077.html">AM PRO PROTECTIVE AGENCY V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/07/053910P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The original complaint was filed in April 2003 by Gregory and the Turners. It was amended one year later to add the other plaintiffs. The thirteen African American appellants are predominantly residents of Columbia or nearby communities. The complaint alleges further that the plaintiffs
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2785DF3937DF780F882570DC00765F3E/$file/0355824.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Facts The following facts are presented in the light most favorable to the non moving party. SLT LOS ANGELES 16607 Panache is a company that presents fashion shows. All of its representatives are African American. Its audience members are predominantly African American as well. Panache was expecting to have its 2001 Mother's Day show in the Grand Ballroom as well. Panache learned that the Westin was placing a much smaller group's bar mitzvah party in the Grand Ballroom and splitting up the Panache event between the hotel lobby and the smaller Concourse Ballroom. Determining how that allocation of space was decided. Indicating its plans to have its 2001 Mother's Day Show at the Westin. The Westin sent 1 Documents from the 1999 event are not present in the record. 16608 LINDSEY v. The list of rooms indicates that the Grand Ballroom is the only single room that can accommodate more than 280 persons with banquet seating. The event was to generate a minimum of $6000.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/02/054345P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Post trial motions were denied. Which is headquartered and incorporated in Florida. United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 2 Rawlings and Matrix executed the contract which is the subject of this litigation. The license was to continue so long as certain conditions were satisfied. The other party was entitled to terminate the contract if the breaching party did not cure the breach within thirty days after the written notice. The contract was to be governed by the law of Delaware. There was testimony at trial that annual sales of Rawlings bags were about $300. In the next several years they declined and were at about $865. For some time Rawlings had been concerned with the decline in its bag sales and believed that Matrix was uninterested in growing this business and was not using its best efforts to foster and develop its products. Rawlings management expressed concern that the bag line was stagnant. Rawlings was dissatisfied with Orloff's response to these concerns. During that same month K2's consolidation plans were carried out.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/899A44B9F3817DC788257170007C48CF/$file/0355824.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: 1. Shall be replaced with the following:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/May2004/May26/03-40652-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Contesting each claim on which damages were awarded. Because the agreement is unenforceable under the statute of frauds as a transaction in goods with no ascertainable quantity term. Attwood moved for judgment as a matter of law urging that the Texas Uniform Commercial Code governed the parties' agreement and that its statute of frauds bars recovery.2 The statute of frauds bars recovery under a sales contract that lacks a written quantity term or a written specification that the buyer will purchase exclusively from the seller.3 Attwood points out that the agreement at issue. Which is the total of the awards for fraudulent inducement ($366. The court determined that the U.C.C. did not apply because the contract was not a sale of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031448.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It is now before us for the second time after a remand by the Supreme Court. The main question today is this: whether a federal court has jurisdiction over a local carrier's claim that a state utility commission misinterpreted interconnection agreement provisions on reciprocal compensation that are based on federal law. We hold that there is federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. That the action was not filed on a timely basis. The case will be remanded for further proceedings on the incumbent local carrier's contract misinterpretation claim. Telephone service in a local calling area was provided by a single local exchange carrier (local carrier). The duty to interconnect is coupled with other duties set forth in § 251. When the direction is reversed. The terms under which two competing local carriers interconnect their networks and provide for reciprocal compensation are set forth VERIZON MARYLAND v. Inc.) was providing local telephone service in Maryland. (We will refer to MFS Intelenet in the name of its successor.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/11/012053P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 2 1 BACKGROUND National Cart is a manufacturer of. Shopping cart corrals (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/06/00-1132.htm">00-1132 -- SPAHR V. SECCO -- 06/03/2003<BR></A><BR>
Was unenforceable due to Spahr's mental incapacity. Spahr
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7FB8AD67BBC9E2C388256BFF00575C12/$file/0115630.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(2) Kyocera's performance under the agreements was not excused. Relationship of the Parties LaPine is a corporation formed in 1984 to design. LaPine was financed by PruTech. The general partner of which was an 10390 KYOCERA v. Kyocera is a Japanese manufacturer of ceramic and electronic products. Under which K.K.P.B. was obligated to maintain the level of funding of LaPine until the cash flow of the latter achieved
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="644"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/9_opinions/92-5164.html">WINSTAR V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-40734.0.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. Dennis Faulkner was designated plan trustee (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1206.html">SAUER INCORPORATED V. RICHARD J. DANZIG<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief was <u>James W. With him on the brief were <u>David W. Sauer was to complete the inside wall and ceiling construction. Liquidated damages for late completion were set at $1725 per day. </p> <p ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-5048.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
On the brief was James S. Of counsel on the brief were P. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel was Mark A. With him on the brief was Andrew D. Of counsel on the brief was Paul J. Phase I involves
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-7039a.html">LIB MTL INS CO V. SMITHY BRAEDON PROP<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul13/03-60610.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. The transaction was effected through the execution of three instruments: 1) the Warranty Deed. Indicated that the conveyance was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F5F97BD79E90FBBA88257059004D04D3/$file/0316962.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The Conservation District was directed to contract with the Secretary of the Interior to finance the construction and operation of the project. This master contract was executed in 1972. The irrigation district subcontracts were executed in 1983. Following the Secretary's apportionment of the rights to purchase project water.2 Each irrigation district contracted with the Conservation District and with the United States to receive a particular We have previously discussed the history and statutory framework of the Central Arizona Project at length. We therefore briefly describe the project's water allocation framework only as necessary to decide this appeal. 2 The specific method selected for allocation of project water was an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/71928588C713BB218825729E0076C115/$file/0456809.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on the briefs. Was on the brief. The training agreement specifies that CRST will pay for the first two phases of a student's training. WERNER ENTERPRISES 3189 after this one (1) year period shall be at will and may be terminated at any time by either CRST or Employee. . . . 4. If Employee is terminated without Due Cause. Employee is forgiven for the amount due under paragraph 6. Or (2) Employee's employment is terminated for Due Cause. 600.00 will be immediately due and payable by Employee to CRST. ... 6. Informing Werner that both Spencer and Chatman were employed pursuant to contracts with noncompetition clauses that would last another 300 days. CRST learned that Spencer and Chatman had accepted truck driver positions with Werner.2 CRST alleged that Werner's hiring of Spencer and Chatman were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5051.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. The court determined that there were issues of fact as to whether the contract modifications violated CICA. Judgment was entered on January 18. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). Which was intended to procure a computerized travel management system. Which was acquired by TRW in 1998. Which in turn was purchased by Northrop Grumman in 2002.1 The contract was a five year fixed price requirements contract. Such that the contractor would have to create interfaces with numerous other DOD software products and networks. Operational deployment of the system was to commence at the first DOD site in Defense Travel Region 6 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-60610.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. The transaction was effected through the execution of three instruments: 1) the Warranty Deed. Indicated that the conveyance was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041821np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
After accounting for various set offs to which it is entitled. I. We have diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and the parties agree that Maryland law governs this dispute. Because we write primarily for the parties who are familiar with the facts and procedural background of this case. We will reiterate only those facts that will be useful to our discussion. Both parties are professional employer organizations. That is. ProLease agreed to pay MASH on what was essentially a per employee basis for each transferred employee it had been administering. It is important to note that both parties were professional employer organizations experienced in that business. Because of this uncertainty in accurately fixing the number of employees at the time the purchase agreement was executed. The parties provided for a six month recalculation or
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="638"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200701/05-7076b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was David 2 E. This case is a fine example. While she was in law school. The sums awarded in those proceedings were modest. Perles's maximum fee was only 10 percent of the award. (Perles eventually was joined by co counsel Thomas Fay.). Kagy drafted a written agreement that would have entitled her to one third of Perles's fee in the Flatow case. Perles told her the draft was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="638"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200516659.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The appellants (collectively
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="638"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A55B0A871363802088257089007CBA32/$file/0535005.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: At page 1022. First new paragraph: modify the first full sentence so that it states:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="638"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-5021.html">YANKEE ATOMIC V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="638"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1507.html">NOVAMEDIX V. NDM ACQUISITION<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief was Reginald R. With her on the brief was Anne F. We hold that the settlement agreement incorporated into the consent decree is not a contract for the sale of goods and therefore the implied warranties of fitness and merchantability of UCC 2 314 and 2 315 do not apply.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="638"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug10/03-50419-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Flourogas is a small English company that develops and manufactures fluorine generators. Who was also its president. It was owned by Graham FOC is a Texas company that The began with two brothers. The process involves spraying chemicals onto silicon wafers while those wafers are inside a chamber. cleaning. Chambers are cleaned with nitrogen trifluoride (or NF3) gas. One of these Yet Fluorine has companies have looked for alternatives to NF3. potential alternatives is fluorine gas (or F2). its own problems in particular. It is extremely dangerous and difficult to handle. As even the Siegeles have admitted. The MOU was a handwritten document drafted by Fluorogas Frederick Siegele over the course of a weekend. contends that the parties planned to eventually replace the MOU with a more formal contract. The MOU granted FOC
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="638"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA2LTQ0MzMtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/06-4433-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The appeal 1 originally filed by Visa in Docket No. 06 4433 is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and the order of the district court is otherwise affirmed. Circuit Judge: Non party movant appellant Visa International Service Association (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="638"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0300p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
No. 03 1267 declaration that the agreements are void and a permanent injunction to prevent KAR from attempting to enforce the arbitration clause contained in one of the agreements. The district court concluded that the agreements were void under federal law and accordingly granted summary judgment in favor of the Tribe. Factual background The Tribe is a federally recognized Indian tribe located in the Western District of Michigan. The Tribe and KAR entered into both a Management Agreement and a Development Agreement relating to a proposed gaming facility that was to be located on tribal lands in Michigan. KAR was obligated to make monthly advances to the Tribe and agreed to loan it as much as $100. Another relevant provision of the Agreement states that [t]his is intended to be a legally enforceable agreement. Be enforceable between the parties regardless of whether or not this Agreement or the Management Agreement is approved by the Chairperson of the NIGC. Is void under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-5136.html">SOUTHFORK V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june98/97-4250.opn.html">MCC-MARBLE CERAMIC CTR., INC. V. CERAMICA NUOVA D'AGOSTINO, S.P.A. (6/29/1998, NO. 97-4250)<BR></A><BR>
Is a Florida corporation engaged<EM></EM> in the retail sale of tiles. Ceramica Nuova d'Agostino S.p.A. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/01/941353P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
McCoy were sole shareholders of Arkoma. Bob Klein and the royalty owners1 appeal the district court's finding that they are not entitled to recover any portion The named appellants represent a class of approximately 3000 lessors. 1 of funds exchanged in the transaction. I. BACKGROUND The facts of this case are set forth in our opinion in the earlier appeal of this action and need only be briefly repeated here. Jones and McCoy were. The royalty owners were entitled to one eighth of the proceeds from gas produced on the owners' land. Arkla was unable to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/09/991260P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is not subject to mandatory arbitration. Christy argues that the district court erred in interpreting the pertinent contract documents because (1) Christy's customer acknowledgment was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962117.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. This missile was known as the Short Range Attack Missile II (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2002/01-12829.opn.html">INFO. SYS. V. CITY OF ATLANTA (2/6/2002, NO. 01-12829)<BR></A><BR>
The document which ISN construed as an acceptance was actually a counteroffer. We conclude that the district court's grant of summary judgment was inappropriate due to the genuine dispute over the intention behind and the purpose served by the document at issue. The Notice of Award was accompanied by the formal Statewide Contract which established the terms of the agreement between ISN and the City. R6 29 Exh.22 at 48. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1622.html">UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY V. ROCHE<BR></A><BR>
Argued for appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <span class=SpellE><u>Salil</u></span><u> P. Mso bidi font family:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200112829.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The document which ISN construed as an acceptance was actually a counteroffer. We conclude that the district court's grant of summary judgment was inappropriate due to the genuine dispute over the intention behind and the purpose served by the document at issue. The Notice of Award was accompanied by the formal Statewide Contract which established the terms of the agreement between ISN and the City. ISN submitted a proposal unrelated to Y2K which is not at issue in this case. 3 1 and impact services dated 25 November 1998). It is clear that ISN's proposals were offers. The dispute is over the characterization of the City's response. One FPO is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0024p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The magistrate judge held that Interstate's complaint was not filed within the Miller Act's one year statute of limitations period and granted summary judgment in favor of Fidelity. Interstate further agreed to have substantially completed its work on the construction project by January 21. To have finally completed all work by February 8. After having been notified that construction was complete. Although the heaters were the right size. Neeley returned to the facility and tested the heaters to confirm that they had been properly installed and that they were functioning as specified. 967.00 that it claimed it was owed under the contract. Jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action was provided by 40 U.S.C. § 270b(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1352. 4 United States v. Co. 17 The Miller Act requires that suits to recover against a payment bond be filed no more than
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1994/94a0750p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which the Salvation Army was holding. Were part of the estate in bankruptcy. We will reverse the order directing turnover to the Bank. We will therefore remand this issue to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings in this regard. Which was incorporated by reference into the bonds.[fn1] In March 1989. Modular also executed a Uniform Commercial Code Financing Statement which was filed on April 20. Modular commenced work on the Salvation Army project but was unable to complete all of its obligations under the contract. A Trustee was appointed. First Indemnity contends that the unpaid contract proceeds and retainage held by the Salvation Army were not properly characterized as accounts receivable owing to Modular so that the Bank's superpriority lien would apply to them. The Salvation Army was not obligated to make final payment to Modular until:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june98/97-4250.opn.html">MCC-MARBLE CERAMIC CTR., INC. V. CERAMICA NUOVA D'AGOSTINO, S.P.A. (6/29/1998, NO. 97-4250)<BR></A><BR>
Is a Florida corporation engaged<EM></EM> in the retail sale of tiles. Ceramica Nuova d'Agostino S.p.A. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2002/01-12829.opn.html">INFO. SYS. V. CITY OF ATLANTA (2/6/2002, NO. 01-12829)<BR></A><BR>
The document which ISN construed as an acceptance was actually a counteroffer. We conclude that the district court's grant of summary judgment was inappropriate due to the genuine dispute over the intention behind and the purpose served by the document at issue. The Notice of Award was accompanied by the formal Statewide Contract which established the terms of the agreement between ISN and the City. R6 29 Exh.22 at 48. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1165.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On page 28. Were on brief. Were on brief. Was on brief. Were on brief. Were on brief. Will & Emery. (2) make findings regarding allegations of anticompetitive consequences of the merger that were unique to Holyoke. Northeast Utilities Service Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200414462.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The plaintiffs appellants (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0649n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Shane's remaining claims were submitted to a jury. We conclude that the district court's summary denial of Shane's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint was an abuse of discretion. I. BACKGROUND Joe Shane is a citizen of Kentucky. Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in St. Though it stated that Bunzl believed
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/04opinions/04-1006.html">ENGLAND V. CONTEL ADVANCED SYSTEMS<BR></A><BR>
Argued for appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>On the brief
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2000/99-10880.man.html">S & DAVIS INT'L V. REPUBLIC OF YEMEN (7/21/2000, NO. 99-10880)<BR></A><BR>
Asserting that the General Corporation was controlled by the government. The district court held there was sufficient subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction to proceed. The district court's interlocutory order denying immunity is reviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-5345a.html">A & S CNCL OIL CO V. LADER PHILIP<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0260p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Dow Corning argues in a crossappeal that the bankruptcy court should have ordered the payment of post petition interest at the non default variable rate required by the contracts. Since Dow Corning has always been fully solvent and is still solvent post bankruptcy. I. BACKGROUND Dow Corning is a joint venture wholly owned by its two shareholders. Dow Corning was fully solvent at the time it filed its bankruptcy case. The purpose of the bankruptcy petition was to enable prompt and uniform settlement of the numerous breast implant related lawsuits pending against Dow Corning at the time of the petition. When a reorganization plan was finally proposed in 1999. The majority of the unsecured commercial debt contracts would have required a rate higher than the federal judgment rate. These creditors are the appellants in this case. The following requirements are met: (1) under the plan. The class would receive an amount that is equal to or greater than the amount they would receive if the debtor's assets were liquidated.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1054.html">TRAVEL CENTRE V. DAVID J. BARRAM<BR></A><BR>
With her on the brief were <u>David . Of counsel on the brief was <u>Michael D. This decision was based on the GSBCA
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-5021.html">JOWETT, INC V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were <u>David W. Of counsel on the brief was <u>Richard P. Each floor of the building was twenty two feet high and contained thirty six inch raised flooring. ).</p> <p ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-5128.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-3094.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
As such was responsible for the overall operations of the company. Were initial investors in (1) The judgments in favor of Cassandra and John O'Tool on their breach of employment contract claims were not appealed. <hr> Horizon. Pepper's initial goal was to manufacture and sell aluminum jon boats (a/k/a utility boats) he had designed. Was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2276.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The jury was unable to reach a verdict. Miller's two basic contentions on appeal are that the district court erred in granting summary judgment and judgment as a matter of law to AAA New Mexico on her various claims. We will not discuss them further. <hr> judgments are highly similar and require that we view the facts in the light most favorable to the non moving party. Her position was officially classified as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052232np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
200 respectively) were to be held in escrow until May 31. Count II claimed that YDI was liable to Zavecz for conversion as to those shares. Count III sought a declaratory judgment that Zavecz was entitled to an additional 49. YDI sought damages for the failure to transfer all intellectual property interests from TEA to YDI in breach of the Asset Purchase Agreement and a declaratory judgment to the effect that it was under no obligation to issue any shares to Zavecz. Holding that Zavecz
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2010.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Brian Broaddus [hereinafter
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200310/02-5265a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1948.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for petitioner. Were on brief for respondent. Senior Circuit Judge. this case is whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) complied with our mandate in Northeast Utilities Service Co. v. Before us also was the objection of Northeast Utilities Service Company (NUSCO) to the Commission's modification of the rate schedules filed by NUSCO. The rate schedules were part of a wholesale electric power contract (the Seabrook Power Contract) among NU. Each party also agreed
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1343.html">RICHARD J. DANZIG V. AEC CORPORATION<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were <u>David W. Of counsel on the brief was <u>Ellen M. With her on the brief was <u>Robert G. The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals ruled that the default termination was improper. It was apparent that AEC was behind schedule. AEC was having financial difficulties with its surety. Those problems were delaying the progress of the work. Although for reasons that are unclear from the record. The Navy asked why the project was progressing so slowly. AEC advised the Navy that it was unable to make progress on the project because the surety would not release funds from the project
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3254.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Provides that the rights of an assignee of an account debtor
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2000/99-10880.man.html">S & DAVIS INT'L V. REPUBLIC OF YEMEN (7/21/2000, NO. 99-10880)<BR></A><BR>
Asserting that the General Corporation was controlled by the government. The district court held there was sufficient subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction to proceed. The district court's interlocutory order denying immunity is reviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/04/981087P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are as follows. Ben Hogan owned and was president of Hogan Construction Co. Hogan Construction was required to obtain a surety bond for each project. A surety bond is a tri party agreement among a principal (the contractor). The surety ensures that either the principal will satisfy the terms of the construction contract or the surety will pay the obligee for the expenses caused by the principal's failure to do so. As is the custom in the construction industry. A GAI is a personal guarantee to the bonding company that the contractor will do the job according to plans and specifications. The validity and effect of three particular GAIs are relevant to National's breach of contract cause of action against Brenda Hogan. Each of these GAIs was a generic form document with appropriate blanks for the names of the contracting parties the construction company. The first GAI named Midwest Indemnity Corporation as the indemnitee and was executed on May 16. Did not name an intended indemnitee or bonding company.4 The third GAI was executed on February 18.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0152p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The policies were altered over time as to the levels of deductibles for 1) assessed product related injury liability and 2) legal costs associated with litigation stemming from the covered productrelated injuries. The parties have had a long standing disagreement about how they should determine when a particular policy has been triggered by a claim involving a benefits of a double auditing system. It was in a position to act much earlier in order to prevent some of the inconvenience and cost associated with this legal controversy. Paul was liable for failing to adhere to the terms of its policies held by Lincoln Electric. Paul was liable pursuant to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002069.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Edell is widely recognized as a preeminent legal authority on litigaIn an affidavit submitted by Edell in the present action. Edell was the first to bring a successful suit to verdict against tobacco companies on behalf of a smoker. The litigation proposal assured the Maryland AG that if the Angelos Firm was retained. The amount of legal fees that Edell and his law firm would receive for their participation in the Maryland AG Action was always an issue to be determined solely between Edell and his law firm and the Angelos Firm. The dispute in the present case is over the amount the Angelos Firm agreed to pay Edell and his law firm for their substantial participation in the Maryland AG Action. 218 in attorneys' fees (based upon varying hourly rates) they have already received from the Angelos Firm in connection with the Maryland AG Action. They never would have continued their substantial participation in the Maryland AG Action had the Angelos Firm not made these repeated promises and the Angelos Firm fully understands this.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0053p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court determined that any claims asserted by Lexicon against Safeco not based on labor and material costs caused by delay are not recoverable under the bond.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200612/05-7140a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
O:\Slip\WP\2006\05 7140 Stewart7a.odl.wpd
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This consolidated class action is brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. We conclude that there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether the defendants breached section 1104(a)'s fiduciary duties and as to whether the defendants are entitled to section 1104(c)'s protection. We will. Vacate the district court's grant of summary judgment in the defendants' favor and will remand the case to the district court for further proceedings. Each plan permitted an employee to contribute a percentage of his or her compensation into an individual account and to direct that it be invested in any one or a number of funds that were comprised of different types of investments. A GIC is a contract under which the issuer is obligated to repay the principal deposit at a designated future date and to pay interest at a specified rate over the duration of the contract. The Sperry Plan and the BEST Plan were consolidated to form the Unisys Savings Plan. Was closed to new contributions. Assets invested in the Fixed Income Fund were reinvested in the new Insurance Contract Fund.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Which was aware of Audio Visual's arrangement with CSR and CSR's award from the Navy. The purchase order included the following language: 2 PLEASE ADVISE OUR COST IF CASH IS PROVIDED WITH ORDER ***** DO NOT RELEASE ORDER BEFORE YOU [HAVE] RECEIVED WRITTEN OR VERBAL AUTHORIZATION FROM GARY LUNSFORD OR BOB DVORAK The purchase order was signed by Bob Dvorak as Audio Visual's executive vice president and owner. A Sharp employee called Audio Visual demanding
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Stephen P. With her on the brief were Gerald F. Of counsel on the brief were Stuart L. With him on the brief were Michael Eisenberg. Of counsel was John D. Ltd.'s (
|
|
JOHNSON V. UNIV. HEALTH SERVICES, INC. (12/3/1998, NO. 96-8787)
Is a perinatologist. Which is an obstetrician who specializes in high risk pregnancies. She was recruited in May 1992 by Hossam E. Fadel is a member of the obstetrics department of University Hospital in Augusta. Which is run by the non profit University Health Services (UHS). Only a few months into her employment. Her primary dissatisfaction was based on the low number of new patients that Dr. It was important that she admit a large number of new patients in order to become a board certified perinatologist. Fadel was not permitting her to admit patients in sufficient numbers to allow her to qualify for certification as quickly as she would have liked. Johnson claims to have been promised an $800. Fadel that she was considering other alternatives before it would provide any assistance. Dr. Johnson claimed that UHS was estopped from refusing to provide her with financial assistance under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. We conclude that they are without merit. Johnson's first two causes of action are antitrust claims.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: At issue today is whether the district court erred in dismissing. We conclude that the district court did indeed have subject matter jurisdiction. Have various usury laws that generally prohibit such high interest loans. No one doubts that when so called
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Rudman were on brief for petitioner.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Are the Insurance Contracts Mass Assets? . . . . . . . 13 IV. Capital claims that it properly established a basis in hundreds of insurance contracts that were terminated in that year. That it is therefore entitled to take a loss deduction under 26 U.S.C. § 165 to account for the cancellation of those contracts. That the zero basis found by the Court was inconsistent with the facts and hence clearly erroneous. We are convinced that Capital's process was thorough and professional. We are unwilling to affirm the Tax Court merely because we find some flaws in Capital's valuation process. We will reverse and remand for further proceedings. The existence of some problems in Capital's valuation process will not justify finding a zero basis in the lost contracts. By proposing alternative methods that will lead to what. Such a procedure is insufficient to reject Capital's claimed deductions. The Service has inform[ed] Blue Cross Blue Shield insurance organizations that the Service will challenge deductions for losses that relate to the termination of 4 individual customer.
|
|
DIBRELL BROTHERS INT'L S.A. V. BANCA NAZIONALE DEL LAVORO
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Dibrell Brothers Int'l S.A. v. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY</i><a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr96/95-4071.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. MURDOCK MACHINE AND ENG. CO.<BR></A><BR>
Are. See 50 U.S.C. 1431 36 (granting agency head authority to provide extraordinary relief to a contractor when a contract is deemed essential to the national defense). The default clause provided that if the government's default termination was proper. That if the government's default termination was improper. They are the Rules pertinent to the instant case. References hereinafter will be to the Bankruptcy Act of 1898 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-2131.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sawyer & Nelson were on brief for appellant. Sanchez and Pierce Atwood were on brief for appellee. Having concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. One of which ÄÄ the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1327.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. The testing disclosed that the sludge was contaminated with heavy metals. After it was discovered that the sludge was contaminated. The modifications added two clauses to the contract that are pertinent to this case. Clause (b) provided that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991273.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. I Because this case is before us on appeal from a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. The facts for purposes of this appeal are as follows. 2 In April 1995. Wuchenich was practicing anesthesiology in his well established private medical practice in California. No oral or written prior or contemporaneous agreements shall have any force or effect. Nor shall any subsequent agreements have any force or affect [sic]. The Physician Guarantee Agreement was not terminable at will. Baumunk that the postponements were unnecessary. Wuchenich
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1459_032.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Denver agreed to have United build the facilities that United would be using. United sought to have the bond related portions of the agreement severed from the rest of the agreement and treated as a loan rather than a lease for purposes of § 365 of the Bankruptcy Code. The agreement was a lease. It is helpful to explain briefly the importance of the lease versus loan distinction in this bankruptcy context. When a debtor's lease is at issue. If this is less than the balance due on the loan. The difference is an unsecured debt. The agreement is for a thirty one year term expiring on October 1. The primary purpose of the agreement was to facilitate United moving into and operating at the then new Denver International Airport for the aforementioned term. United's payments for its use of the ground are straightforward.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1489.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Associates</U> were on brief. Gray</U> were on brief. Buhlman</U> and <U>Bingham Dana LLP</U> were on brief. In which multiple frauds are alleged against a partner to a biotechnology venture. We now affirm the judgment.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec94/93-8452.opa.html">DIBRELL BROTHERS INT'L S.A. V. BANCA NAZIONALE DEL LAVORO<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Dibrell Brothers Int'l S.A. v. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY</i><a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/96-8787.man.html">JOHNSON V. UNIV. HEALTH SERVICES, INC. (12/3/1998, NO. 96-8787)<BR></A><BR>
Is a perinatologist. Which is an obstetrician who specializes in high risk pregnancies. She was recruited in May 1992 by Hossam E. Fadel is a member of the obstetrics department of University Hospital in Augusta. Which is run by the non profit University Health Services (UHS).</P> <P> Only a few months into her employment. Her primary dissatisfaction was based on the low number of new patients that Dr. It was important that she admit a large number of new patients in order to become a board certified perinatologist. Fadel was not permitting her to admit patients in sufficient numbers to allow her to qualify for certification as quickly as she would have liked. Johnson claims to have been promised an $800. Fadel that she was considering other alternatives before it would provide any assistance.</P> <P> Dr. Johnson claimed that UHS was estopped from refusing to provide her with financial assistance under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. We conclude that they are without merit. Johnson's first two causes of action are antitrust claims.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/12/053814P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sitting by designation. 1 This is a diversity based insurance coverage dispute that arose out of a fatal automobile collision at a railroad crossing in Lafeyette County. Concluding that the railroad was not an additional insured under the policies that Ohio Casualty had issued to TriState Traffic Control. Tri State was hired to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></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-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4F14E7F004AB341A88256E5A00707CC2/$file/0035048.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ticknor was granted a non exclusive license to use the Econo Lodge mark in connection with the motel. Choice was to integrate the motel into its national advertising and reservations system and provide other assistance. Which was a pre printed standard form instrument drafted by Choice. Including any claim that this Agreement or any part of this Agreement is invalid. Will be sent to final and binding arbitration in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association. The arbitrator will apply the substantive laws of Maryland. Any arbitration will be conducted at our headquarters office in Maryland. The Franchise Agreement also contained a choice of law provision that stated:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-7116.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bailey eventually left the work site on the advice of his attorney and the motel was completed without the continued participation of Mr. After the case was removed to federal district court because of diversity of citizenship. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. R. 32.1. (1) Earp Electric's open account claims were abandoned at trial and not submitted to the jury. <hr> court awarded attorneys' fees to Mr. (3) the verdicts were excessive and indicated
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1259.html">RA-NAV V. WIDNALL<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/99-5206.htm">99-5206 -- NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE CO. V. RONAN ENGINEERING CO. -- 07/13/2001<BR></A><BR>
We affirm. <p align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/07/951824P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Maddox was forced to sue Benham and Dynalogic for breach of contract. Maddox also sued The two misrepresentation counts were dismissed by the trial court. Benham and Dynalogic each counterclaimed against Maddox for monies that they alleged were due them on their respective contracts. Each proposal increased in The proposals costs and complexity to meet changing requests made by EEI. and Benham personnel. concept. were the combined product of Craig. Benham was to The terms of this oral contract were memorialized by Clete Schierman. TBG [Benham] is to develop a final lump sum engineering cost. This chronology was offered at trial as Under a design/build contract. Testified that the only way Maddox would have bid on the project was to rely on the estimates of Benham because Benham possessed all of the design information. provided by Benham. Was for a fixed price of $10. This contract was retroactively dated
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1285_010.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
ConFold was a new company that wanted to produce such containers. That is an analysis of how best to deal with goods returned by customers. It was conducted pursuant to an agreement. Between it and Polaris that was entitled
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/08/053434P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2 which included up to a twelve percent discount that Millennium would receive only if the fundamental aspects of all seven machines were identical. The contract provided that any changes to the final scope of the project were to be made in accordance with a written order to Slidell and agreed to by the parties. Millennium decided to upgrade the Including the price for change orders that are not in dispute. The total contract price for all seven machines and some additional equipment was about $11.2 million. 2 2 supervisory system specified in the contract and executed two change order development requests that authorized Slidell to start designing the system. Millennium was dissatisfied with this price and requested that Slidell remove the supervisory system from the scope of its work. Millennium confirmed that it was removing the supervisory system from the scope of the contract with Slidell. There is evidence that around May 11. Sensitive information regarding Slidell's design of the machines was provided to the RoviSys Company (RoviSys) without Slidell's consent.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3826.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which was responsible for the redevelopment. Levin was responsible for finishing the remainder of the redevelopment plan. A synopsis of the agreement is as follows: Levin was required to purchase land obtained by the DRA and construct buildings on it. Plans were behind schedule and the parcel sizes were constantly being changed by the DRA. Levin objected to the closing date because there was. The DRA refused to extend the closing date and notified Levin that it was in breach but took no other action. A major goal of the redevelopment project was to find an entity to serve as an anchor tenant. The DeForest Library Board was willing to sign the agreement. That there was a secret meeting between the DeForest Library Board and the DRA in which the DRA suggested that the Board delay the library development plan. The DRA contends that Levin's construction manager was present and thus the meeting was not secret. The Liaison Requirement One of the main disputes in this case is the liaison requirement under Section 2.5 of the contract.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></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-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DAD9378BD375410588256AC5005BFBB7/$file/0035048.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ticknor was granted a non exclusive license to use the Econo Lodge mark in connection with the motel. Choice was to integrate the motel into its national advertising and reservations system and provide other assistance. Which was a pre printed standard form instrument drafted by Choice. Including any claim that this Agreement or any part of this Agreement is invalid. Will be sent to final and binding arbitration in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association. The arbitrator will apply the substantive laws of Maryland. Any arbitration will be conducted at our headquarters office in Maryland. The Franchise Agreement also contained a choice of law provision that stated:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-5103.html">BROWN PARK V. US<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972753.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 2 the word
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1994/94a0736p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold the district court correctly concluded Delaware's statute of frauds barred Lindsey's breach of contract claim and we will affirm that part of its order. That the district court should have applied the three year statute of limitations to her commission claim. We will therefore reverse the part of the district court's order granting summary judgment to Zeccola on Lindsey's claim for a sales commission.[fn1] I. Lindsey worked for another broker on a straight commission basis but was looking for a position which would provide her with a steadier income. Lindsey informed Zeccola she was not willing to work weekends and Zeccola responded he did not expect her to do so. Lindsey told Zeccola neither proposal was acceptable. Below this information were two columns. Said
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/01/013040P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Gaming World is a Delaware corporation that specializes in operating casinos. The Band is a federally recognized Indian tribe. The Band is governed by the White Earth Tribal Council which has conducted business as the White Earth Reservation Business Committee. A written contract was drafted which provided for a term of seven years and a division of the net profits of the casino. Sixty percent of the net profits were to go to the Band and forty percent to Gaming World. The casino was furnished through a $5. Casino management contracts involving Indian tribes are regulated under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA). 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq. Although IGRA was passed in 1988. It was only in February 1993 that NIGC began to function. An unreviewed decision by an Area Director was not a final agency decision for purposes of exhaustion and judicial review. 43 C.F.R. §§ 4.21(c). Contracts approved under the Secretary's interim authority were to be effective only
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan98/95-8966.man.html">RAYLE TECH, INC. V. DEKALB SWINE BREEDERS, INC. (1/26/1998, NO. 95-8966)<BR></A><BR>
DEKALB is in the business of raising and selling swine breeding stock.</P> <P> From 1989 through 1994. PATHOGENS OR DISEASES MAY BE PRESENT AT TIME OF SALE OR MAY APPEAR LATER.</P> <P> The contracts recommend that the buyer have the swine tested at the buyer's expense prior to delivery. The contracts provide that replacement of the swine is the buyer's sole remedy. This contract cannot be amended except in a writing which refers to this contract and which is signed by both parties.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0041p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Article 35(1) of the agreement provides: Bargaining unit members will receive the same cost of living increases paid to other MFR employees pursuant to the directive of MFR's funding source. The parties understand that the timing and amount of any such increase is entirely dictated by the funding source. Bargaining unit members will be reviewed and will be considered for a merit increase. . . . MFR will guarantee at least that for each bargaining unit employee the sum of any [cost of living increase] paid during the year and the merit increase will be as follows: 2002 4%. If the [cost of living] increase for 2004 is 2.5%. 2004 bargaining unit members will receive at least an additional 1.0%.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19958966.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
DEKALB is in the business of raising and selling swine breeding stock. The contracts recommend that the buyer have the swine tested at the buyer's expense prior to delivery. The contracts provide that replacement of the swine is the buyer's sole remedy. HEALTH OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 1 The facts are taken from the joint stipulation of facts prepared by the parties. 2 Each contract contains a merger clause. This contract cannot be amended except in a writing which refers to this contract and which is signed by both parties.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011914.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Included in the prime contract was the replacement of the exterior windows of the 20 story office building. Which is the only variety at issue in this appeal. The four varieties were of two basic types: clear glass over clear glass and bronze glass over low emission glass. The GL2 windows were of the latter type. 1 SUN LITE GLAZING CONTRACTORS v. One pane was coated with a special low emission coating. Which was designed to absorb ultraviolet radiation and enhance the energy efficiency of the window. Sun Lite was required to remove and reinstall the GL2 windows so that the pane with the special coating was placed on the inside of the building. The partial dismissal of the breach of contract claim was based upon the district court's conclusion that the four year statute of limitations period provided by Maryland law governing actions for breach of contract and warranties had expired. Claiming that the dates that the windows were tendered were in dispute.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1683.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
000 or 5 percent of PacSci's sales of products utilizing the patented technology whichever amount was greater annually from 1995 through 2000. Which was the core of XCO's business. The parties further agreed that PacSci would be
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-5040.html">GOULD, INC. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/99-4042.htm">99-4042 -- HUNGER U.S. SPECIAL HYDRAULICS CYLINDERS CORP. V. HARDIE-TYNES MANUFACTURING CO. -- 02/04/2000<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> <center><strong>GENERAL BACKGROUND</strong></center> <p> This dispute arises out of the construction of the Jordanelle Dam near Heber City. To manufacture the cylinders. <p> All aspects of construction were to meet BOR specifications and standards. Judgment was entered in favor of Hardie Tynes. (3) Hardie Tynes is not entitled to an . Therefore it is not subject to personal jurisdiction in the State of Utah. A plaintiff must show that jurisdiction is legitimate under the laws of the forum state <em>and</em> that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Jurisdiction is appropriate only if plaintiff establishes that: (1) the defendant conducted certain enumerated activities in Utah. (2) there is a nexus between plaintiff's claim and defendant's conduct. <u>See</u> Utah Code Ann.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2002/01-16402.opn.html">ARRIAGA V. FLORIDA PAC. FARMS, L.L.C. (9/11/2002, NO. 01-16402)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2002/01-16402.opn.html">ARRIAGA V. FLORIDA PAC. FARMS, L.L.C. (9/11/2002, NO. 01-16402)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></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-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1061.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C. were on brief for CIGNA Fire Insurance. Clair & Cava was on brief for MacDonald & Johnson. Before us are BOWNES. CIGNA Fire Insurance Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTcwOTBfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7090_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A jury verdict once broken is difficult to put together again. It is difficult to refashion the verdict in a way that accords each party substantial justice. The jury may have made an error favoring defendant. We ordinarily will not consider the argument on appeal. Whose parent is United Technologies. The Fabris warranted and represented to UTI that [n]one of such commissions nor any other money or thing of value has been or will be paid. Including when
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/May2004/May19/03-10728-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Facts DART is a regional transportation authority created under Background 1 Chapter 452 of the Texas Transportation Code. This delay was Eby made little progress. caused by numerous deficiencies and inaccuracies in the designs that were contained in DART's bid solicitation. DART's Administrative Dispute Resolution Process DART's bid solicitation for the light rail project which is incorporated into the parties' contract as an exhibit contains a provision stating that the bidder. They were promulgated in accordance with express statutory authority. The regulations further explain that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/031793p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plaintiff is Kirk Brisbin. Was acquired by defendant Harsco Corporation in the fall of 1998. Judgment ultimately was entered in favor of Specialty in the amount of $746. The result was two separate contracts in May 1998.2 The first was for the sale of brass valves (hereinafter referred to as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021299.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The district court properly applied both the Uniform Commercial Code and Virginia procedural law to these claims to find that the suit was filed outside of the applicable limitations period. Which is not a party to this suit. The AMTC systems were part of a Remote Target System (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan98/95-8966.man.html">RAYLE TECH, INC. V. DEKALB SWINE BREEDERS, INC. (1/26/1998, NO. 95-8966)<BR></A><BR>
DEKALB is in the business of raising and selling swine breeding stock.</P> <P> From 1989 through 1994. PATHOGENS OR DISEASES MAY BE PRESENT AT TIME OF SALE OR MAY APPEAR LATER.</P> <P> The contracts recommend that the buyer have the swine tested at the buyer's expense prior to delivery. The contracts provide that replacement of the swine is the buyer's sole remedy. This contract cannot be amended except in a writing which refers to this contract and which is signed by both parties.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19958966.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
DEKALB is in the business of raising and selling swine breeding stock. Sitting by designation. 1 * The facts are taken from the joint stipulation of facts prepared by the parties. states that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/01/973941P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jurisdiction This case was originally filed in Minnesota state court. McGill and Emerson removed the case to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.3 Jurisdiction on appeal is proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed under Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Frigidaire is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Ohio. McGill is an Indiana corporation with its principal place of business in Indiana. Emerson is a Missouri corporation with its principal place of business in Missouri. Although Emerson is an appellee in this case. The price quotation also indicated that McGill offered to sell the switches at the quoted price and the offer was made for immediate acceptance by Frigidaire. Its tests indicated that the switches were not completely resistant to water. This Purchase Order is to be accepted in writing by Seller by signing and returning promptly to Buyer the Acknowledgment Copy.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200115127.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At issue is a Work Order and Ship Repair Contract (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/07/992141P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
No appeal was taken. 1 I. Find another supplier for) Porous' product unless Porous delivered low quality items or was late on a shipment.3 Porous drafted This term was codified in ś 6 of the Agreement. Which states:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Apr2002/004323.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm the district court's orders. Joan McIlhenny's 1990 Ford Taurus had to have its transmission overhauled at 73. James Dunlap's 1995 Ford Winstar had to have its transmission overhauled at 65. The district court first indicated that Pennsylvania courts
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1393.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Bryan R. Of counsel was Robert P. With him on the brief was David Z. Such that the Air Force was entitled to a contract price reduction under the Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA). I TINA requires that when a government contract is expected to exceed a certain value. The cost or pricing data he submitted was accurate. TINA requires that a contract price be
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2003/022546p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. The District Court's jurisdiction for the bankruptcy appeal is found in 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). Findings of fact by the bankruptcy court are set aside if clearly erroneous. A factual finding is clearly erroneous when
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199910880.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Asserting that the General Corporation was controlled by the government. The district court held there was sufficient subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction to proceed. The district court's interlocutory order denying immunity is reviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/11/96-5150.htm">96-5150 -- STRICKLAND TOWER MAINTENANCE INC. V. AT&T COMMUNICATIONS INC. -- 11/04/1997<BR></A><BR>
These contracts were STM's largest source of revenue. Recorders are a less skilled. T informed STM that the total project cost was $6.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0135n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part. The case is REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings. Was hired by the Highland Park School Board (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972697.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: This appeal requires us to determine whether a notice of appeal signed by a corporate officer on behalf of the corporation is defective. Rowe's notice of appeal was not jurisdictionally defective. Global's other state law claims for further proceedings consistent with this opinion because the record before us is unclear as to whether there is a triable issue of fact as to those claims. MashreqBank was designated to provide funds for AMZCO. The July 19 agreement was signed by Javaid Ratcher. Were originally parties to this suit. Both were dismissed from this action and are not parties on appeal. 2 Although the district court considered and granted the motion by Rowe and Campbell's counsel to withdraw. Was capable of proceeding pro se. There is no evidence in the record that Campbell is a licensed attorney admitted to practice in the Eastern District of Virginia or the Fourth Circuit. No issue was raised as to the effect on the district court's judgment of Rowe's participation in the district court without counsel.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5043.html">DUREIKO JOSEPH V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were <U>David W. We hold that the trial court improperly held that the government s actions allegedly constituting a breach of its contract with Pine Isle were ". That Pine Isle was collaterally estopped from disputing the discretionary nature of the government s actions. That the trial court correctly held that Pine Isle s taking and inverse condemnation claims were legally inadequate. The undersigned hereby certifies and warrants that he is the owner or authorized agent of the owner or authorized agent of the owner [of] the [Pine Isle Mobile Home Park] . . . which has been declared uninhabitable under Chapter 17C of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County. The Contractor shall preserve and protect all existing structures which have not been designated for demolition. Since under the Stafford Act the United States was immune from suit. Pine Isle s taking and inverse condemnation claims were not viable. Since a claim for breach of contract was the appropriate remedy. The alleged government s actions were not authorized by an enactment of Congress.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/11/96-5150a.htm">96-5150A -- STRICKLAND TOWER MAINTENANCE INC. V. AT&T COMMUNICATIONS INC. -- 11/04/1997<BR></A><BR>
Counsel are reversed. These contracts were STM's largest source of revenue. Recorders are a less skilled. T informed STM that the total project cost was $6.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1473.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bates was on brief for the Ellenwoods. Was on brief for the State of Maine. McGill were on brief for Exxon Shipping Company. Was removed from his position as chief engineer of another Exxon oil tanker. Relying primarily on the company's previous written policy that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-5029r.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was William W. Of counsel on the brief were David S. With him on the brief were Stuart E. Of counsel on the brief were Jeanne E. Of counsel was Jerome A. A response thereto was invited by the court and filed by the government. Is withdrawn and vacated. Because we hold that the contract is tainted from its inception by fraud and thus void ab initio. That the claims against the government are excused by prior material breach. I. This case is another of the many Winstar cases arising from the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s. The Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-8087.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Would have required the BLM to dismiss sixteen pending administrative actions against Robbins. The BLM responds that Robbins' claim is barred by sovereign immunity based on the relationship between the Administrative Procedure Act. We reject the BLM's sovereign immunity argument but affirm the district court's denial of Robbins' due process claim. (1) Judge Hartz joins in the result and concurs in the opinion except for Part II. <hr> BACKGROUND Robbins is the owner of three ranch properties located in Hot Springs County. Or BLM decision where <hr> range or resource degradation is at issue.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002515.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. I. Phoenix Color Corporation is a manufacturer in the high resolution printing industry. The plates are then mounted onto a printing press to generate repeat impressions of the plated image. Such plates were prepared through the use of film. The court concluded that the jury would have to decide whether the problems with CTP 1. The court held that Phoenix Color did not violate the U.C.C.'s obligation of good faith and was not conspiring with the substitute supplier it eventually engaged. Holding that CTP 1 was not part of the installment contract and that the jury would have to decide whether the final two machines ordered by Phoenix Color (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc2ODNfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7683_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are affiliated corporations which. Are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1442.html">H. T. JOHNSON, ACTING SECRETARY OF THE NAVY V. ALL-STATE CONSTRUCTION<BR></A><BR>
Argued for appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>David M. Argued for appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Michael Evan Jaffe</u>.</p> <p class=MsoNormal><o:p> . 2002).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>This case presents the question of whether the Navy was entitled to withhold progress payments from All State.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The Navy offers two justifications for the withholding: (1) that the government is entitled to withhold progress payments when a default termination is imminent. (2) that the government is entitled to withhold progress payments pursuant to its common law right of set off and also pursuant to section 1.12.2.b. of the contract.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>We disagree with the Navy s first theory. Mso bidi language:AR SA'>[1]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a><span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The extension was based. On the unavailability of the site during a portion of that period.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The project was not completed by the extended completion date.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text indent:.5in.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1470.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellant. <P> <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1CB92EF5AD825DA188256CCA0011916F/$file/0215416.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
AT&T appeals on the ground that the application of California's consumer protection laws is preempted by the Federal Communications Act and the Federal Arbitration Act. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The 1934 Act was intended to address the unique problems inherent in a monopolistic environment.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTM1OTgtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3598-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That is. Subaru Distributors objects to the rebadging plan because the new Saab 9 2 is to be based on the same design as the Subaru Impreza WRX Wagon and Sport Wagon. Which Fuji manufactures 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 in the same plant where the Saab 9 2 will be built. The Saab 9 2s and their related parts and accessories are to be sold through the existing Saab distribution network in Subaru Distributors' geographic territory. The district court held that the contracts pleaded between Subaru of America and Subaru Distributors did not grant Subaru 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Distributors exclusive distribution rights to non Subaru brand vehicles that were not distributed through Subaru of America. Inasmuch as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200412976.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This case is about two taxpayers' Offer in Compromise (OIC). Which is a contract between a taxpayer and the Internal Revenue Service in which the IRS agrees to accept an amount different from what the taxpayer owes in taxes. The case is about whether the OIC permits the taxpayers to deduct amounts that they paid under a separate agreement that they had with the IRS. I. The taxpayers are Alan Begner and his wife. Item 2 on Form 656 was for the Begners' social security numbers. Item 5 was for the amounts the Begners offered to pay. Required the Begners to list the amounts that they were offering to pay in item 2. Minus (a) the Federal income tax paid for the year for which annual income is being computed. For the year in which such payment is made. (emphasis added).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C2D9A370F9085E0A88256BD000805648/$file/0055954.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Even though the manuscript is of the quality contemplated by both parties. The agreement is widely used in the publishing industry for traditional literary works as well as for specialized volumes. The district court held that under the terms of the contract West's decision not to publish was within its discretion. I. BACKGROUND1 Rafael Chodos is a California attorney whose specialty is the law of fiduciary duty.2 His practice consists primarily of 1 The facts that are relevant to liability are undisputed. Those that are relevant to the amount of the recovery are set forth for narrative purposes only and do not constitute findings. Such determination shall be based solely on the facts as they are developed in that court. 2 Chodos has been represented throughout this litigation by two other Chodoses. Was motivated in part by the fact that there was. Bancroft was at the time a leading publisher of legal texts. Informed him that the Bancroft editorial staff was enthusiastic about both the subject matter and the technological features of the proposed project.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept2000/005031.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm the August 10. Factual Background The historical facts in this case are rather straightforward and. Essentially are not disputed. Are related entities: USLR is the general partner in Black Horse. USRR is the general partner of USLR. Berger is the president of USRR.1 Appellees Essex and Dow also are related entities as Essex is Dow's wholly owned subsidiary by virtue of its purchase of all of Essex's stock in 1988. The parties do not dispute that appellants were aware of the Property's environmental problems at the time that USLR and Essex entered into the Agreement. Berger is a named partner in the lawfirm representing appellants. 3 respect to the remediation and detoxification of the Property: The parties acknowledge that the Subject Premises to be conveyed are subject to the provisions of the Environmental Clean Up Responsibility Act. Will implement the approved Clean Up Plan and complete the detoxification of the Subject Premises in accordance with and to the approval of the DEP. Seller will attempt to obtain the consent of the DEP to the conveyance of the Subject Premises. `ECRA Approval' will be deemed to have taken place upon the receipt by Seller from the DEP of the approval of the implementation of the Clean Up Plan and satisfactory detoxification of the Subject Premises or a consent from the DEP to convey the Subject Premises to Purchaser in the form of an Administrative Consent Order and bond securing the detoxification of the Subject Premises by Seller.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200411931.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That HGI was entitled to accrued lost profits but no future lost profits caused by the breach. That HGI was entitled to punitive damages due to the knowingly fraudulent actions Wetmore undertook when forming and later breaching those contracts. HGI is a reseller of computer software and hardware that purchases software in the secondary market because the costs of obtaining software through authorized 2 distribution channels are prohibitive. Has worked for HGI since 1993 and is responsible for all of HGI's acquisition and distribution of software. Wetmore was an authorized replicator (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C1697FEB1BFBC71E88256F89005DF4D4/$file/0335297.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court held that the arbitration agreement between Circuit City and Al Safin is unconscionable under Washington state law. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(B). Al Safin was required to sign an arbitration agreement entitled
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/97-1421.htm">97-1421 -- UNITED INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS INC. V. WHARF (HOLDINGS) LIMITED -- 04/28/2000<BR></A><BR>
NYNEX devoted its resources to this early phase of the project with the tacit understanding that if Wharf received the award and both Wharf and NYNEX were comfortable with the relationship and the project. NYNEX would have an opportunity to invest in the communications company or possibly garner an operations and maintenance contract for its efforts. <p> Mark Schneider. UIH is based in Denver. UIH representatives made it clear they were not interested in serving as a consultant on the project for a fee. Would commit their resources in exchange for a right to invest in CNCL if Wharf was awarded the license. In response to UIH overtures that it was interested in obtaining a greater ownership interest. A foreign company is not permitted to own more than 10% in the cable operator.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></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-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199910880.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Asserting that the General Corporation was controlled by the government. The district court held there was sufficient subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction to proceed. The district court's interlocutory order denying immunity is reviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1139.html">LDG TIMBER V. GLICKMAN<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-2204_009.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
While Halfhill was supervising an indoor recess. Who spoke with Halfhill and advised him of the limited circumstances in which a teacher is permitted to touch a student. Advising him that a teacher is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19944838.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He was appointed manager of the Miami branch office over a territory that included most of South Florida. His performance was rated as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2373.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is corrected as follows: 1. Pritzker could have exercised the buy out option as late as 10 years after the formation of the contract (withholding any payment until then). There is evidence in the record. The expert testified that this reduction to present value could have brought the present value of the redemption price as of December 3. Palcu & Miranda were on brief. Gonzalez & Rodriguez were on brief. Circuit Judge. remedial phase of a protracted dispute in which the main protagonists are a pair of erstwhile partners. Was either excessive. Or too 1The three appeals with which we are concerned today were consolidated for oral argument with three other appeals arising out of the same case. For the apparent purpose of funding Dopp's litigatory efforts we will address them in a separate and subsequent opinion. 4 niggardly. We write somewhat sparingly because the background of the litigation is already well documented. Were the majority shareholder. 6 seller canceled the letter of credit. We then remanded for 3Resolution is a remedy that.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1351.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case is before us after the Supreme Court granted Rockwell International Corporation's petition for writ of certiorari and reversed the portion of our prior judgment in favor of plaintiff James S. ORDER AFTER LIMITED REMAND The disposition of the instant appeals by published opinion for a divided panel was suspended on petition for rehearing. Is reported. We will not attempt to summarize in this order the complex factual and legal background of this matter which is outlined in that opinion. At which all counsel agreed that the record was adequate to enable the judge to make the findings and conclusions necessary. Defendant avers that this point is (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. R. 36.3. (2) Judge Hartz has replaced the late Judge Politz on the panel. (1) See 31 U.S.C. 3730(e)(4). (2) These terms are explained in our published opinion. <hr> moot because the verdict for the time frame including this claim was in its favor. Stone had conceded that he did not make pre filing disclosure to the government of any knowledge he may have had underlying his claims with respect to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-1461.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Robert C. The government contends that the Board erred (i) in ruling that Smoot's claim was not barred by the doctrine of accord and satisfaction. We agree with the Board that Smoot's claim was not barred by accord and satisfaction. The required completion date for the project was March 9. 455.1 PCO 172 was based on the cumulative effect of the delays referenced in Smoot's November 20.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/08/97-3050.htm">97-3050 -- AUDIOTEXT COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK, INC. V. U.S. TELECOM, INC. -- 08/06/1998<BR></A><BR>
We affirm as to everything but attorney's fees. <p> Audiotext and Connections are known. The consumer placing calls is known as the end user. Was obliged under the contracts to carry Plaintiffs' 900 calls over its long distance network. Except for insignificant rural pockets where Plaintiffs were not advertising anyway. That Sprint was not remitting payment to the IPs for a significant volume of calls the IPs serviced. Showing where it did and did not have the ability to bill and collect for 900 calls. Although it could have opened up 900 access to its long distance network only in areas in which it could bill for calls directly or had contracted with a LEC and RBOC for billing services. Although its inability to collect and bill for unequal access calls was well known to Sprint. Sprint responded with surprise and assured Audiotext and Connections that the problem was not caused by any deficiency on its part. Audiotext installed equipment which allowed it to recognize whether incoming 900 number calls were accompanied by complete billing information.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-4245.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This appeal presents the question whether speculative transactions in foreign currency are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1994/94a0751p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Intertwined with certain procedural questions is one substantive question of Pennsylvania law. That question concerns the construction of a so called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199903/98-7093a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Thomas C. With him on the brief was Gaela K. Americable argues that the contract is void because it violates a statutory prohibition of contingent fee arrangements for the procurement of government ser vices. That Keefe is barred from bringing this suit by the District of Columbia's three year statute of limitations on breach of contract claims. The district court ruled that some of Keefe's claims were not time barred. We disagree that the contract is invalid as a matter of law. Paragraph 4 of the letter agreement states in relevant part: In the event that [Americable is] awarded a contract to install a CATV system on a U.S. Government installation 1 The first agreement between the parties was executed on September 24. We will refer only to the more recent agree ment. In the event the Government Installation is closed or [Am ericable] ceases to provide services to said Government Installation [Americable's] obligation to pay The Keefe Company shall cease. Keefe was to receive 2 percent of the gross sale price.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/03/99-1351.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
HOLLOWAY </strong>and <strong>HARTZ</strong></a><a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1976.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On page 10. Cullen & Resnick were on brief for 604 Columbus Avenue. Gottlieb were on brief for Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. *Of the Third Circuit. This is a case involving a failed loan transaction that well illustrates Polonius' advice. Among which were the property owned by the Trust itself and properties of the Trust's principal beneficiary. Of which Millicent Young was sole beneficiary. The Young Family Trust was a named plaintiff in the adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy and district courts below. The Bank was declared unsound by Massachusetts banking officials. The FDIC was appointed 7 receiver. In February 1991 was substituted as defendant appellant in the district court. That the FDIC was entitled to raise the defenses available to it under the doctrine of estoppel established in D'Oench. The district court vacated that part of the bankruptcy court's judgment that was premised on the secret agreement by one of the Trust's principals to provide kickbacks to a Bank officer.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0BCD60D74D89459B88256E0C00749E9E/$file/0235847.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The April 6 letter stated that Keystone was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1135.html">SATELLITE ELECTRIC CO. V. DALTON<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011608.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The claims were denied by the plan administrator who refused to recognize the validity of the amendment on the ground that it was adopted by an improper body. The employees filed suit under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) and were granted an interlocutory judgment declaring that the 1992 amendment was valid after a three day bench trial. I. The much litigated facts serving as background to this case have been the subject of numerous decisions. Are three former employees of District No.1 MEBA/NMU (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-1710a.html">TOWN NORWOOD MA V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022129.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: After it was determined that Lightning Oil Company. A jury trial was held to determine Hess' damages under the Virginia Uniform Commercial Code. After having been instructed by the district court that the measure of damages is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/nov97/96-5150.wpd.html">STRICKLAND TOWER MAINTENANCE, INC. V. AT&T COMMUNICATIONS, INC.<BR></A><BR>
These contracts were STM's largest source of revenue. Recorders are a less skilled. AT&T informed STM that the total project cost was $6.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="617"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2225.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellants. P.A. were on brief for appellees. The question presented by this appeal is whether certain legislative amendments to the Maine State Retirement System (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="614"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1690.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
943 (5th Cir. 1990) (breach of implied covenant claims are breach of contract claims). Were on brief for appellant. P.C. were on brief for appellee. (4) by marketing what were essentially
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="614"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1111.html">ADMIRALTY V. DALTON<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="614"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/03/01-1576.htm">01-1576 -- MINSHALL V. MCGRAW HILL BROADCASTING CO. INC. -- 03/28/2003<BR></A><BR>
The jury also found that McGraw Hill's conduct was willful. The question of whether Minshall was entitled to front pay was reserved for the district court. Minshall was over 50 years old. <p> At trial. Evidence was introduced that in 1995. Minshall testified that he apologized for his conduct at the Emmy Awards ceremony and admitted that he was partially at fault for the disclosure of the source's identity. The cosmetic look of the news programs was altered. Were removed from the ten o'clock nightly news and replaced by anchor Natalie Pujo (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="614"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr2001/003318.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The issue is whether plaintiffs should have obtained a stay under S 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code before appealing an assumption and an assignment under S 365. This appeal arises from the District Court's affirmance of the Bankruptcy Court's order approving the assumption of eight physician employment contracts by the Chapter 11 Trustee of a bankrupt health care system and their assignment to another hospital.1 Contending their employment contracts were not assignable. Our review of its decision is plenary. The other plaintiffs are Bonnie K. The defendants appellees are AHERF 's Chapter 11 trustee and the Western Pennsylvania Healthcare Alliance along with Allegheny General Hospital. 3. The acquisition of a nonprofit corporation's membership interest is comparable to the purchase of stock in a business. AHERF was the sole member of its affiliates and the sale of its memberships interests to the Western Pennsylvania Healthcare Alliance effected a complete change of control. 5. AUHS is substituted for MCP HU in their contracts. 5 contesting Western Pennsylvania Healthcare Alliance's financial viability.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="614"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/93opinions/93-1373.html">REFLECTON V. DALTON<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="614"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1040.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellant.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="614"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972129.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Universal Maritime contends that these payments are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="614"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/12/953821P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
GECC asserts that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law and asks. Is governed by Iowa law. Because we believe that GECC was entitled to judgment as a matter of law and that the cross appeal is without merit. I. The contract at issue in this case was between Intermodal and a small railroad company called the Chicago Central and Pacific Railroad (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="614"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2453.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Utility Audit was not entitled to any of the savings that resulted from the switch in carriers. Then Horace Mann was required to pay 43% of the refund or credit to Utility Audit. Utility Audit Inc. will ensure refunds/credits and/or savings are realized and/or obtained by [Horace Mann]. [Horace Mann] understands that Utility Audit Inc. will receive 40% of any future savings on a telecommunication bill for a period of One Year.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="614"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1830.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.A. were on brief. Were on brief. That is. The results of the 1991 probe must have come as something of a shock. Rioux's final report specifically noted that there were no problems with Dantran's fringe benefit payment practices. The timing could not have been worse. The kingdom was lost). Wilkinson's final report pressed for debarment
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="614"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0444n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The purchase was never consummated. That a new trial was warranted (1) on the issue of damages and (2) because the jury verdict was inconsistent. I. The Burns defendants were the owners of fifty acres of land in Owensboro. Which was located close to a busy thoroughfare in Owensboro. Kentucky Rose was to pay the Burns defendants ten thousand dollars each month for four months during the time that due diligence was to be completed. Kentucky Rose was given the option of extending this due diligence period fourteen times. Burns stated that these monthly payments were non refundable. Unless the property was condemned prior to closing. Provided that in the event that the purchase of the property was completed. One of these such warranties was the promise made by the Burns defendants not to market the fifty acre property after the effective date of the agreement. Kentucky Rose would have the option to either enforce the terms of the Agreement or
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="614"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-5076.html">JEROME A. MAHER 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-6.gif" ALT="614"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3385.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Background The relevant facts are undisputed. CoBank is an agricultural lending bank chartered as a federal instrumentality. The Cooperative is an organization formed by a collection of farmers under the laws of the State of Kansas. The Cooperative and CoBank entered into a Master Loan Agreement (loan agreement) which was subsequently amended on August 2. 2000. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. Provided it was purchased and sold in back to back transactions.(1) Although neither party discussed the amounts necessary to cover such expenditures. While it is disputed whether CoBank otherwise restricted or froze the Cooperative's line of credit immediately after obtaining the audit report. It is undisputed that on Monday. Advised that CoBank was suspending monetary advances on the Cooperative's seasonal line of credit.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="614"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-5065.html">LANDMARK LAND COMPANY, INC., V. FDIC<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2002/00-14975.opn.html">BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC. V. CITY OF N. MIAMI (3/1/2002, NO. 00-14975)<BR></A><BR>
The City was required to clean up the land by a consent decree it had entered into with the United States Environmental Protection Agency in settlement of a lawsuit the EPA had brought against the City under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. The City believed that Blasland was not entitled to payment because it had been negligent in doing the work. This litigation is the fruit of their disagreement. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0040p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because the arbitrator was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1995/95a0992p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The issue in this case is whether a 1980 contract between the parties and a 1983 amendment thereto conveyed to American Cyanamid Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2001/98-5404.man.html">EMPLOYERS INS. OF WAUSAU V. BRIGHT METAL SPECIALTIES, INC. (5/22/2001, NO. 98-5404)<BR></A><BR>
That it is not bound by the arbitration provision in Bright's subcontract. Rogers concedes that it is bound by Bright's subcontract. Contends that Bright's claim is excluded from arbitration pursuant to an arbitration exception in the subcontract. We conclude that the district court's order was an appealable
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2003/022169p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
On appeal is a motion to compel arbitration in a commercial dispute. At issue are principles of contract formation under the Uniform Commercial Code. The initial offer was rejected but negotiations continued and. The specific offer was for the purchase of a glass bending and tempering furnace and a flat laminating line 200/400. 3 below our terms and conditions related to ORDER # DKH2199.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2301.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
An amended opinion is attached hereto. We have consolidated these cases for disposition on appeal. The New Mexico Name maintains that the English judgment stemmed from an action that is repugnant to New Mexico's public policy as the judgment: (a) violates New Mexico's securities laws. (b) is based on unconscionable contracts. (e) is based on illusory contacts. Because the English system of jurisprudence is incompatible with American standards of due process. Two Utah Names also contend that the district court's approval of the English post judgment interest of eight percent per annum was incorrect. We also hold that the Lloyd's judgments are not repugnant to New Mexico's public policy. We hold that the parties in this case are diverse. I. BACKGROUND Numerous courts have summarized the basic facts applicable to the underlying litigation. These facts are not in dispute. Lloyd's is not an insurer. Rather is the regulator of an insurance market located in London. Names are passive investors in the sophisticated scheme.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052403p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm the orders in part and reverse in part and will remand the matter to the district court for further proceedings. The Parties and Their Agreement Plaintiff Elliott & Frantz is an industrial construction equipment sales and service provider incorporated under the laws of Pennsylvania with its principal place of business in that state. Defendant Ingersoll Rand is a manufacturer and supplier of industrial construction equipment incorporated under the laws of New Jersey with its principal place of business in that state. Elliott & Frantz and Ingersoll Rand entered into a written Distributor Selling Agreement (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/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-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0085n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That enabled Standex to have its own employee act as salesman. Claiming that Standex breached the agreement by failing to pay commissions due on products that were shipped after the termination date pursuant to purchase orders that were booked before the termination date (count one). Urban argued that if it were found not entitled to commissions on the disputed shipments under the agreement. It was entitled to compensation in quantum meruit to avoid the unjust enrichment of Standex (count two). We have uncontested appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Urban was an independent sales representative enterprise that sold electronic components. Standex is a manufacturer of electronic components and assemblies for use in the auto. When a customer decides that it is going to buy parts from Standex. The customer issues documentation indicating that Standex was awarded business for a given part.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/08/993482P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court1 granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims except for McClure's breach of contract claim which was tried to a jury. Judgments were entered in favor of the defendants. American Family) are affiliated Wisconsin corporations operating under common management. Dale Mathwich are officers of American Family. American Family is licensed to sell insurance in Minnesota. American Family markets its insurance through exclusive agents whose relationships with it are governed by written contracts which state that they supersede all prior agreements.2 Its exclusive agents are required to sell all types of insurance offered by American Family. McClure and Kemp were both exclusive agents under contract with American Family. No modification of its terms may be made unless that modification is agreed to in writing by the Agent and the Company.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-5039.html">CITY OF CINCINNATI V. US<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0152p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Served as Gaedeke's primary brokerage agent and in the fall of 2001 was in negotiations with Bridgestone/Firestone. Concluding that Tennessee common law required Grubb & Ellis to show that it was the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053730p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Three issues are presented for decision following the District Court's grant of summary judgment to the excess insurer. Did the District Court err in holding that New York law governs this dispute as the state in which the insurance 3 contract was issued and delivered. We conclude that although Pennsylvania's choice of law rules have abandoned the lex loci doctrine. Was unloading bags at the Pittsburgh International Airport. He was severely injured and is now a quadriplegic requiring constant round the clock care. Which was a wholly owned subsidiary of the Dyson KissnerMoran Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0196n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The relationship was short lived. I. BACKGROUND LIAC is an insurance broker in the state of Michigan that focuses on nonstandard no fault automobile insurance policies that are designed for customers with poor driving records who would not otherwise qualify for standard rate policies. Founders is an Illinois based insurance company that issues such policies as part of its business. Founders Among the key terms in the MGA Agreement was a merger clause. Which read as follows: Both [Founders] and [LIAC] acknowledge that this Agreement is the entire agreement between them relating to their contemplated business transactions and that they have not relied upon any promises or representations. Which have not been included in this Agreement. A final term of relevance is the choice of law clause. LIAC complained that Founders was failing to handle the volume of business that LIAC generated in a timely manner. Despite oral representations that it was equipped to do so. 000 [LIAC] is entitled. This choice of law determination is undisputed on appeal.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-4483_021.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This appeal presents the question whether a claim for fraudulent inducement of a contract is subject to the contract's forum selection clause. A misrepresentation made in the inducement of a contract is not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2054.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Were on brief. As an administrative expense to an executive who was terminated after rendering postpetition services. To join Filene's at a time when it was already experiencing financial difficulty.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/08/024156P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Round numbers are utilized where they do not affect the analysis. 2 2 1 The district court3 ruled the parties abandoned the contract. Which were to hold the paper production equipment. Because they were to house the actual manufacturing plants. Buildings 51 and 52 were apparently the most important and costly. The four other buildings were warehouses or similar facilities. 3 5 4 3 OBG's proposal also contained a section entitled Commercial and Technical Clarifications and Exemptions. One commercial clarification was OBG's request the Joint Venture eliminate the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1995/95a1151p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who are the debtors in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding. The subject of the adversary proceeding is a prior transaction in which Debra Hayden. 000) to me paid in hand by [the medical defendants] . . . the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged. The Haydens were experiencing financial difficulties. Hayden that although consolidation was not possible. Reliance explained that it was the owner of the annuity and that Ms. Hayden to change irrevocably the address to which the checks were sent to that of Western. Hayden also directed Reliance to have United irrevocably change the address to which the checks were sent to that of Western. 420.63 was used to satisfy the loans. The monthly payments were received and deposited by Western from the end of 1990 until August 1992. The Haydens argued that the annuity checks were property of the estate and that the court should order Western to turn over these checks to the estate. The Haydens maintained that Western was only an unsecured creditor of the estate for a sum equal to the value of its bargain with Ms.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-5129.html">TRAUMA SERVICE V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1434.html">STATE CONTRACTING & ENGINEERING CORPORATION V. STATE OF FLORIDA<BR></A><BR>
Argued for defendants appellees.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BF2D2C0B238D3EB88825726500803C6C/$file/0456334.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Agarwal was required to seek authorization from ProMed's medical director. The twelve month contract was extended automatically for an unlimited number of additional twelve month periods. The Agreement was extended to June 1. By the automatic renewal pro1 As Agarwal is appealing the district court's order dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim. We accept as true the factual allegations in Agarwal's Second Amended Complaint. 2 An independent practice association (IPA) is an organization that contracts with individual physicians to provide services to the enrollees of managed health care plans (i.e. The bankruptcy court granted both motions but permitted Agarwal to file an amended complaint.4 Agar4 We note that the contract at issue here was. Which was the date ProMed filed its bankruptcy petition. We look to whether the contract was executory at the time of the filing of the bankruptcy petition. 706 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (holding that to determine whether a contract is executory.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1086.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
On the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was William R. Of counsel was Thomas D. (Guardian) appeals the decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) that Guardian is not entitled to a price adjustment under FAR 52.222 43 for the increased costs it paid its employees under its contract with the National Security Agency (NSA or Agency) during two contract renewal periods. This case was submitted for decision following oral argument on July 5. Because we hold that the Board erred in ruling that Guardian is not entitled to a price adjustment for the December 1. Were subject to the requirements of the Service Contract Act of 1965. Which requires that service employees receive no less than the wages and fringe benefits they would have been entitled to under the predecessor contract with the federal government for substantially the same services. provides. Which succeeds a contract subject to this Act and under which substantially the same services are furnished. To which such service employees would have been entitled if they were employed under the predecessor contract . . . . 41 U.S.C. § 353(c).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1842.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Millimet & Branch were on brief. P.A. were on brief. This contract delineated a two phase transaction: McCarthy was to sell his equity interest. Theta II was to buy all the outstanding stock of Theta I for cash. That his newly acquired business was incompatible with his
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2002/00-14975.opn.html">BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC. V. CITY OF N. MIAMI (3/1/2002, NO. 00-14975)<BR></A><BR>
The City was required to clean up the land by a consent decree it had entered into with the United States Environmental Protection Agency in settlement of a lawsuit the EPA had brought against the City under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. The City believed that Blasland was not entitled to payment because it had been negligent in doing the work. This litigation is the fruit of their disagreement. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200501/04-5051a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Altomease R. With him on the brief were Peter D. With him on the brief was Ryan E. Is automatically tainted). Even without proof that the claims were fraudulent in themselves. Where it is alleged that the defendant has submitted a fraudulently deflated bid in order to obtain a contract. A FCA action cannot succeed without proof that one or more requests for payment under the contract were fraudulent in themselves. The evidence presented by Bettis was insufficient to permit the inference that Odebrecht fraudulently induced the Corps to award it the contract. The final price for each bid was calculated by multiplying the bidder's unit price for each bid item by the Corps' quantity estimate and then summing the totals of all of the bid items. The final bid price was only an estimate. Because the winning bidder was to be paid based on the actual quantities required during construction. Bidders were. The sealed bids were opened on July 7. Odebrecht's bid was the lowest. Odebrecht was awarded the contract.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/11/99-1037.htm">99-1037 -- LPG HOLDINGS INC. V. CASINO AMERICA INC. -- 11/01/2000<BR></A><BR>
The district court held that LPG's claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing were foreclosed by the unambiguous language of the parties' agreement. LPG acquired the property because it was interested in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5098.html">OMV MEDICAL, INC. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief was <u>Frank K. On the brief were <u>David . Of counsel on the brief were <u>Clarence D. With him on the brief was <u>Deborah L. The award of that contract was flawed. The award of that contract was flawed. Because the Air Force analyzed the submitted proposals in an arbitrary and irrational manner. </p> <p ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0651n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The surety was Lyndon. The principal was Wallace's. The obligee was the particular college defendant. Wallace's was required to make minimum monthly commission payments to EKU. EKU or its designee was to buy Throughout this opinion. The underlying agreements between the colleges and Wallace's are referred to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0893n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At issue in this dispute is the interpretation of a severance provision in an employment contract between Plaintiff Appellant George M. Reardon was employed as Senior Vice President and General Counsel for Kelly. Unambiguously shows that Reardon was not entitled to a severance payment following his termination in 2004. 000 in salary and agreed to pay the remaining rent on his office lease until a sub lessee was found. The restricted share and stock option awards and the office lease reimbursement will be canceled. If your termination by the Company is other than for cause. You will be paid a separation allowance representing the difference between your first year's compensation of $256. 500 guaranteed STIP payment) and the compensation payments you will have already received. Until he was terminated without cause on June 9. Arguing that he was entitled to receive a separation allowance under the unambiguous language of the employment agreement. The parties have accepted the $256. Reardon asserted that he was owed his entire compensation during his approximately six years of employment with Kelly.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0376p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued that the contract terms were ambiguous. Because BC/BS was administering Seaway's plan. The district court therefore concluded that Seaway was not entitled to a pass through of actual provider discounts. The district court also held that Seaway's state law claims were preempted by ERISA. The Parties Seaway is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in Maumee. Medical Mutual is an Ohio mutual organization with its principal place of business in Cleveland. Medical Mutual is the successor to BC/BS. One of the issues discussed during negotiations between BC/BS and Seaway was whether BC/BS would pass along provider discounts to Seaway. It was Seaway's understanding that BC/BS would pass along provider discounts to Seaway. Which was effective from January 1. These amounts are for the sole benefit of the Plan and the Plan will retain any payments resulting 3 The phrase
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1172_016.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
None of which was accepted by Raybestos. This
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1998/98a1804p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The issue is rendered complex by an interrelated maze of corporations and partnerships devised by the limited partners and the general partner in their efforts to develop two separate real estate projects. Was aborted shortly after conception. The defendants appellants are limited partners of Red Hawk North Associates. G&A Development Corporation (G&A) is the general partner of Red Hawk. Red Hawk and Cedar Ridge are both general partners of Chestnut Woods. To have it furnish the labor. The court entered a default judgment which was not satisfied in whole or part. 1993 that Red Hawk was worthless. Henkels' counsel also had been advised that G&A was unable to pay the judgment out of its assets. Sixteen of the partners are parties to this appeal. 000 during the period that Cedar Ridge was obligated under its contract with Henkels to pay Henkels $300. Henkels alleged that the capital distributions were made in violation of the Red Hawk limited partnership agreement and S 42:2A 46(b) of the New Jersey Uniform Limited Partnership Law of 1976 (New Jersey ULPL). 3 After the district court denied both Henkels's and the Partners' motions for summary judgment.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1995/95a1040p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The issue in this case is whether a 1980 contract between the parties and a 1983 amendment thereto conveyed to American Cyanamid Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0700n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1 to lease Lowe's the space for a store on land that was being developed as a mall in Lansing. The relationship between the parties soured shortly after the contract was signed. LL urges reversal of the judgment on the grounds that: (1) the contract is unenforceable because essential terms of the agreement were left undefined and reserved for future * The Honorable Karl S. There is no meaningful distinction between the entities for purposes of this appeal. 1 Nos. 04 1787 & 04 1877 Lowe's Home Ctr. (2) the contract is unenforceable because the agreement lacks mutuality of obligation. (3) there is no implied covenant of good faith under Michigan contract law. Eyde was not interested in selling the property. Each firm was to develop a portion of the site. In which Lowe's agreed to a ground lease for a store in the big box mall AIG Baker was developing. Such agreements are typical in mall developments. Where initial commitments are needed to proceed to later. The Site Development agreement was a more specific contract between the parties setting out the construction plans for the site and a schedule for the work that LL needed to complete to ready the site for the Lowe's store.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1779.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gorham and Gorham were on brief. With whom Barbara Harris and Richard Galli & Associates Incorporated were on brief. Arpin is primarily in the business of moving and storing household goods and furniture. Universal is in the business of soliciting customers and accounts for moving and storage companies. Arpin notified Universal that it was terminating the contract. Seeking a judgment that: (a) the contract is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2001/98-5404.man.html">EMPLOYERS INS. OF WAUSAU V. BRIGHT METAL SPECIALTIES, INC. (5/22/2001, NO. 98-5404)<BR></A><BR>
That it is not bound by the arbitration provision in Bright's subcontract. Rogers concedes that it is bound by Bright's subcontract. Contends that Bright's claim is excluded from arbitration pursuant to an arbitration exception in the subcontract. We conclude that the district court's order was an appealable
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1331.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom Goldman Antonetti & C˘rdova was on brief. With whom Jos Enrique Otero was on joint brief. Before the Court is plaintiff appellant Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority's (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2197.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. Concluding that an issue underlying one of Porn's claims had been decided in the earlier proceeding and that all of Porn's claims could have been raised therein. Was involved in an automobile accident in Portland. The district court accepted that argument and granted summary judgment in favor of National Grange on the grounds that (1) one aspect of Porn's bad faith claim was barred by issue preclusion and (2) all of Porn's claims were barred by claim preclusion. The district court explained that the magistrate judge's decision not to award Porn prejudgment interest was based in part on his finding that Porn had presented no evidence to suggest that National 4 4 Grange acted in bad faith and needlessly prolonged the litigation. The court concluded that the question of National Grange's alleged bad faith conduct in litigating the first action was raised and decided in the first action. It was barred by issue preclusion. In reaching its broader holding that all five of Porn's claims were barred by claim preclusion.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/09/99-4136.htm">99-4136 -- SANPETE WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT V. CARBON WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT -- 09/15/2000<BR></A><BR>
Sanpete Water Conservancy District (Sanpete) and Carbon Water Conservancy District (Carbon) are the long time combatants. This most recent lawsuit is a contract interpretation case. Background facts are taken largely from the district court's June 3. Because they are not in dispute.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-4029.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-3489.html">SCHAFER V. DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971815.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because the agreement was entered into voluntarily. Was in the public interest. We conclude that it is enforceable. Is a North Carolina non profit corporation organized to provide volunteer fire services in a rural area fire district pursuant to a contract with Burke County. This walk out was prompted by an intracorporate dispute within the Fire Department's board of directors. The internal dispute within the Fire Department's board continued even after the 1994 contract was signed. The County insisted that any contract with the Fire Department include a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/01/011947P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Parol evidence is permitted to interpret the termination clause of an insurance agency agreement. Because we hold there are questions of fact yet to be resolved. Olander was an independent contractor and agent authorized to represent State Farm in Mandan. Olander was charged with murder after a violent altercation with his neighbor. State Farm offered Olander an unpaid leave of absence until the criminal charges were resolved. His policies were assigned to other agents in the area. He was sentenced to ten years in the state penitentiary. Olander was acquitted. (3) State Farm was unjustly enriched by his termination. He argues the agreement was ambiguous as to whether the contract could be terminated
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991754.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1 upheld the decision of its Administrative Law Judge (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-4245A.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The petition is denied. 2 No. 03 4245 RIPPLE. Along with the other courts of appeals to have confronted the issue. Employs the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1682.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Were on brief. The common drive for financial returns now brings us a dispute over rights to the income stream of the fastest growing ophthalmic drug in history. <P> The entire range of claims articulated by plaintiff appellant was dismissed by the district court on summary judgment. We will begin our analysis.</P> <P><CENTER><STRONG>I. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1312.html">PROGRAM AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT GROUP V. THURMAN J. DAVIS SR.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/12/02-6028.htm">02-6028 -- OKLAND OIL CO. V. KNIGHT -- 12/17/2003<BR></A><BR>
The cryogenic plant was to be used to distill valuable liquids from the gas. <p> <em>Relevant people and entities</em>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0258n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(2) those rights were clearly established. We conclude that those rights were not clearly established. Garland Garland is therefore entitled to qualified immunity. I. BACKGROUND Crucial to this appeal is whether Corbett was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct97/94-4838.opa.html">ESKRA V. PROVIDENT LIFE AND ACCIDENT INS. CO.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Eskra v. He was appointed manager of the Miami branch office over a territory that included most of South Florida. His performance was rated as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/09/99-1351.htm">99-1351 -- U.S. V. ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORP. -- 09/24/2001<BR></A><BR>
Rockwell was compensated on a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/05/062252P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
After the first tower was erected. The owner rejected it because the base plate was warped. The dispute is governed by the Missouri Uniform Commercial Code. The contract price as amended by three change orders was $601. Trinity's two page sale agreement was accepted by Burgess. Louis workplace on behalf of Burgess1 noticed that the base plate was warping. Efforts to eliminate the warping during the final welding were unsuccessful.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2002/00-16138.opn.html">ALABAMA POWER CO. V. UNITED STATES DEP'T OF ENERGY (9/24/2002, NO. 00-16138)<BR></A><BR>
An offset against future payments that Exelon (like all other utilities that produce nuclear waste) is obligated to pay into</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct97/94-4838.opa.html">ESKRA V. PROVIDENT LIFE AND ACCIDENT INS. CO.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Eskra v. He was appointed manager of the Miami branch office over a territory that included most of South Florida. His performance was rated as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0433p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That is the issue this case requires the court to resolve. The claimants to the stock are a class of employees (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2002/00-16138.opn.html">ALABAMA POWER CO. V. UNITED STATES DEP'T OF ENERGY (9/24/2002, NO. 00-16138)<BR></A><BR>
An offset against future payments that Exelon (like all other utilities that produce nuclear waste) is obligated to pay into</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0371n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A distinction between the two is not necessary so the Court refers to them collectively. Are in lieu of the normal monikers used by this Court (i.e. Appellant and Appellee) so as to avoid confusion in light of the fact that we address cross appeals in this opinion. agreement was unenforceable as a penalty the district court granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Defendants concede that their cross appeal is unnecessary if this Court affirms the district court's grant of summary judgment in their favor. The district court's order granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment is AFFIRMED. The district court's dismissal of Defendants' counterclaim is. This arrangement was made in an effort to prevent an impending liquidation threat faced by GFC from its primary creditor. It only appeals the grant of Defendants' motion for summary judgment. 2 Industries' obligation to enter into a Definitive Agreement was expressly conditioned on its approval of GFC's operational condition during the Due Diligence Period.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/97-2001.htm">97-2001 -- RATNER V. PARK & SHUTTLE INC. -- 09/03/1998<BR></A><BR>
The document was lost or destroyed through no fault of plaintiffs. Located near the Albuquerque Airport (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/03/99-1351.htm">99-1351 -- U.S. V. ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORP. -- 03/04/2002<BR></A><BR>
Was circulated to the members of the panel and all circuit judges of the court in regular service. That suggestion is denied. <p> The petition for rehearing by the panel has been considered by the panel and it has been determined that rehearing is granted for the limited purpose of modifying the opinion and ordering a limited remand to the district court as provided herein. The limited remand to the district court is for the purpose of that court making findings of fact and conclusions concerning the issue of disclosure prior to filing of this action in accordance with the False Claims Act. A supplemental record will be transmitted to this court containing the additional findings and conclusions made on this limited remand. This court will otherwise retain jurisdiction of this cause. The rulings made previously in our opinion are undisturbed. Final disposition of these appeals will be made. <p> The court's opinion as modified on rehearing by the panel is being filed along with this order. <p> ENTERED FOR THE COURT <p> <p> Patrick Fisher.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="606"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1541.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
On the brief were Peter D. The VA also authorizes reimbursement for patients to travel by taxicab if they are ambulatory but in need of some assistance with transportation patients with walkers. There is no evidence that the VA ordered taxi and litter transportation from MAT under this contract and no evidence of any complaints from MAT concerning the lack of such orders. The contract term was for federal fiscal year October 1. The request for proposals stated: There are Ground Ambulance patient transportation contracts available to the VA Medical Center . . . The Government reserves the right to solely determine how patients are to be transported. All Handicapped Transportation requests will be offered the Contractor. ] patients will be transferred to a regular wheelchair before being 05 1541 2 loaded in the vehicle. The motorized wheelchair or electric cart will be loaded separately and must be secured to the vehicle during transport.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2002/00-13811.opn.html">NAT'L R.R. PASSENGER CORP. V. ROUNTREE TRANSP. AND RIGGING, INC.(3/26/2002, NO. 00-13811)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2002/01-12976.opn.html">FRANKENMUTH MUT. INS. CO. V. ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLA. (4/24/2002, NO. 01-12976)<BR></A><BR>
During which the computer equipment was used for a variety of municipal functions. Flowers was criminally indicted for various acts of malfeasance. One of which was his decision to enter into the Lease with Unisys without County approval. Magaha and the County reviewed the Lease and determined that the County should reject the Lease because the Unisys equipment was too old. *1017)
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0287p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That was imposed on the contract by law as determined by subsequent Ohio Supreme Court opinions. At the time the polices were purchased and the deductible agreement was entered into. It is thus uncontroverted that a new burden of coverage arose flowing from Zurich to Masco and those affiliated with Masco.1 1 Zurich has paid a pair of UM/UIM claims made against the policies. Was killed in an automobile accident. Linda Collins was injured in an automobile accident. Collins was a passenger in a vehicle being driven by her daughter. Masco believes that Zurich will demand payment of a deductible for the Collins claim. (b) if it is required to pay Zurich a deductible then Near North should indemnify it. Holding that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/03-4021.htm">03-4021 -- WARDLEY CORP. V. MEREDITH CORP. -- 02/24/2004<BR></A><BR>
The relationship was covered by a series of written contracts. The last of which was entered on May 1. It was uncertain whether GMAC might ultimately require the franchisees to change to GMAC Marks. GMAC is not a party to this litigation. That the decision to sign the Contract was induced by those representations. <p> After a hearing. Paragraph 16(a) of the Contract clearly allowed Meredith to transfer or assign its rights and obligations:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1223.html">ALTMAYER V. JOHNSON<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1133_019.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Dumas alleged that he was entitled to monetary damages for breach of contract and promissory 2 No. 04 1133 estoppel arising out of an unfulfilled employment agreement with US 99. Shortly after the complaint was filed. The case was transferred on Infinity's motion to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Finding that Dumas' claim for breach of contract was barred by the Illinois statute of frauds and. His promissory estoppel claim was untenable. I. BACKGROUND Although country music is most often thought of in terms of geographical locales such as Nashville. Living proof of this phenomenon is Cliff Dumas. An example of which is the syndicated
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr96/94-2078.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. AGRI SERVS., INC.<BR></A><BR>
The land is valuable primarily for its underground water rights. Defendant Four Way Cattle Company obtained an interest in 1978 in over 600 acres covered by the contract and assumed a promissory note owed to Hutchinson National Bank and Trust (Hutchinson) which was secured by a collateral assignment of the land contract in favor of Hutchinson. Four Way was also in default on its SBA loan. Apparently this request was denied because the SBA paid off the Hutchinson note in December 1984. The SBA was actively pursuing a sale of the property during this time. The SBA sent identical letters to Four Way and to Arlene Daniels as president of Four Way stating the SBA was accelerating both the SBA note and the Hutchinson note. The unpaid principal balance due on the contract was $203. The balance due from Four Way was $21. The contract was paid off in full. Which was recorded in October 1991. A patent for the land was in fact issued. Defendants likewise asserted the evidence showed that suit on the SBA note was time barred because the SBA had accelerated that note no later than January 1985 by its efforts to liquidate the collateral.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/90942C93ABEFB24188256D60006E7C05/$file/0255885.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We reject the City's argument that the Gas Company was not a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/01-6226.htm">01-6226 -- SERVICE PROFESSIONALS, INC. V. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY -- 08/15/2002<BR></A><BR>
Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2182.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was not 2 Nos. 03 2182 & 03 2327 renewed. Was not about to go away without a fight. She was given a contract for a 2 year term ending on June 30. She was to work
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-5106.html">STATE OF FLORIDA V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-5061.html">THE HUNT CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2002/01-12976.opn.html">FRANKENMUTH MUT. INS. CO. V. ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLA. (4/24/2002, NO. 01-12976)<BR></A><BR>
During which the computer equipment was used for a variety of municipal functions. Flowers was criminally indicted for various acts of malfeasance. One of which was his decision to enter into the Lease with Unisys without County approval. Magaha and the County reviewed the Lease and determined that the County should reject the Lease because the Unisys equipment was too old. *1017)
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1496.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellant. Kaufman and Ropes & Gray were on brief for appellee. The court should not have directed a verdict on the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971544.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Who suffers from heart problems that have resulted in a series of heart attacks. Greenbrier Chrysler/Plymouth/Jeep/Eagle (Greenbrier Chrysler) are separate dealerships that shared common owners and management in late 1994. He was later promoted to the position of used car sales manager notwithstanding a serious heart attack shortly after he was hired. Was quite satisfied with his position at Greenbrier Dodge. It was a lifetime commitment. . . . it was a job for life. They emphasized that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2002/00-13811.opn.html">NAT'L R.R. PASSENGER CORP. V. ROUNTREE TRANSP. AND RIGGING, INC.(3/26/2002, NO. 00-13811)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-5092.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(2) determining (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. R. 36.3. <hr> that Admiral had no duty to defend Cust O Fab because it was unlikely Cust O Fab would be held liable for negligent misrepresentation in the Texas lawsuit. We AFFIRM the district court's conclusion that Admiral was not estopped from raising its contract exclusion argument at the summary judgment stage. Cust O Fab is an Oklahoma limited liability company. Beech Street was to arrange for the provision of health care services for covered employees. The Policy was a commercial liability insurance policy that covered a number of business risks. The EBL Endorsement was designed to cover liabilities incurred in the process of the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-1699a.html">GRYNBERG JACK J. V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.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-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/12/994067P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It requires NPPD to inform MEC by 2003 whether it will decommission or continue operating Cooper after 2004. Since 1984 the parties have done so. Final decommissioning costs are estimated to run as high as $600. It argues that estimated future decommissioning costs do not fit within the definition of Monthly Power Costs and as such are wholly outside the PSC. MEC argues that the district court did not have the power to hear the case. Asserting that the dispute is not yet ripe. Its
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.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-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/043253P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200112976.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which provided The non appropriation clause allowed the County to be released from the lease if certain conditions were met. Return of equipment in substantially the same condition in which it was received. During which the computer equipment was used for a variety of municipal functions. Flowers was criminally indicted for various acts of malfeasance. One of which was his decision to enter into the Lease with Unisys without County approval. Magaha and the County reviewed the Lease and determined that the County should reject the Lease because the Unisys equipment was too old. The County notified Frankenmuth that it would not make its remaining Lease payments for that year and that the Lease was void and unenforceable because Flowers had not been authorized to enter into the agreement without County 4 approval. Frankenmuth brought this lawsuit seeking both a declaration that the Lease was valid and enforceable and an injunction prohibiting the County from breaching the agreement. Finding that although the non substitution clause in the Lease was void and unenforceable under Article VII.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/02/99-1272.htm">99-1272 -- GATES CORP. V. BANDO CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES -- 02/16/2001<BR></A><BR>
Defendants claimed the Memorandum represented a binding agreement to settle this case and argued the essential terms were sufficiently definite to constitute an enforceable contract. Plaintiffs responded the Memorandum was unenforceable. Because it contained indefinite material terms and was merely an agreement to agree. Which was filed over eight years ago. Plaintiffs state defendants'
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5150.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Charles J. With her on the brief were Andrew C. With him on the brief were Stuart E. Of counsel on the brief were Jeanne E. This is a Winstar related case. The trial court granted ACC and TFC's motion for summary judgment holding that the government was liable for a breach of contract. The court further held that the United States was entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' restitution claims. The court then conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the preliminary award of $168.7 million should be reduced by any losses the government could demonstrate
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-10834.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
FACTS Devin Malone (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1354.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Garcia Rodon was on brief. If that power is upheld. Fernandez is essentially uninsured on the malpractice claim and it may be that the malpractice plaintiffs will recover nothing regardless of the merits of their claim. PCFA had been dissolved by an act of the legislature and was no longer liable on Dr. Dr. 2 2 Fernandez was covered by PCFA under an occurrence policy.1 However. PCFA was abolished before Mercado Boneta filed his claim against Dr. Which provides coverage for occurrences within the policy period regardless of when the claim is made. Is distinguished from a claims made policy. Which only covers the insured for claims that are actually made during the policy period. 2. Veronica was born on January 1. Was treated by Dr. Was taken several times to Dr. Fernandez was negligent in failing to properly diagnose Veronica's condition and in failing to hospitalize her. Submits that Veronica's hearing impairment was the likely result of head trauma Veronica suffered when she fell from a slide in January of 1986.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200016138.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
An offset against future payments that Exelon (like all other utilities that produce nuclear waste) is obligated to pay into the Nuclear Waste Fund (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1847.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Posner and Rubin & Rudman were on consolidated brief for petitioner Town of Norwood. Were on consolidated brief for respondent. Whittaker and Winston & Strawn were on brief for intervenor New England Power Company. Stever and Dewey Ballantine LLP were on brief for intervenor USGen New England. I. THE HISTORY Our history of this case is drawn primarily from the administrative record. New England Power is a subsidiary of New England Electric System. Wholesale sales in interstate commerce are subject to regulation by FERC under the Federal Power Act. Those charged by Mass Electric to its business and residential customers) are subject to state regulation. Electricity sales have been regulated on the familiar public utility model: the rates have been set forth in filed tariffs. Unreasonable or unduly discriminatory rates have been forbidden. The suppliers are vertically integrated and are engaged in electricity generation. Legislators and regulators have over the last 25 years sought to introduce a greater measure of competition into the electric power industry.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5096.html">NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Of counsel on the brief were <u>Jay E. With him on the brief were <u>David W. Of counsel on the brief were <u>Marc Johnston</u>. Of counsel on the brief was <u>Ralph C. With him on the brief were <u>Jennifer M. Of counsel on the brief were the following:</p> <u> <p ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200013811.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: These consolidated appeals arise from the district court's final judgment resolving a series of cases that were filed after a passenger train of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-2156.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Jimmy was occupied by passengers Donna Shields. Brandi 2 No. 01 2156 Shields and Sherry Pershing (who was pregnant with Adrianna1). Were ejected. Betty Deckard and Donna Shields were seriously injured. Sherry and Adrianna Pershing were killed. Frank Pershing also signed release agreements to settle claims arising from the death of his wife Sherry and his 1 Adrianna is referred to in some documents as Andrea or Adriana. We use the name Adrianna because that is the name the appellants use in their appellate brief. The plaintiffs filed an automotive products liability suit against GM claiming that the Jimmy was improperly designed. That release agreement is not the subject of this appeal. Pershing's claims against GM on behalf of Adrianna are still pending. 4 No. 01 2156 On March 31. The order was made final pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on May 29. Although the district court's order is cast in terms of a motion to dismiss. GM's Motion to Dismiss was converted into a Motion for Summary Judgment.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972737.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: This case is before the Court on appeal of the District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the claims of indemnification. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug98/97-8902.opn.html">GRAY V. BD. OF REGENTS OF THE UNIV. SYS. OF GEORGIA (8/21/1998, NO. 97-8902)<BR></A><BR>
We affirm. </STRONG></P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1140.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued for appellee.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-5031.html">JAMES GIESLER V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
With her on the brief were <u>David W. Of counsel on the brief was <u>Marlene . <u>Circuit Judge.</p> </u> <p ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/May2004/May27/03-10834.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
FACTS Devin Malone (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/00-1171.htm">00-1171 -- HAYNES TRANE SERVICE AGENCY V. AMERICAN STANDARD INC. -- 08/27/2002<BR></A><BR>
The contract was for an indeterminate period and stated that it could
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-5023.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-1512.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Gary A. With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Craig S. Campbell that a DD form 882 was due at least once every twelve months from the date upon which the contract was awarded. Campbell's submission was the first in a series of progress reports and drawings submitted during Campbell Plastics's work under the contract that referenced sonic welding to varying degrees.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug98/97-8902.opn.html">GRAY V. BD. OF REGENTS OF THE UNIV. SYS. OF GEORGIA (8/21/1998, NO. 97-8902)<BR></A><BR>
We affirm. </STRONG></P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5116.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was James H. With him on the brief were Stuart E. Because there is a contract between the plaintiffs and the government. Because the government cannot demonstrate clear error in the trial court's conclusion that there was no prior material breach on the part of the plaintiffs. I This is a Winstar type case. See The conversion was based on two business plans. Approval was made contingent on the execution by the holding company of a Regulatory Capital Maintenance Agreement (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="599"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/11/043653P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Myers gave deposition testimony that was favorable to Jones Van Tassel concerning his knowledge of the behavior of Richland County Sheriff Harlan Muehler and Richland County Commissioner Dave Paulson toward female employees of Richland County. The defendant signatories of the Jones Van Tassel settlement agreement who are also defendants in the present action include Richland County and former Richland County Commissioners Ray Ward. Defendants agree that they will not retaliate with respect to any employment related matter against any former. Or individual whose compensation is paid. Who have provided any support to Plaintiff. The first was a breach of contract claim against Richland County.2 He asserted that Richland County breached the Jones Van Tassel settlement agreement by retaliating against him for his deposition testimony and that the retaliation resulted in his defeat in the November 2002 election for State's Attorney. Myers attempts to argue that the breach of contract claim was brought against the individual commissioners as well as Richland County.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971685.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We agree and hold that when the predominant purpose of a maritime or land based contract is the rendering of services rather than the furnishing of goods. The U.C.C. is inapplicable. Attached to both GE Quotations were GE's terms and conditions. Were to govern the contract. Good metal was removed from the rotor. It was undisputed. Judgment as a matter of law is proper
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3193.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. The Trust contends that the Agency's finding that it violated its CRP contract by having uncontrolled noxious weeds on the subject property was arbitrary and capricious and not supported by the evidence. At issue in this case is the requirement that all participants subject to a CRP contract
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031637.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court granted summary judgment because it found that Rohan was not a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981037.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That WSRC falsely certified that there was no conflict of interest with the subcontractor. Or because the allegedly false statements were not made in connection with a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-41010.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. That the award is arbitrary and capricious. Is beyond the scope of the arbitrator's authority. I. BACKGROUND ACET and Duke are companies that participate in the natural gas industry in Panola County. ACET is predominately a Gatherers contract with
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQwNjUtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-4065-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The judgment of the district court is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings. * The Honorable David G. Was hired by Conrail as a brakeman in 1987 and was promoted to conductor in early 1988. He was certified as a locomotive engineer in March 1989 and continued working for Conrail in that capacity until February 1998. Which Wall maintains was in violation of Federal Railroad Administration regulations and the company's collective bargaining agreement with the International Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1142.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He experienced hand numbness and other symptoms that were diagnosed as consistent with nerve abnormalities. He was diagnosed as suffering from bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. That he was no longer able to practice dentistry. Choren was engaged in insurance fraud. Choren that his claim was under investigation and continued to pay benefits under the policies. <hr> In its complaint. Choren had submitted a fraudulent insurance claim for total disability on the basis that he continued to practice dentistry after filing the claim and that he engaged in recreational activities that were inconsistent with his claim. The case was later tried in January 2002 and submitted to the jury on Royal's fraud claim and Dr. Choren was totally disabled under the terms of the policies and had not sought to defraud Royal. Choren's counterclaim that the lawsuit <hr> was vexatious. (2) committed plain error in failing to instruct the jury that (a) attorney fees were not compensable damages for bad faith breach of insurance contract.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053693np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm the judgment on PSCC's contract claims. I John Sadlon is a former employee of Lederle Laboratories and the president of PSCC. Who was Lederle's director of quality assurance. Was part of a fourperson inspection team charged with approving outside contractors. Sadlon and Delavau entered into a contract under Pennsylvania is the state of incorporation and the principal place of business of Delavau and Accucorp. Although PSCC did not have a certificate of incorporation. There is no evidence in the record that Micelli had any expertise relevant to Sadlon's business. The only evidence of any work she did for PSCC was that she created some spreadsheets and was involved in a few unsuccessful attempts to sell an idea for a home blood test kit to the laboratory company for which she worked. She was engaged to Richard DiBenedetto Jr. Who was living with his father. DiBenedetto Sr.'s colleagues at Lederle were unaware of his prior visit to the Delavau facility. PSCC also agreed that any Lederle business in which it was in any way involved would be exclusively presented to Delavau.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3150F2CB96356DB088256E5A00707CEF/$file/9935913.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1291. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY DPA is a Washington based general partnership. SIADS is a subsidiary of Smiths Industries. SP&A was compensated with a $50. The 1974 Agreement was modified by another agreement that provided for a similar representation arrangement. The 1980 Agreement was negotiated by Michael Pietromonaco (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1760.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Urmy LLP</SPAN> were on brief for appellant.</SPAN> <BR WP=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1208.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The judge's ground was that CILCO had failed to comply with the Uniform Commercial Code's statute of frauds (codified in Illinois as 810 ILCS. Which was due to expire on the last day of that year.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A49B2333858F888188257036004D1C22/$file/0335697.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Norton is substituted for her predecessor. III is substituted for his predecessor. William McDonald is substituted for his predecessor. Is AMENDED as follows: We revoke the content of Footnote 1 in its entirety and substitute the following language in its place: MID also asserted in its briefing on appeal that it has a vested statutory right to credits under federal reclamation law. MID's counsel conceded that the government's obligations to MID under federal reclamation law were the same as its obligations under the contract and that MID's statutory claim is subject to the same six year statute of limitations as its breach of contract claim. Because the statutes of limitations on both claims were trig MINIDOKA IRRIGATION DIST. v. Notwithstanding employees' assertion that their claims were not time barred under a continuing violation theory because a new and separate breach of ERISA arose each time they were entitled to a reimbursement payment). (2) Judges McKeown and Gould have voted to deny Appellant's Petition for Rehearing En Banc.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1999/986262.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who pled guilty to importing goods into the United States that were not marked with the country of origin in violation of 18 U.S.C. Only two of the issues are of general interest and precedential value. We conclude that statements made during the factual basis portion of the plea colloquy after the plea agreement has been made are not stipulations for the purpose of section 1B1.2. We will reverse the judgment to the extent that it relied on the fraud guidelines in sentencing the defendants. 3 The second question concerns whether the president of a defense contracting company occupies a position of trust with regard to the government. Are supported by the record and are legally correct. We will therefore affirm the District Court's decision to increase Nathan's base offense level two points on this ground. We will affirm in part. Nathan was Electrodyne's president and vice president. Lander was its director of marketing. They stipulated that the applicable sentencing guideline was the smuggling guideline.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1590.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. The
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2BB969A64BA53CBD88256BF900583F6E/$file/9935088.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On page 4421 of the slip opinion. Delete the sentence beginning
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/417DF987C40DCF6888256B810000BC8A/$file/9935088.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Vacate the district court's determination that the lottery itself is illegal under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). We conclude that AT&T was not the proper party to challenge the legality of the lottery. An off Reservation winner receives a credit to his or her account that is redeemable in person or through the mail. This aspect of the Lottery is subject to litigation in the Eighth Circuit and the Missouri state courts. The Eighth Circuit has remanded to the district court to determine whether the Lottery is a gaming activity on Indian lands subject to IGRA. The parties have returned to the Missouri state court. From which the case was originally removed. 2 The only relevant compact provision states:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0068n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court found that Plaintiff Employees' state law claims were preempted by section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. And/or (3) Plaintiff Employees' claims were not ripe for adjudication. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURE The Plaintiff Employees in this case are fourteen Enquirer composing room employees. The Cincinnati Typographical Union No. 3 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0303p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Even after the packaging costs should have been paid in full. Jay argues that the district court should have granted its motion for judgment as a matter of law because of the untimely nature of JCI's claims and because of the lack of evidence of an amortization agreement. JCI contends that it was entitled to damages prior to the time that it notified Jay of the overcharges and that the district court erred in allowing the jury to determine that Jay was entitled to an ongoing
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2002/01-13749.opn.html">HARRIS CORP. V. GIESTING & ASSOCIATES, INC. (7/17/2002, NO. 01-13749)<BR></A><BR>
A separate judgment was entered against Harris for attorney's fees in the amount of $30. We affirm the judgment for attorney's fees.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1733.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom Gleeson & Corcoran was on brief for petitioner Sullivan Brothers Printers. National Labor Relations Board were on brief for the National Labor Relations Board. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND We have previously addressed this dispute in some detail. Local 109C was left with about 40 members. Roughly 15 of whom were from Sullivan. Local 139B's contract with Sullivan was due to expire in August of 1993. Local 109C's was effective through May of 1995. In that case we were reviewing an interlocutory appeal for a temporary injunction pursuant to section 10(j) of the Act. Such a proceeding is independent of the proceeding on the merits. Therefore our decision in Sullivan I is not binding in the context of this appeal. Its argument is that the administrative transfer of Locals 139B and 109C interrupted the collective bargaining relationship. The Board asks: (1) whether the merger or transfer vote occurred under 'circumstances satisfying 6 minimum due process' and (2) whether there was 'substantial continuity' between the pre and post merger union.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/60F75E598B71606D88256AD40078B022/$file/9935913.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1291. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY DPA is a Washington based general partnership. SIADS is a subsidiary of Smiths Industries. SP&A was compensated with a $50. The 1974 Agreement was modified by another agreement that provided for a similar representation arrangement. The 1980 Agreement was negotiated by Michael Pietromonaco (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2002/01-13749.opn.html">HARRIS CORP. V. GIESTING & ASSOCIATES, INC. (7/17/2002, NO. 01-13749)<BR></A><BR>
A separate judgment was entered against Harris for attorney's fees in the amount of $30. We affirm the judgment for attorney's fees.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/97-1375.htm">97-1375 -- SOUTHERN COLORADO MRI V. MED-ALLIANCE INC. -- 01/28/1999<BR></A><BR>
Reverse its decision to limit damages to only 60% of the difference between sale price and market price.<strong>Background</strong> <p> SCMRI is a partnership comprised of doctors and subsidiaries of Parkview and St. SCMRI was most interested in MedAlliance. MedAlliance was concerned about potential competition from the Pueblo hospitals. The parties agreed in January 1993 to avoid this problem by structuring the deal to have MedAlliance purchase the facility jointly with the Pueblo hospitals. While the letter stated explicitly that it was not an offer. The letter stated: <p> <u>ImageAmerica is prepared to value SCMRI at $3. This revised proposal is contingent upon a response from . . . We will respectfully withdraw our offer as we cannot continue to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200002/98-1058a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were James V. Were on the brief for amicus curiae Association of American Railroads. With him on the brief were Henri F. Krebs were on the brief for intervenors. III were on the brief for amicus curiae Western Coal Traffic League. That is because Union Pacific Railroad Company is a so called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/38BB76995113D9EE88256BB30081AEB2/$file/0015166.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction over these multiple appeals from the amended judgment and two post judgment orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Factual Background Berkla is a visual artist from Chico. That contained images of plants and natural objects that were sprayed like 1 As noted in Part I.B. The jury's award of punitive damages was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/38bb76995113d9ee88256bb30081aeb2/$FILE/0015166.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction over these multiple appeals from the amended judgment and two post judgment orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Factual Background Berkla is a visual artist from Chico. That contained images of plants and natural objects that were sprayed like 1 As noted in Part I.B. The jury's award of punitive damages was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA2LTIxMjYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/06-2126-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This appeal presents a novel issue arising in the context of interpreting a court approved stipulation of settlement between private and governmental parties that is equivalent to a consent decree: do terms of the stipulation that recite provisions of state statutes in force at the time of the stipulation bind the governmental defendants to continue those provisions into the future notwithstanding later changes by a state legislature? The Plaintiffs are a group of convicted sex offenders required to register pursuant to the SORA. Have the effect of preventing the State from applying to the Plaintiffs recent statutory changes that (a) extended the time that many of the Plaintiffs are subject to the Act's registration requirements. We conclude that the stipulation was negotiated to avoid litigation over the procedures by which the Plaintiffs' risk levels would be redetermined. That the Plaintiffs are entitled to the 2 benefit of those bargained for procedures. That the Plaintiffs did not bargain to have the stipulation assure them the continued scope of state statutes existing at the time of the stipulation.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-7105a.html">ASHCRAFT & GEREL V. EDWARD COADY<BR></A><BR>
Jr. argued the cause for appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=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-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1317.html">CHOU V. UNIV. OF CHICAGO<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0766n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Oh
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/63E10539AB01C82D8825707600147873/$file/0435287.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: We again are asked to decide whether a provider of payphone services may sue a long distance carrier to recover compensation that federal regulations. The circumstances have changed materially: since our decision in Greene. Which was made without the participation of the Federal Communications Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-5062.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19945084.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
W & J bid for and was awarded the general contract for Section 5 of the project. Which are stone filled wire mesh baskets used in erosion control and other earth retention projects. A Maccaferri was no claims arise out of that contractor with whom Maccaferri previously had dealt. M & A also delivered performance and the sureties on those bonds were James Another contractor. Because of the large size of this order and because Maccaferri was unsure of M & A's creditworthiness. Maccaferri delivered on June 2 what was supposed to be the first of several shipments of gabions. Although most of the gabions had not yet been incorporated into the project so that the Corps was not contractually bound to pay W & J for their inclusion. M & A was supposed to pay for any gabions delivered to the site within thirty days of their delivery. By mid August it became apparent that M & A was in serious trouble. Maccaferri was never paid the balance due on its June. Nor were a large portion of those gabions ever incorporated into the project.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199709/96-5073a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom Paralee White was on the briefs. United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on the brief. Claiming that its participation term should not be calculated from the date of the January 1987 contract because that contract was brought into the section 8(a) program in violation of an agency regula tion precluding acceptance of a contract that was previously the subject of specified forms of solicitation. IMS was accepted into the Small Busi ness Administration's section 8(a) program. The company was initially granted a four year Fixed Program Participation Term that was to begin on the date of the company's first 1 The district court clearly relied on materials outside the plead ings in ruling on the motion to dismiss. See Bench Op. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1108.html">HAROLD L. BOWERS V. BAYSTATE TECHNOLOGIES<BR></A><BR>
Filed a response for plaintiff cross appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the response were <u>Steve S. Filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel were <u>Judith R. CAD programs have assisted engineers to draft and design on a computer screen.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>George W. Bowers that it believed it had the in house capability to develop the type of products you have proposed. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span></p> <p class=MsoFooter style='text align:justify. 2) the 514 patent is invalid. 3) the 514 patent is unenforceable.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Mr. Mso bidi font family:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19978902.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Background Plaintiff Jill Gray is a fifty two year old woman formerly employed as an assistant professor at North Georgia College & State University. North Georgia is governed by the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. Plaintiff was hired to teach in the Mathematics and Computer Science Department in September 1985 even though she had a B.S. and M.A. in philosophy. Plaintiff was given a one year employment contract each academic year. Who was then Vice President of Academic Affairs. Plaintiff was granted a leave of absence during the 1992 93 academic year to attend graduate courses full time at the University of Georgia. Plaintiff taught no classes during this time but was paid half her salary and received financial assistance to help pay her tuition. Who was then President of North Georgia. She was not waiving her rights to challenge the adverse tenure decision. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on all grounds and denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.1 Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the grounds of immunity (11th Amendment and qualified) was denied as moot because the district court dismissed plaintiff's federal and constitutional claims.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0546n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is purported to be an antitrust case. Osborn and DIA were dismissed and are not at issue on appeal. district court's orders granting defendants' motion for summary judgment and motion to exclude plaintiff's expert's testimony. As will be explained. Osborn was also a member. DIA was awarded the contract in December of 1995. As a 2 Defendant Catholic Healthcare Partners is the corporate parent of MHS. Are officers of MHS. 2 result. The case was settled on remand. Which was added after their motion was filed. The district court found that the expert's methodology for determining a relevant
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-4247.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Holding that LOS's contractual obligation to use its
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/99-5102.htm">99-5102 -- ELLSWORTH MOTOR FREIGHT LINES INC. V. NORTH AMERICAN RESOURCES INC. -- 08/22/2000<BR></A><BR>
Ellsworth was awarded $640. Punitive damages were assessed against NAR in the amount of $35. Ellsworth was then providing<strong> </strong>between $150. Ellsworth alleged all the defendants were liable based on numerous legal theories. The district court concluded the general verdict against only NAR on the contract claim was not inconsistent with the jury's answer to the agency interrogatory on the verdict form for the fraud claims. Aiding and abetting claims were reconcilable with its findings of liability and the evidence presented at trial. The district court had previously rejected Ellsworth's proposed instruction which would have enabled the jury to find against the other defendants on the contract claim based on an agency theory. To rectify the finding that only NAR is liable on the contract claim. Is whether the district court erred in refusing to submit Ellsworth's proposed instruction which would have allowed the jury to consider agency liability on the contract claim.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/01-1229.htm">01-1229 -- LEANIN' TREE INC. V. THIELE TECHNOLOGIES INC. -- 08/01/2002<BR></A><BR>
Asserting that (1) it was entitled to judgment based upon its defense of commercial impracticability. The machine was to be completed and shipped to Leanin' Tree on June 30. Thiele was unable to get the cartoner to operate properly. Which was designed to take stacks of flat unfolded cartons (essentially individual sheets of shaped and scored plastic) and allow cards to be inserted inside. Was not functioning effectively. Even though the carton set up portion of the machine was still not functioning properly. The cartoner was finished and its obligations under the agreement were fulfilled. Thiele further informed Leanin' Tree that any problems with the cartoner were the result of Leanin' Tree's failure to provide an acceptable carton design and were Leanin' Tree's responsibility. Thiele's costs in designing and producing the machine were in the neighborhood of $750. After sending a representative to observe the cartoner at Thiele's facility (and confirming that the cartoner was not working properly). The case was tried to the district court in February 2001.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19978902.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Background Plaintiff Jill Gray is a fifty two year old woman formerly employed as an assistant professor at North Georgia College & State University. North Georgia is governed by the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. Plaintiff was hired to teach in the Mathematics and Computer Science Department in September 1985 even though she had a B.S. and M.A. in philosophy. 2 As a nontenured assistant professor. Plaintiff was given a one year employment contract each academic year. Who was then Vice President of Academic Affairs. Plaintiff was granted a leave of absence during the 1992 93 academic year to attend graduate courses full time at the University of Georgia. Plaintiff taught no classes during this time but was paid half her salary and received financial assistance to help pay her tuition. Who was then President of North Georgia. She was not waiving her rights to challenge the adverse tenure decision. (3) academic Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the grounds of immunity (11th Amendment and qualified) was denied as moot because the district court dismissed plaintiff's federal and constitutional claims.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-5115.html">COMTROL, INC V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1067.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellee. Are Puerto Rico corporations. Complete diversity of citizenship between the parties was thus destroyed. Although this fact was not called to the district court's attention at the time. Arguing 2 that summary judgment was improper and that the district court erred in granting the permanent injunction. Mita is a California corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey. An amendment Codefendants John Doe and Richard Roe are fictitious names used to refer to defendants whose names are unknown at present. Said defendants are the natural persons and/or corporate and/or judicial entities who together with MITA have conspired. John Doe and Richard Roe are citizens and residents of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and are also liable to plaintiff pursuant to the allegations mentioned hereinafter. (emphasis added). 4 filed on March 9. Inc. are. Said defendants are the corporate and/or judicial entities who together with MITA have conspired.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E750FCD4A46536CA88256EEB0078A2E0/$file/0335207.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case involves contract related claims against energy wholesalers by a public utility which contends it was forced to pay exorbitant prices for electricity. The utility's case was dismissed by the district court because its claims were found to be preempted. Washington (
</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.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2004/033319np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Erred in finding that Hartford's notification procedure was not inadequate as a matter of law. We will affirm. 281.90 to Hartford and was given a copy of the application he had previously filled out and signed. Gleiberman that the Annuity Commencement Date was July 4.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1490.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: The second sentence of the first full paragraph on page 25 should be deleted. The following two sentences should be inserted in its place: And the only other evidence of a representation regarding commercialization levels at KOVR introduced by Anchor at the second trial was the so called July/August 1988 day part summary. The July/August 1988 day part summary allegedly misrepresented that KOVR was undercommercialized in July and August 1988 and understated commercial generated income during this same period. Goldenberg & Muri were on brief for appellants. Were on brief for defendants appellees Narragansett Capital. It will be reiterated here only to the extent necessary to resolve the issues before us. Anchor was awarded the station after submitting the high bid at a closed auction held in late September 1988. The sale price eventually agreed upon by the parties was $162 million. The deal was structured as a merger of an Anchor subsidiary into the corporate owner of KOVR. The terms of the 2 2 merger were memorialized in a merger agreement (
</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/Jun1996/96a1333p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Heinz Italia is the parent corporation of Heinz Dolciaria and. Is a subsidiary of appellee H.J. We have consolidated the appeals for disposition in this opinion. Dayhoff is a California corporation with its principal place of business in California. Heinz Co. is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. Hershey Foods Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. Sperlari s.r.l. are Italian corporations. As the monetary threshold for diversity jurisdiction was met. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. Article 21 of the agreement provides that Italian law will govern its interpretation and Article 22 provides that any disputes relating to it will be adjudicated in an arbitration proceeding in Italy: 22. ARBITRATION All controversies arising from the present contract or relating to the same will be definitively settled according to the Reconciliation and Arbitration Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce. The arbitration tribunal will decide on its competence to decide the matter and on the validity of the arbitration clause.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-2165.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Popeo</U> were on brief. <U>Cooley Manion Jones LLP</U> were on brief. The parting of ways of attorneys in a law firm is often difficult. That Coady was in breach of his contract. There was no longer any ambiguity or question of interpretation for the arbitrators to resolve. The latter two were issues of the application of the contract terms to the facts. Matters that were not within the arbitrators' limited authority under the contract. Conclude that it was in error as to the primary factor on which it relied.</FONT></P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971484.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court correctly found that any contract between Vessell and Re/Max was saturated with fraud and thus unenforceable. Who was at best an independent contractor. One of the real estate agencies was the Re/Max agency in this case. The winning Re/Max bid was one of three submitted by that Re/Max office. Vessell stated that Gibbons asked him not to provide a quote for any of the other agents in the Re/Max office who were preparing bids. The bid acceptance was not finalized until July. Gibbons 3 said that landscapers were easy to come by and that Vessell would not get the HAP job if he did not cooperate. Vessell maintained that Gibbons said the removals were authorized and that he. Which was renewed for the two years permissible under the original contract with increased rates awarded for lawn maintenance. As it is entitled to do in False Claims Act cases. Vessell's primary claim was that he should be permitted to carry out the terms of the contract he allegedly made with Re/Max through Gibbons.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3844.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The cold war was over but the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1472.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C.</SPAN> were on brief for appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/10/032089P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The main issue on appeal is whether restrictions in the parties' 1986 joint venture agreement (the Agreement) applied to the inheritable genetic makeup. Some details are reserved for the legal analysis in subsequent sections. The first of which alleged MO itself breached the Agreement by failing to pay CEI royalties due under the Agreement.3 The district court granted summary judgment on MO's breach of contract claim and ruled the liquidated damages clause in the agreement was enforceable. The district court granted the motion but again concluded the measure of damages was a jury issue. The jury also found CEI was entitled to $1. The court determined eleven additional seed lines should have been included in the verdict and awarded MO an additional $4. The court ruled only seven of the thirty one seed varieties at issue in CEI's counterclaim were subject to the Agreement's fee sharing provision. (2) ruled the liquidated damages provision was enforceable. Breeding with the seeds was prohibited. MO gave formal notice to CEI that it was terminating the 1982 agreement.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/feb97/96-5049.wpd.html">BLACK V. BAKER OIL TOOLS, INC.<BR></A><BR>
Because we agree with the district court that no contract was ever created between Black and Baker Oil. Black was issued a copy of Baker Oil's
</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.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2004/024372p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are obliged to interpret some of the contours of the tort of interference with contractual relations under Pennsylvania law. Jurisdiction in the District Court was based on 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. As this is an appeal from a final order of the District Court. We will affirm in part and reverse in part. The relevant facts are somewhat in dispute. Appellee is entitled to have all reasonable inferences drawn in its favor. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1555.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Anthony Lewis is a physician specializing in cardiology. On the ground that Lewis was really asserting tort claims. Any tort claim was barred by Indiana's two year statute of limitations. This breach in turn gives rise to a claim for breach of contract that is subject to Indiana's more generous tenyear statute of limitations for written contract actions. We nevertheless have come to the conclusion that Lewis's complaint in part stated a claim for breach of contract. We express no opinion on the question whether Lewis as an individual is entitled to sue to enforce rights that may belong only to his professional corporation. As this was not discussed in any way by the district court or the parties.). I The actual parties to the agreement in question were Lewis's professional corporation. P.C. (of which he was the sole shareholder) and Methodist Hospital. After several unsuccessful attempts to have the Hospital address his concerns about billing and fee collection. At the heart of Lewis's complaint is his allegation that Methodist Hospital failed adequately to bill and collect fees from his patients and their insurers for cardiology services that he provided.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1119.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Of counsel was Arlie O. With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Major Anissa Parekh. The preconstruction conference was held on November 2. It became apparent that the government's plans were flawed and that construction could not begin until the government provided Singleton with new construction drawings. Singleton responded that it was not obligated to furnish proof of insurance until ten days after the government allowed work to begin. The audit focused on the amount that Singleton claimed it was owed for unabsorbed overhead. It did not make a determination as to whether Singleton was entitled to the overhead. Regarding the claim for overhead for the period during which performance of the contract was delayed. The Board found that Singleton was responsible for the delay. The Board ruled that the government's failure to provide new drawings was merely a concurrent cause of the delay and that Singleton therefore was not entitled to unabsorbed overhead under Nicon. Singleton essentially asks that we find that the government was solely responsible for the delay.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981855.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Just Wood was to be paid approximately $3 million. Was substantially behind schedule. Just Wood was unable to begin its on site work until August 1996. Just Wood complained that the environmental conditions inside the buildings were unacceptable and that Centex and tradesmen under its control were improperly interfering with the installation efforts. Just Wood then filed suit alleging that it was wrongfully terminated because Centex failed to demonstrate sufficient cause. Was obligated to indemnify Centex against damage caused by Just Wood's breach. A trial was held in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in March 1998. Final judgment was entered in accordance with the jury verdict on March 18. That evidence was improperly admitted at trial. Just Wood responds that the jury instructions were proper. Claiming that it incorrectly stated the law applicable to the case and was unsupported by the evidence. These objections were sufficient to preserve error for our review.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-7079.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Requires a plaintiff to prove that an allegedly
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/10/022786P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Seven of the ten contracts were entered into by Barry Holden on behalf of Holden Farms. The other three contracts were entered into by the remaining plaintiffs. The plaintiffs and Hog Slat agree that all of the contracts were fully integrated agreements. Five of the ten total contracts contained a choice of law clause stating that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/01/933303P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The United States argues that the tax is a constitutionally prohibited direct tax on the federal government.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-5071.html">NEW VALLEY CORP. V. THE UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1146.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Smith & Cohen were on brief for Donald Thomas Scholz. Given and Goldstein & Phillips were on brief for Paul F. Dispute whether royalties from record albums have been accounted for and paid to each other. The appeal is from a final judgment by the district court after a jury trial. Appellant and cross appellee Donald Thomas Scholz (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021457.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Was substituted as plaintiff when it was determined that Marland Enterprises. We will hereafter refer to both Marland Enterprises. The district court granted summary judgment for Safeway on all eight counts of the Amended Complaint except for a portion of the claims under Count IV.2 Marland was a Maryland corporation in the business of selling janitorial and cleaning products and providing repair and maintenance service on these products. The parties were able to settle the case prior to trial and under the Settlement Agreement. Was signed on October 5. The contract set forth certain products and services that were to be provided by Marland to Safeway. Marland was to provide Safeway with floor care products at set prices. A variety of qualifying products were listed in Schedule 2 of the contract. The products were to be delivered to Marland and Safeway would pay Marland a twenty percent markup for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5055.html">TURNER CONSTRUCTION V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Michael A. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Robert D. Assistant Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>James W. Plenary review is given to the court's legal conclusions. Factual findings are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>See</u> <u>Massachusetts Bay Transp. Cir. 1990).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The interpretation of contracts is reviewed as a matter of law.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>See</u> <u>Seaboard Lumber Co. v. Cir. 2002).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Contracts between the government and private contractors are subject to the general law of contracts.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>See</u> <u>Mobil Oil Exploration &. Line height:200%'>When a dispute arises as to the interpretation of a contract and the contractor's interpretation of the contract is reasonable.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/05/943622P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
When Ryther was terminated. He was fifty three years old. Ryther was approximately fifty years of age. Shaver was named executive producer of Shaver o'clock time slot. sports. A position to which Ryther was entitled under his contract. assumed many of Ryther's organizational and planning duties. Shortly after Ryther discovered he was being excluded from promotional photos. Ryther left KARE 2 The decision not to renew Ryther's contract was made by Rios Brook. When Rios Brook was asked at trial what market research she
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/08/991855P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Allou Health argues that: (1) the district court erred in holding that parol evidence was admissible to explain the contract at issue. (2) evidence admitted was hearsay and should have been excluded. (3) the award of damages was excessive. (4) an exhibit not listed in the pre trial order was improperly admitted into evidence. Jurisdiction was proper in the district court based on 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity jurisdiction). Jurisdiction is proper in this court based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notices of appeal were timely filed pursuant to Fed. Is a developer of websites where customers can purchase products over the Internet. Which site was named The Fragrance Counter. Allou Health had a website on America On Line for which it was paying twelve percent of revenue. In this letter Brown stated that ACTONet's proposal
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/65C442B34133CEAD88256E5A00707D0D/$file/9836022.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Thompson is substituted for his predecessor. We hold that the agency's interpretation of the congressional appropriation of funds was consistent with congressional intent and reverse the district court's award of additional funding for contract support costs. 1 Indian tribes are encouraged to take over administration of various programs that the federal government used 1 See 25 U.S.C. § 450 450n (2000). 14679 to administer for their benefit. The tribes get the money that the government would otherwise have used to administer and perform the services. 3 The government is not allowed to save money by hiring the tribes to perform the programs for less money than the government would have spent. The statute provides that contracts between the government and the tribes for tribal takeover of programs have to include money that shall
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5058.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. The Air Force awarded Waste Management a contract for solid waste disposal at Fairchild Air Force Base (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0183n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jeff Coppinger was the president of Cherokee Rental. Which was in the business of renting and leasing automobiles in several cities in Eastern Tennessee. BFM Leasing Company (BFM) was formed to carry out this plan. It was BFM's role to own the vehicles and Cherokee's role to recruit the customers. Residual value insurance guarantees that the leased vehicles will have the expected residual value when they are returned at the end of a lease period. Martin and Atkins became suspicious that Coppinger was not correctly performing his duties when the state of Tennessee failed to return some titles. Coppinger created fictitious title applications for vehicles he did not intend to purchase or for vehicles he did purchase but were titled to Cherokee and put to his own use. It is unclear when Coppinger began the scam. Plaintiffs submitted to the district court a private investigator's report showing that some of the leases were legitimate. Martin testified that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1500.html">CALDERA, LOUIS V. NORTHROP WORLDWIDE AIRCRAFT SERVICES<BR></A><BR>
With her on the brief were <U>David W. Of counsel on the brief was <U>Craig S. Of counsel on the brief was <U>Rebecca B. The Board found that legal costs incurred by NWASI in defending a wrongful discharge lawsuit brought by former employees in Oklahoma state court were reasonable and allocable to a cost reimbursement contract NWASI had with the Army. The employees were allegedly discharged for unsatisfactory performance on the cost reimbursement contract. The contract was modified by bilateral agreement in October 1988. The bonus was at least partially contingent upon NWASI's maintenance of 90% of the vehicles subject to the contract in operational order. They were employed
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/44F9745E76FA466688256AE6007F29EA/$file/9836022.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Thompson is substituted for his predecessor. We hold that the agency's interpretation of the congressional appropriation of funds was consistent with congressional intent and reverse the district court's award of additional funding for contract support costs. 1 Indian tribes are encouraged to take over administration of various programs that the federal government used 1 See 25 U.S.C. § 450 450n (2000). 14679 to administer for their benefit. The tribes get the money that the government would otherwise have used to administer and perform the services. 3 The government is not allowed to save money by hiring the tribes to perform the programs for less money than the government would have spent. The statute provides that contracts between the government and the tribes for tribal takeover of programs have to include money that shall
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/991234.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It appeals the District Court's decision that it was not entitled to such a refund. The Internal Revenue Code provided that qualifying taxpayers were 2 entitled to an income tax credit for qualified investments in certain tangible property. Among the credits that were eliminated were investment tax credits on property brought into service after December 31. One of these transitional rules is the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/07/013560P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
These products were to be produced at a snack processing facility in North Carolina previously owned by Prepco and sold to Family Snacks in February 1998. The purchase price of the North Carolina facility was based upon an agreement between Family Snacks and Prepco that Prepco would reduce the purchase price of the facility and would recoup the difference through the implementation of a low cost manufacturing arrangement with Family Snacks. This compact is outlined in the supply agreement. The charges were to be calculated through a formula based upon the manufacturing costs of the particular product. The manufacturing costs were to be determined using factors outlined in the formula. Which was attached as Exhibit A. It is undisputed that during the first year of the supply agreement. Prepco claims that the supply agreement is not an enforceable contract 2 because it is illusory. It was reasonable to require Prepco to first identify the products it wished to buy. The district court held that because Prepco was required to act first.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511052.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The licensee must obtain two separate FCC Susquehanna also contends the district court should have granted it summary judgment under the equitable doctrine of judicial estoppel. In the event the [FCC] grants a Construction Permit (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F9172829D9CE47BF88256D91005B5BEA/$file/0115630.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Prudential's role was generally to stabilize the cash flow of the enterprise: in addition to financing LaPine's inventory and accounts receivable. More detailed
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5147a.html">KLINE VALERIE V. CISNEROS, HENRY<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/452D81AA2C0DF985882571380082146A/$file/0415529.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I A Lucent is a manufacturer of wireless communication products and Schoenduve is a manufacturer's sales representative. Two days before it The facts surrounding Schoenduve's role in the Apple transaction are not in contention nor are they relevant to the disposition of this appeal. 1 3072 SCHOENDUVE CORP. v. The supply contract was worth millions of dollars to Lucent. The Demand for Arbitration was very broad. The parties were first required to submit their dispute to a mediator. If mediation was unsuccessful. Schoenduve was not entitled to any post termination commissions for the Apple transaction. He found that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1087.html">LOCKHEED MARTIN V. WEST<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1996/96a1250p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The issue presented in this appeal is whether the district court properly dismissed the complaint of Vetrotex for lack of personal jurisdiction. Because it is not contested that general jurisdiction does not lie. We will affirm. I. Vetrotex is a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of various fiber glass reinforcement products. Which was incorporated in March of 1991. Is a wholly owned subsidiary of CertainTeed Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="588"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5140.html">LA VAN, ET AL. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>Stuart E. <span class=SpellE>Schiffer</span></u>. Director.<span style='mso s
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2096.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2000/99-11767.man.html">FUTURE TECH. TODAY, INC. V. OSF HEALTHCARE SYS. (7/14/2000, NO. 99-11767)<BR></A><BR>
We have carefully considered the record. The motion is ripe for adjudication.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/01-6226a.htm">01-6226A -- HARRIS V. ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO. -- 08/15/2002<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1999/987449.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The principal question presented by this appeal is whether torts. State law crimes which are not enumerated in the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). We would have thought the answer to this question obvious. Will likely decide this Term what rule will control in the future: the injury and pattern discovery rule employed by this court of appeals and others. The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed. I. Factual Background and Procedural History Doctors William Wright and Ananda Panikkar were friends and practicing physicians in Bloomsburg. Who was experienced in the tree farm business. It enabled the farms to have a stream of income year round. Although the Wrights' and Panikkars' farms were becoming quite successful. Annulli's offer was not accepted. He was told by the Wrights that they expected him to meet his obligations for the next two years. Annulli submits that the Wrights' acceptance of his offer to terminate was not only legally invalid. Was motivated by the Wrights' unlawful desire to profit at his expense.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1999/982036.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before this court on an appeal from an order for summary judgment in this diversity of citizenship commercial litigation dispute. The owner/developer of the project was American Power Recyclers. The general partners were American Power Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1482.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were Bryan R. Of counsel was Lauren S. The CBD advised potential offerors about the availability of data: Government will provide a library of available data. Previous performance of this task was by General Dynamics Fort Worth Division for the FB 111A aircraft. Data from that acquisition will not be available at time of proposal preparation or award. (emphasis added) Id. Data An Avionics Modernization Program Competition Data Library has been established [sic] and is being maintained at SM ALC [Sacramento Air Logistics Center]. Will be maintained from RFP Release until contract award. The Competition Data Library (also referred to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-41373.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. The contracts were set to expire in September 1998. Were assigned to CMOPs in AmeriSource's territory. Though the payments were sometimes delayed. The VA realized it was not prepared to enter into new PPV contracts and signed onepage interim contracts (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0145A2213934B8818825734D0052C73A/$file/0515031.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The royalty payments provided for in this contract are the subject of the present dispute. The contract at issue is unambiguous as to the duration of the royalties. The parties agree on their intent at the time it was formed. All the evidence is thus in accord with a single interpretation that Tinnell would relinquish all rights to Zilactin. The product has been improved since it was developed in 1976 and is now sold under the brand name Zilactin. Which is the subject of a patent application.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-20407.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. DeShazo was a passenger. An employee of a BHOO subsidiary was driving. The district court dismissed that suit after determining that DeShazo was not a Jones Act seaman. Claiming that BHOO was liable for the negligence of its driver.2 The district court granted BHOO's motion for summary judgment. The DeShazos contend that Egyptian law should apply to their claims. 2 Claims against two other defendants were dismissed. 2 We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. The district court first concluded that DeShazo's claims were governed by Louisiana law. Section 184 states: Recovery for tort or wrongful death will not be permitted in any state if the defendant is declared immune from such liability by the workmen's compensation statute of a state under which the defendant is required to provide insurance against the particular risk and under which (a) the plaintiff has obtained an award for the injury.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr2001/003064.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was settled on the eve of trial. We have isolated those that ar e germane to the three issues reaching us on appeal. We will reverse the District Court's judgment in two respects. Which is at the heart of this controversy. Allied offers in writing to per form such work on such terms which are equal to or better than the bid otherwise most acceptable to the U.S. That Allied is then able to meet U.S. No third party was told that Allied held the right to review and match their final bids. Allied was unable to compete with an offer that included debt forgiveness. Allied's Fraudulent Inducement Claim Allied next claims that it was fraudulently induced into accepting Section V of the Settlement Agreement. 2) That the dismantling specification will not include the provision for . . . any environmental remediation (including any remediation and/or removal of asbestos) by Allied. Work in and around the dust was far mor e difficult than anticipated because . . . [the sinter dust] impacted the way facilities were dropped.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EFDC1631F893B52388256B56005EC01B/$file/9836022.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Thompson is substituted for his predecessor. Is amended as follows: At page 14687. Replace the sentence
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200113749.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A separate judgment was entered against Harris for attorney's fees in the amount of $30. Giesting made the following claims against Harris which were presented to the jury: (1) Harris unlawfully terminated their sales representative agreement. We reverse this part of the judgment because the contract's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2002/01-14647.opn.html">MANGIERI V. DCH HEALTHCARE AUTH. (9/4/2002, NO. 01-14647)<BR></A><BR>
A state hospital.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200412/03-7179a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Sarah M. The district court may have discretion to exercise pendent personal jurisdiction over the dismissed claims. An issue that was not briefed on appeal. Are as follows. John Helmer is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the District of Columbia by virtue of his ownership of a home in the District of Columbia. Elena Doletskaya is a citizen of the Russian Federation and a resident of Moscow. Doletskaya also agreed to repay Helmer for financially supporting her until her career was established. Helmer discovered that the Moscow apartment was registered in Doletskaya's name. His complaint was dismissed on the merits. As Helmer was not living there at the time. Our standard of review depends on
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2338.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291. The primary purpose of which was to consolidate expenses thereby increasing the profitability of their parking lots. The agreement (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Testimony at trial made clear PCA's function was to manage the day to day activities of the lot while the Joint Venture managers provided high level management. PCA representatives were not allowed on the property until February 11. Golden and Lorentzen continued to give commands to PCA employees resulting in great confusion among the employees as to who was in charge. After PCA informed Golden he was being removed as operations manager in December of 2001. The contract was never discussed with anyone at PCA as required by its policy. Several days after he was fired from PCA in January of 2001. We will reverse only if the district court's findings are without factual support in the record or if. We are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/01/98-8054.htm">98-8054 -- QUESTAR PIPELINE CO. V. GRYNBERG -- 01/24/2000<BR></A><BR>
The gas purchase agreements at issue in this case were entered into in 1974. When gas prices were still regulated. Charging that Questar: (1) did not take the amount of gas it was obligated to under several take or pay contracts. The deregulation price issue and the remaining counterclaims were then tried. Take or Pay Contracts<u></u> <p> 1. <u>Contract 246</u> <p> Proper damages for Grynberg's take or pay claims under contract 246 for the years 1988 and 1990 are still in dispute. This was an abuse of discretion. <p> The court entered judgment on the reduced damage amounts. This exhibit was part of the record. The evidence was far from
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200314828.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We also affirm the district court's ruling that broad arbitration clauses cannot be extended to compel parties to arbitrate disputes they have not agreed to arbitrate. Because the facts of this case have been detailed in prior opinions. The court held that claims between plaintiffs and defendants who are both signatories to contracts containing enforceable arbitration clauses must be arbitrated. The court found that those arbitration clauses that exclude punitive damages are unenforceable in this suit because they preclude recovery of treble damages under RICO. An HMO that is not a signatory to a particular contract may not invoke that contract's arbitration clause to compel arbitration. I.e. that HMOs could not compel arbitration of RICO claims if the arbitration clauses excluded punitive damages awards because such clauses were unenforceable.2 The Supreme Court reversed our decision and held that whether punitive damages limitations in the arbitration clauses precluded an award of treble damages. While the issue of the arbitrability of RICO claims in light of contractual punitive damages limitations was on appeal.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6276.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (Mivon) was (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Which was pledged to Summit as security. We have jurisdiction under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Any previously existing contract concerning the work contemplated by the Contract Documents is hereby revoked.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2002/00-16460.opn.html">MARIS DISTRIB. CO. V. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. (8/19/2002, NO. 00-16460)<BR></A><BR>
Such that there was the potential for genuine anticompetitive effects on competition. We conclude that the district court's actions were proper. Each with an assigned territory.</SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200104/00-7105a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were H. With him on the brief was Barry E. Circuit Judge: Edward Paul Coady appeals the judgment that he breached his employment contract with the law firm of Ashcraft & Gerel and was therefore required to pay liquidated damages to the firm. He contends that the district court erred in denying him summary judgment on the breach of contract claim when the firm had committed a prior material breach of the contract and had concealed that breach from him until long after he was fired. We hold that the district court erred in precluding the admission of evidence that was rele vant to Coady's defense to the breach of contract claim. That the error was not harmless. I. Coady was an attorney at the law firm of Ashcraft & Gerel from 1989 until April 1998. When he was fired. He was the managing attorney of the firm's Boston office. Provisions setting his compensation and the amount of liquidated damages to be paid by either party annual salary bonus and that he would exercise his contractu al right to take the matter to arbitration unless he was paid by August 15.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/96opinions/96-7225a.html">USA/DANIEL YESUDIAN V. HOWARD UNIV<BR></A><BR>
The University said he was <p> terminated for insubordination. Yesudian claimed he was <p> discharged in retaliation for whistleblowing activities protect <p> ed by the False Claims Act. It found against <p> Yesudian on his allegation that false claims were submitted in <p> violation of the Act. We conclude there was sufficient evidence to <p> support the jury's verdict on both claims. He was transferred to the Purchasing Depart <p> <p> <p> ment in 1983. Noting <p> that Yesudian had
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0358p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a copyright dispute regarding software for filling out legal forms. The copyrighted work is not substantially similar 1 No. 05 1513 Ross Brovins & Oehmke v. Most of the actual forms were forms approved by the Michigan State Court Administrative Office (SCAO). The advantage of LawMode's templates was that case specific information from one form could be easily transferred to another form as the case progressed. While most of the forms were SCAO forms. These templates were defined in the 1999 agreement as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2004.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
After the loading was completed. The district court found that the contract unambiguously stated that FMT was to be paid by the volume of peat handled. The court also rejected Worcester Peat's counterclaim for peat it alleges was lost during the loading process.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1904.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. Each of the thirteen construction projects was governed by at least three contracts: (1) the prime contract between Gilbane and the individual owner. CU alleged that the third party defendants were liable to CU for any amounts Gilbane might recover against CU on Count I of its counterclaim. Arguing that the counterclaim was subject to an express arbitration agreement.1 Gilbane opposed the motion to stay. Contending that the counterclaim was not subject to an arbitration agreement. Which are the basis for the complaint by CU against Gilbane. Are not implicated in the counterclaim. A district court must grant the stay
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2002/00-16460.opn.html">MARIS DISTRIB. CO. V. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. (8/19/2002, NO. 00-16460)<BR></A><BR>
Such that there was the potential for genuine anticompetitive effects on competition. We conclude that the district court's actions were proper. Each with an assigned territory.</SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/02/991167P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
INFOPOINT is a group of software packages utilized by Newtrend's banking customers. 000 for re engineering the ICL.3 Although the terms of the Agreement required Computrol to complete the ICL re engineering project within 270 days of the date the Agreement was signed. The IIL project also encountered technical complications Computrol was also responsible for installation. In pertinent part: This letter is an official NOTICE OF DEFAULT pursuant to paragraph 11.2 of the . . . The Commercial Loan Project is months behind schedule. This is a material breach of the Agreement and grounds for termination. It will be difficult to cure late delivery when the date has already passed. The parties disagreed as to whether the ICL re engineering project was substantially completed. Computrol advanced a theory it was an unwitting pawn in a larger corporate dispute between King and Newtrend's business affiliates.4 Computrol introduced evidence that Newtrend actually terminated the Agreement because of the corporate dispute.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/07/973979P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The sufficiency of the evidence as it relates to whether there was an oral contract. Potlatch was interested in developing long term relationships with its independent contractors. Because Mann Brothers was a relatively small operation. Pope recognized that Mann Brothers would have to make additional hires and purchase more equipment in order to supply Potlatch with the logging services it required. The purpose of the short term contract was to establish a formal relationship with Mann Brothers and to outline Mann Brothers' job responsibilities. The primary purpose of the written contract was to ensure that Mann Brothers complied with insurance requirements. Potlatch and Mann Brothers would have a long term relationship. Pope repeatedly assured Mann Brothers that its equipment purchases were justified and reconfirmed that Potlatch would provide years of work for Mann Brothers. After Potlatch again assured Mann Brothers that there was sufficient work in the future. He would have honored the oral agreement he believed Potlatch had with Mann Brothers.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4B5741028A19913F88256E0C00750CA2/$file/0235847o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Through We conclude that whether a trial on the remaining contract claim in this case is necessary depends entirely upon the answer provided by the Washington State Supreme Court. The answer to our certified question is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2244.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: Cover sheet: Spelling of last name of appellant's counsel should be
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2002/01-14647.opn.html">MANGIERI V. DCH HEALTHCARE AUTH. (9/4/2002, NO. 01-14647)<BR></A><BR>
A state hospital.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2000/99-11767.man.html">FUTURE TECH. TODAY, INC. V. OSF HEALTHCARE SYS. (7/14/2000, NO. 99-11767)<BR></A><BR>
We have carefully considered the record. The motion is ripe for adjudication.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1193.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Hoag & Eliot were on brief for appellants. P.C. were on brief for appellee. 1 1 *Of the District of Massachusetts. One of which was to confirm that S&S could assign its air quality and construction permits to Thermo. Thermo was to pay an additional $900. Which would have changed key items in the January letter contract. This rule is intended in part
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTM2MDYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3606-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was awarded compensatory damages for lost earnings. At least to the extent such earnings were based on pay rates in the United States rather than in the worker's native country. Affordable and Mountain are now joined by third party defendant Silva. 3 In addition. Arguing that the document relied on by these third party plaintiffs to support their indemnification claim is not an enforceable contract. Is not authorized by IRCA under any circumstance. (2) it was the employer rather than the worker who knowingly violated IRCA in arranging for the employment. (3) the jury was instructed to consider the worker's removeability in deciding what. Because we conclude that appellants' and cross appellants' other arguments are also without merit. Madeira's Employment and Injury Plaintiff Jose Raimundo Madeira 1 is a citizen of Brazil who illegally entered the United States in 1998. Madeira was earning approximately $15 per hour in the United States and working as many as 50 hours per week. Such action was apparently unnecessary given his brother's willingness to hire him despite knowing Madeira's undocumented status.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031193.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was entitled to assume a nonexclusive license of copyrighted software.2 On appeal. We are called upon to decide whether. Because we are unable to so construe § 365(c). Sunterra was precluded from assuming the nonexclusive software license. RCI Technology Corporation was formerly known as Resort Computer Corporation. 1107). 1 IN RE: SUNTERRA CORPORATION 3 RCI's software products were used by entities in this industry. Because tens of thousands of timeshare owners and units were involved in the Club. RCI was required to provide Sunterra a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031344.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Shortly before the 1999 Agreement was set to expire. CPC's reorganization plan provided that all executory contracts that had not been specifically rejected would be deemed rejected when the plan was confirmed. He maintained that under Maryland law he was entitled to a presumption that the 1999 Agreement was renewed for an additional year under the same terms by virtue of his continued employment after expiration of the agreement. 2001 that was rejected on that date pursuant to the terms of the confirmed plan. Ruling that Goldstein did not have an executory contract on the date of plan confirmation for two reasons. He became an at will employee when his 1999 contract expired. Even if his contract was renewed for another full year when it expired in 2000. The district court affirmed the denial of Goldstein's motion on the ground that the bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding that Goldstein became an at will employee when his contract expired in 2000.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1567.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Were on brief. The claims are Massachusetts state law claims and jurisdiction is premised on diversity. They allege that the plan was managed by MassMutual in violation of the contract underlying the plan. McAdams and Odom allege that MassMutual unlawfully assessed a tax charge against participants' deferred compensation earnings that was designed to fully offset the tax costs to MassMutual from running the plan. The charge assessed by MassMutual was. MassMutual admits that such a tax charge was assessed but argues that the contract allowed it and that the amount of the charge was reasonable.</P> <P> After discovery. These general agents were not classified as employees of MassMutual and in fact were closer to independent contractors than to employees for example. The plan at issue here was created in 1970. All of the related plaintiffs (whose claims in the putative class have been joined in this consolidated appeal) were general agents who deferred compensation under this plan. At least 117 general agents were participants in this plan at some point. </P> <P> The deferred compensation plan was created and advertised as a perk for the general agents.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5009.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Alan M. Of counsel on the brief was James Hubbard. With him on the brief were Stuart E. Of counsel was Jonathan S. The issue is whether the Government is liable for breach of contract resulting in alleged losses sustained by plaintiff Fifth Third Bank of Western Ohio (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2430OPN.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LLP</SPAN> were on brief. Camens</SPAN> and <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/052799P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
300 and was awarded the Phase I contract. Some of the sidewalks removed from the Phase I contract later were included in the Phase II contract. 444 for the Phase II contract was submitted by Tom Brooks. 459 was only the sixthlowest bid. He was wellacquainted with City Engineer Mike Smith and had done work on Smith's residence. Brooks also was acquainted with at least two of the City council members. Brooks's offer was financially advisable. Except
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2000/987542.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Senior District Judge: We are asked to interpret what may at worst be labeled an ambiguous provision of an insurance policy. Although it is uncontested that Meridian had procured its own liability insurance policy from Companion. What is at issue in the present litigation is whether Zurich was a coinsurer. Companion had earlier claimed (and now James claims) that Meridian was insured under a policy issued by Zurich to Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200016460.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Such that there was the potential for genuine anticompetitive effects on competition. We conclude that the district court's actions were proper. Maris was one of these distributors from 1968 1997 and was Anheuser3 Busch's exclusive distributor for the territory covering Gainesville and Ocala. The relationship between Anheuser Busch and each of its distributors is governed by a written contract referred to as the Equity Agreement. The Equity Agreement was amended to include a provision that precluded any public ownership (either through sale to a publiclyowned company or via a public offering of stock) of distributorships. It is this provision that is the subject of the instant lawsuit. Maris did not object to the amendment when the provision was added in 1969. The operative agreement between Maris and Anheuser Busch at the time this lawsuit was filed was the 1982 Equity Agreement. Paragraph 4(i) of which provided: Under no circumstances shall Wholesaler or any owner of Wholesaler have the right to transfer any ownership interest in the business of Wholesaler if such transfer would result in Wholesaler being owned in 4 whole or in part.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981155.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 1 the attorneys listed as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/98-8076.htm">98-8076 -- DOUGLAS V. ORKIN EXTERMINATING CO. INC. -- 05/23/2000<BR></A><BR>
The parties signed an Asset Purchase Agreement with a Form of Employment Agreement attached. <p> The transaction was closed on December 9. Notwithstanding whether the specific changes are reflected in a revised written agreement. All of those offers were withdrawn because the positions were not actually available. Orkin asserts that he would have earned at least $2. Douglas claims it was the lowest paying position available in the Rock Springs area. Douglas turned down the offer and his employment was terminated. <p> Douglas and his wife brought suit in Wyoming state court against Orkin. Summary judgment is appropriate if. There is no genuine issue of material fact. The movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. <u>See</u> <u>UMLIC Nine Corp. v. The district court's interpretation of state law is subject to de novo review. <u>See</u> <u>Salve Regina College v. If the language of the employment contract is plain and unequivocal. That language is controlling. <u>See</u> <u>Lyman v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2001/002387.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Court also found that the defendant was not entitled to invoke the arbitration clause in the underlying contract signed by its subsidiary. We will affirm these rulings. We will reverse the grant of that injunction principally on the grounds of comity. The joint venture was encountering difficulties. Were unable to resolve their differences. The complaint sought damages as a result of lost sales and diversion of resources toward tasks that were the contractual responsibility of Moteren Werke. While these matters were proceeding in the District Court. The issue was submitted to a jury. Which found that Deutz was not entitled to arbitration. At the time the contract was signed. Deutz was known as Klockner Humboldt Deutz. It was the latter entity. We will refer to the company throughout this Opinion as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200002/98-5508a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Paul F. With her on the brief were Wilma A. The ser vice is provided pursuant to a concession contract with the Secretary of the Interior. We conclude that this court is without jurisdiction to consider plaintiff's attack on the fee charged during the second contractual period. Because that challenge is to NPS' nonreviewable refusal to settle then pending litigation between the parties concerning that fee. Fifteen year contract with the Park Service was signed in 1986 and will expire in December 2000. The contract is governed by the National Park System Conces sions Policy Act. Which is a set percentage of plaintiff's annual gross receipts. The fee is calculated to provide the concessioner 1 In 1998. The Concessions Policy Act was replaced by the National Park Service Concessions Management Improvement Act. FST's 1986 contract is divided into three five year periods. The franchise fee was set at 4.25% of gross receipts. The Park Service notified plaintiff that it was reconsidering the franchise fee.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1978.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. The court deferred decision on cross motions for summary judgment and ordered a trial limited to two issues: (1) whether the contract was ambiguous. A sub contractor tested the ballast under the track and determined that it was all contaminated. 1988 that all undercutting was suspended and later asked Perini when the remainder of the materials would be available. Claiming that the amount of materials shipped was well below the stated estimates. Trade usage will supplement the terms of a contract only when the parties know or should know of that usage. Atlantic provided no evidence that Perini knew or should have known of Atlantic's interpretation of the term
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199809/96-7225a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The University said he was terminated for insubordination. Yesudian claimed he was discharged in retaliation for whistleblowing activities protect ed by the False Claims Act. It found against Yesudian on his allegation that false claims were submitted in violation of the Act. We conclude there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on both claims. He was transferred to the Purchasing Depart ment in 1983. Noting that Yesudian had
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1440.html">UNIVERSITY OF WEST VIRGINIA V. KURT VANVOORHIES<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellee and third party defendant appellee.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/04/011178P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
BACKGROUND Ross was a long time employee of Garner Printing in Des Moines. When Garner Printing was sold to Consolidated Graphics Inc. If Ross were terminated for reasons other than cause. Ross was fired by Garner Printing. Alleging that he was fired in retaliation for reporting that a female coworker was being sexually harassed and that he was fired without cause in violation of his written employment contract. Ross offered evidence that Garner Printing fired him for reporting the sexual harassment of a co worker and that Garner Printing did not have cause to dismiss him. After he was fired. No evidence of specific jobs that would have been available to Ross. 2 Garner Printing also defended its decision to fire Ross. Its strongest evidence was gathered after Ross had been fired. During an investigation of Ross's claim that a co worker was being sexually harassed. The offer of proof was made on Thursday. He is not entitled to damages on this theory of recovery. Plaintiff is entitled to damages in some amount on this claim of contract breach.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1028.html">HERMAN B. TAYLOR CONSTRUCTION CO. V. BARRAM DAVID J<BR></A><BR>
With her on the brief were <U>David W. Of counsel on the brief was <U>Sharon J. Which provided:</P><DIR> <DIR> <DIR> <DIR> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug96/94-5084.opa.html">MACCAFERRI GABIONS, INC. V. DYNATERIA INC.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Maccaferri Gabions. J bid for and was awarded the general contract for Section 5 of the project. Which are stone filled wire mesh baskets used in erosion control and other earth retention projects. Maccaferri was paid in full for those materials. The sureties on those bonds were James Sugg and Ruben Ham. It further began re engineering its production line to produce the extra large gabions needed for the project.<p> Because of the large size of this order and because Maccaferri was unsure of M &. Maccaferri delivered on June 2 what was supposed to be the first of several shipments of gabions. Although most of the gabions had not yet been incorporated into the project so that the Corps was not contractually bound to pay W &. A was supposed to pay for any gabions delivered to the site within thirty days of their delivery. A was in serious trouble. Maccaferri was never paid the balance due on its June. Nor were a large portion of those gabions ever incorporated into the project.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTEwMDMtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-1003-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
None was provided. It became clear to plaintiff that defendants were not going to pay his past salary and had not established pension benefits for him. Charles III will be referred to collectively as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19959425.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Judge Kravitch was in regular active service when this matter was originally submitted but has taken senior status effective January 1. The court held that the Topgallant to Ambassador assignment was valid. 000 in unpaid freights is due under the contract. Claiming that the fact that Ambassador is the assignee of the right to collect on a shipping contract rather than an original party to the contract deprived the district court of admiralty jurisdiction. DISCUSSION The Supreme Court and this court have held that the nature of the disputed contract. Is the crucial inquiry in determining whether a contract is in admiralty. The Court noted that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/12/983217P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Excluded from regulation under the CEA are contracts for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1047.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Posner and Rubin & Rudman were on brief for plaintiff. Spaeth and Hale and Dorr LLP were on brief for appellees New England Power Company and New England Electric System (NEES). Hoag & Eliot LLP were on brief for appellees Pacific Gas & Electric Company and PG&E Corporation. New England Power is a major wholesaler of electric power in New England. In the 1970s Norwood sought instead to purchase its power from New England Power and have that power delivered over the intercity transmission network of Boston Edison. The matter was resolved by settlement after Norwood brought an antitrust suit against them. The decree in the antitrust case directed that the annexed settlement agreement and power contract were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug96/94-5084.opa.html">MACCAFERRI GABIONS, INC. V. DYNATERIA INC.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Maccaferri Gabions. J bid for and was awarded the general contract for Section 5 of the project. Which are stone filled wire mesh baskets used in erosion control and other earth retention projects. Maccaferri was paid in full for those materials. The sureties on those bonds were James Sugg and Ruben Ham. It further began re engineering its production line to produce the extra large gabions needed for the project.<p> Because of the large size of this order and because Maccaferri was unsure of M &. Maccaferri delivered on June 2 what was supposed to be the first of several shipments of gabions. Although most of the gabions had not yet been incorporated into the project so that the Corps was not contractually bound to pay W &. A was supposed to pay for any gabions delivered to the site within thirty days of their delivery. A was in serious trouble. Maccaferri was never paid the balance due on its June. Nor were a large portion of those gabions ever incorporated into the project.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-3228.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-5055.html">DEL-RIO DRILLING V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001241.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Inc. trades as DARCARS Toyota and will be referred to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052489np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At issue is whether a contract entered into by the debtor is executory and therefore one that the bankruptcy trustee may assume and assign under 11 U.S.C. § 365. Both the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court held that the contract is not executory. I. The relevant facts are undisputed. Were set forth in full in the opinions below. That adjacent property is owned by the appellant in this proceeding. Were claimants in the bankruptcy proceedings. The settlement agreement called for the Trustee to seek approval from the Bankruptcy Court to assume the 1993 contract with Maysville on the ground that the contract is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2430.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LLP</SPAN> were on brief. Camens</SPAN> and <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/12/97-7098.htm">97-7098 -- SOUTHERN DISPOSAL INC. V. TEXAS WASTE MANAGEMENT -- 12/02/1998<BR></A><BR>
The City notified Southern Disposal it was no longer authorized to collect trash within the city limits after March 31. Southern Disposal filed suit. <p> The district court first addressed the federal questions involved to determine if federal jurisdiction was appropriate. Because no property right was implicated and both parties were granted fair and equal opportunity to participate in the competitive bidding process. <p> <u><strong></u></strong> Appellant argues on appeal: (1) the district court erroneously ruled that Southern Disposal's complaint fails to state any antitrust violation pertaining to the solid waste disposal market for Choctaw County. (2) the actions of the Defendants are not exempt from antitrust scrutiny because the Oklahoma legislature is constitutionally prohibited from articulating a state policy to permit displacement of all competition in the solid waste management business. The standard of review is <em>de novo</em>. <em> See Chemical Weapons Working Group. We will uphold a dismissal on this basis
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0010p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because all of its purported financial disadvantages were incidental to those realized primarily by intermediate parties. The plaintiff's RICO cause (count one) is dismissed with prejudice under Fed R. Four) are dismissed without prejudice. 1998 is AFFIRMED. This reviewing court has presumed that the plaintiff's allegations are true upon plenary scrutiny of the lower court's dismissal of count one of the amended complaint for failure to state a claim.2 The plaintiff has alleged that. The bid of Alley Cassetty Coal Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/08/012468P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
ISI determined whether requested repairs were covered by the Deutsche service contracts. ISI was obligated to procure insurance coverage for Deutsche's obligations under the service contracts. ISI was prohibited from assigning or modifying the Service Agreement without written approval from Deutsche. ISI agreed to act as BCS's administrator and adjudicate claims to determine whether they were valid under the applicable insurance policies. United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 2 1 ISI is not a party in this litigation. 2 The Management Agreement provided that it could be terminated by either party upon ninety days written notice prior to the renewal date of December 31. ISI was the initial claims administrator and Lloyd's reserved the right to audit ISI's performance and remove ISI as administrator if necessary. Which is owned by ElZayn's wife. Is a division of RCA.4 3 4 Lloyds is not a party in this litigation. BCS transferred the contracts to Loss Control because NAS was in competition with ISI in the service contract business. 3 Deutsche claims that when BCS required ISI to transfer the service contracts to Loss Control.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1483.html">E R MITCHELL CONSTRUCTION V. DANZIG RICHARD J.<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were David M. Circuit Judge.<p> <p> <p> This is a government contracts case. The facts are not in dispute. The only issue for decision is one of law: whether the government is liable for unabsorbed home office overhead costs of a subcontractor. Whose work is delayed by the government. When the prime contractor is not delayed in the completion of its contract with the government. The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals held that the government is only liable for a subcontractor's unabsorbed home office overhead costs when the prime contractor is delayed by the government in performance of its contract. The issue is whether this cause of action is barred by a doctrine that emanates from the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3443.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Identified an approximately 135 acre parcel of property along Interstate 94 in Albertville that he thought was the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0D60B4250ADC881E88256C3E0058EAF9/$file/0156700.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
They were each given a ticket packet containing ticket coupons and a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></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-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1527.html">E.L. HAMM & ASSOCIATES, INC. V. ENGLAND<BR></A><BR>
Argued for appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Michael L. Argued for <span class=SpellE>appellee</span>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Peter D. <span class=SpellE>Keisler</span></u>. Assistant Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Mark R. It was entitled to $135. 930.18 for additional policing work because of a defect in the specification whereby the government understated the policing acreage.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Although the Board found that the contract between the Navy and Hamm was defective as to the policing acreage. It denied Hamm s claim for an equitable adjustment based on its finding that Hamm was not misled by the defect.<span
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/11/01-7106.htm">01-7106 -- CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA V. THOMPSON -- 11/26/2002<BR></A><BR>
The Act further stipulates that the Secretary will provide funding for the administration of those programs. The basic idea behind the ISDA is to promote tribal autonomy and self determination by permitting tribes to operate programs previously operated by the federal government. The Secretary is obligated to provide funding for those self determination contracts or compacts<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-2428_019.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C163DBCDB1856F7988256FE300817013/$file/0335697.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Norton is substituted for her predecessor. III is substituted for his predecessor. William McDonald is substituted for his predecessor. Ruling that MID's contract claim is barred by the sixyear statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a). (2) the government's repudiation was anticipatory and could not trigger the statute of limitations. DOI 4195 ated the contract by March of 1985.1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2028.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.A.</SPAN> was on brief for appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3F674E8F6048714988256FFF007E8110/$file/0535005.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Santiago's eight year enlistment in the Guard was due to expire on June 27. Shortly before that date his enlistment was extended by a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1124.html">SEA-LAND SERVICE INC V. DANZIG RICHARD J<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief was <U>Michael A. Of counsel on the brief was <U>James P. With him on the brief were <U>David W. Of counsel was <U>Daniel Wentzell</U>. This is a government contract case. The contract at issue was between the Navy s Military Sealift Command (MSC) and Sea Land Service. After performance of the contract was completed. Because Sea Land s rates for transporting that cargo were greater than the rates Sea Land charged private shippers to transport like goods. The McCumber Amendment was first enacted as a proviso to the Cargo Preference Act of 1904. If the President finds that the freight charged by those vessels is excessive or otherwise unreasonable. The purpose underlying the Cargo Preference Act was to help U.S. carriers meet foreign competition by giving them a preference in transporting military goods. <U>See</U> <U>Curran v. Congress was concerned. Two provisions were added to the statute to guard against that possibility. The first authorized the President to disregard the statutory preference if he found that domestic carriers were imposing excessive or unreasonable charges for transporting military freight.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031387.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This case is a contract dispute between CSX Transportation. Who are WILLIAMS v. The terms were as follows: 1. The settlement was contingent upon Williams' success in another PSC proceeding. The district court ordered CSXT to: *CSXT was later made a party to the case. 4 WILLIAMS v. These payments were to continue until the new contract was executed. 3. Any dispute as to the tariff will be submitted to the [PSC] for resolution.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992195.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We conclude that the district court was correct to use extrinsic evidence to interpret the second of the payment bonds and to grant summary judgment to Universal on the issues of whether the second payment bond covered only the work performed in Pender County and whether Waste Control paid D'Elegance in full for its work in Pender County. Which was the purchase order for Pender County. Which was the purchase order for New Hanover County.2 Paragraph H.7 of the Prime Contract required Waste Control to provide payment bond coverage for the protection of its subcontractors.3 As a result. Both payment bonds were executed using Standard Form 25 A. Although the parties now assert that Form 1416 was actually the form that the parties should have used. Or on the last date upon which it furnished the last of the materials for which the suit is brought.4 Form 25 A. Which is the form that the parties actually used. Or furnished or supplied the last of the materials for which the suit is brought.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1217.html">FREIGHTLINER CORPORATION, V. LOUIS CALDERA<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were <u>William A. With him on the brief were <u>David W. Of counsel was <u>Scott Lind. ) option exercise in the last year of a five year multiyear contract was ineffective. As follows:</p> <ol TYPE=
</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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/99-5223.htm">99-5223 -- VBF, INC. V. CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE CO. -- 08/28/2001<BR></A><BR>
In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-8028.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bad faith arising from Mid Continent's failure to defend True Oil and pay for its liability resulting (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Or expense arising under either (i) or (ii) from: (A) The sole or concurrent negligence of the indemnitee or the agents or employees of the indemnitee or any independent contractor who is directly responsible to such indemnitee. Are against public policy and are void and unenforceable to the extent that such contract of indemnity by its terms purports to relieve the indemnitee from loss or liability for his own negligence. The statute was likely a response to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/07/99-9500.htm">99-9500 -- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. TRIPLE C MAINTENANCE, INC. -- 07/10/2000<BR></A><BR>
Finding that Triple C is not free to attack a collective bargaining agreement on the basis of a claim of lack of majority support after more than six months had elapsed from the time the agreement was entered into and that Triple C violated
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/07/981921P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court found that the policy was not ambiguous and that coverage was excluded by the employee exclusion. The notice of appeal was timely filed under Fed. Douglas DeMerritt were picking up residential trash in Southwest City. DeMerritt was employed as a pick up man by Eddie Gravette's unincorporated business. Eddie Gravette was driving the garbage truck and accidentally ran over DeMerritt. Joyce Gravette is Eddie Gravette's mother. Appellants claimed that Eddie Gravette was not the sole owner of Southwest Sanitation and instead was doing business with his mother. United Fire is an insurance company incorporated in Iowa. The policy provided in part that United Fire will pay damages for injuries incurred as a result of an accident
</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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/11/98-1313.htm">98-1313 -- TOWNSEND V. DANIEL, MANN, JOHNSON & MENDENHALL -- 11/15/1999<BR></A><BR>
He was promoted to vice president of the firm in 1989. Townsend was diagnosed with a terminal illness. Whether an agreement was reached between the parties. Is controverted. <p> Mr. Townsend testified that his primary intent in going on disability was to maintain his benefits until he died or turned 65. Townsend testified that his understanding of the plan was that it would enable him to: (1) go on short term disability for 90 days. The content of the call is disputed. With Townsend testifying that an agreement was reached with respect to all aspects of his plan. Others testifying that duration was not specifically discussed. <p> The next day. Cavanagh responded by memo that he was in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022137.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Asserting that Sonoco's claims were completely preempted by ERISA. Because Sonoco's claims are not completely preempted. Sponsors an ERISA governed health care plan (the 1 PHP is apparently now known as Carolina Care Plan. PHP was obligated. It was cancelling the Contract. Sonoco declined PHP's offer and now alleges that it was compelled to secure alternative insurance coverage for 2001 at substantially higher rates than those agreed upon in the Contract. The
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/97-8055.htm">97-8055 -- FRU-CON CONSTRUCTION CORP. V. KFX INC. -- 09/01/1998<BR></A><BR>
EA K was created to develop coal processing facilities in North America. Which were to transform low grade coal into a better fuel called K Fuel. Fru Con shall not be required to perform any further services and B+B shall have no further obligation to make a capital contribution to [EA K] Energy. Paragraph (f) stated
</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/975F62BC8E7D4BCD88256E5A00707C73/$file/9917059.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs Appellants are: (1) shareholders and former shareholders of the Navellier Series Fund (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-2389.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom Harry Anduze Monta¤o was on brief. Velez Gonzalez and Vivas & Vivas were on brief. Raul Torres Vargas are the adult children of Raul Torres Arroyo. The district court granted summary judgment for Santiago on the ground that he was an employee of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and. Was entitled to immunity under Puerto Rico law. Claiming that Santiago was an independent contractor (not covered by the immunity provision). That discovery should have been allowed before the court ruled. Those who were covered by Medicare or private insurance). The procedure went badly: Santiago experienced difficulty in intubating Torres Arroyo and a tracheotomy was required. That his employment status was a question of fact for trial. The Contract does not compel the conclusion that the defendant was an employee of the Commonwealth within the meaning of the immunity statute. Our review is plenary. (2) the harm caused by his malpractice must have taken place in the practice of his profession. (3) he must have acted in compliance with his duties and functions as an employee of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
</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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041710p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1995/95a0984p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Trans Penn contends these claims are preempted because they relate to mandatory subjects of collective bargaining and require interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement. The employees then sought leave to delete their RICO claims and have the case remanded back to state court. We have jurisdiction to address this claim under the All Writs Act. 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (1988).[fn1] We hold that resolution of the employees' contract and tort claims is not substantially dependent upon an analysis of the collective bargaining agreement and therefore section 301 does not require preemption. We will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. Trans Penn is a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in the manufacture of industrial wax products in Titusville. The election was certified by the National Labor Relations Board on May 7. The document is entitled
</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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/04/97-5216.htm">97-5216 -- BOYD ROSENE AND ASSOCIATES INC. V. KANSAS MUNICIPAL GAS AGENCY -- 04/13/1999<BR></A><BR>
936 was inappropriate. The district court's award of attorney's fees is <strong>Reversed</strong>.<strong></strong> <p align=
</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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041710pa.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/032161.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
</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/FE8E67C93688BC7E88256AB4006D65F5/$file/9917059.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs Appellants are: (1) shareholders and former shareholders of the Navellier Series Fund (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-5149.html">MELKA MARINE, INC. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
With him on he brief were <U>David M. Contending that it has proven it is entitled to damages stemming from government caused delay between November 16. Because the Court applied an incorrect test and Melka has shown that it may be entitled to recover at least some damages for a portion of the time</P> <P ALIGN=
</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.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1461.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Daniel G. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Charles W. Lockheed Martin Corp. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/04/961118P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
To Farmland's contract with Heinold pursuant Farmland argues that the attorneys' fees provision in Farmland also argues the contract is unenforceable under Missouri law and that a party to the contract did not incur the attorneys' fees awarded. the attorneys' fees award. the district court should attorneys' fees award. that the district court used the wrong standard to determine the amount of Heinold Holdings cross appeals. Arguing that have awarded the prejudgment district interest on its of We reverse court's denial prejudgment interest and affirm in all other respects. Arbitration or reparations proceeding in which Heinold [Commodities] is the substantially prevailing party.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/06/981426P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sitting by designation. 1 A seed processor refused to release a customer's seed until a dispute over invoices unrelated to the seed in question was resolved. Lebanon Chemical Corporation (Lebanon) is such a wholesaler. All arbitrations are submitted to the American Arbitration Association (AAA) and determined under AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules. The 1996 harvest of Kentucky 31 was poor. Thus seed prices in spring 1997 were much higher than normal. Lebanon wanted to purchase just enough seed to cover its obligations and have no carryover of the more expensive seed past the spring 1997 selling season. United States District Court Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 3 2 Different customers |
