Search the opinions of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal

use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"

This collection has many hidden limitations. To find out what you're really searching, see the disclaimer .

Your query copyright cases returned 11211 results.

Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to consider using additional terms to narrow it.

	THE CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC., V. SKYLINK TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Argued for plaintiff appellant.аа With him on the brief were John F. Argued for defendant appellee.а With him on the brief were Andra Barmash Greene. Communications Industry Association.а With him on the brief was Matthew Schruers.
	UNITED STATES V. MOGHADAM (5/19/1999, NO. 98-2180) Appellant Ali Moghadam was convicted of violating that law (herein sometimes referred to as the
	UNITED STATES V. MOGHADAM (5/19/1999, NO. 98-2180) Appellant Ali Moghadam was convicted of violating that law (herein sometimes referred to as the
	OPINION/ORDER WILL & EMERY. WILL & EMERY. Was enacted in 1998 and proscribes the sale of products that may be used to
	OPINION/ORDER P.C. were on brief for appellants and cross appellees
	OPINION/ORDER Will & Emery. Precedent that is available in analogous situations. Because
	OPINION/ORDER The full court denied the petition for rehearing en banc filed by No Limit Films and a panel rehearing was granted only with respect to the issues discussed in Section II of the opinion as amended. Which was included in the sound track of the movie I Got the Hook Up (Hook Up). Westbound appeals from the district court's decision to grant summary judgment to defendant on the grounds that the alleged infringement was de minimis and therefore not actionable. I. The claims at issue in this appeal were originally asserted in an action filed on May 4. This All of plaintiffs' claims against Miramax Film Corp. and Dimension Films were dismissed with prejudice. The claims in this case were brought by all four plaintiffs: Bridgeport and Southfield. Which are in the business of music publishing and exploiting musical composition copyrights. Which are in the business of recording and distributing sound recordings. It was conceded at the time of summary judgment. There seems to be no dispute either that
	SUNTRUST BANK V. HOUGHTON MIFFLIN CO. (10/10/2001, NO. 01-12200) BACKGROUND
	OPINION/ORDER The promotion was so popular with Timex that it just kept on ticking1 and continued using the footage well beyond any permission to do so. The result is a lawsuit that has taken on a life far beyond a simple copyright and trademark case. The consequence of this appeal is a series of rulings resulting in yet another round in the trial court. Arguing that Polar Bear's infringement claim is time barred. Even if it is not. The jury award is invalid because the evidence does not demonstrate a sufficient causal nexus between the infringement and the amount awarded. Because the evidence at trial was insufficient to support a finding that the lost and indirect profits resulted from Timex's infringeThe phrase
	OPINION/ORDER Is amended. Polar Bear is not entitled to any recovery under 17 U.S.C. з 504. Nor is Polar Bear entitled to a new trial on damages under з 504.
	SUNTRUST BANK V. HOUGHTON MIFFLIN CO. (10/10/2001, NO. 01-12200) BACKGROUND
	OPINION/ORDER Line 25 the reference to
	OPINION/ORDER Perfect 10 alleges that numerous websites based in several countries have stolen its proprietary images. The Visa and MasterCard entities are associations of member banks that issue credit cards to consumers. FDC's stated reason for the termination is that the percentage of Perfect 10's customers who later disputed the charges attributed to them (the chargeback rate) exceeded contractual limits. Perfect 10 claims these chargeback rates were temporarily and substantially inflated because Perfect 10 was the
	OPINION/ORDER Is amended as follows: On page 38. Were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for Computer Scientists. Cannon and Baker Keaton Seibel & Cannon were on brief for Computer Software Industry Association. Harrison and Morris Manning & Martin were on brief for Chicago Computer Society. Diane Marie O'Malley and Hanson Bridgett Marcus Vlahos & Rudy were on brief for Software Entrepreneurs' Forum. Choy was on brief for American Committee for Interoperable Systems. Zimmerman were on brief for Copyright Law Professors. Were on brief for appellee. Miller were on brief for Apple Computer. Gorman were on brief for Adobe Systems. Were on brief for Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturers Association. Circuit Judge. decide whether a computer menu command hierarchy is copyrightable subject matter. Was infringed by defendant appellant Borland International. Background Background Lotus 1 2 3 is a spreadsheet program that enables users to perform accounting functions electronically on a computer. Allows users to write what are called
	OPINION/ORDER The case was tried to a jury. Ordered an accounting of the profits that McFarlane has obtained that are rightfully Gaiman's. The accounting is not yet complete. So the judgment is not final. McFarlane's appeal is therefore limited to the injunction requiring him to acknowledge Gaiman's co ownership. McFarlane contends that a reasonable jury would not have rejected his statute of limitations defense and that in any event two of the comic book characters at issue are not copyrightable. Is strictly an issue for the court. We have found only a handful of appellate cases addressing the issue. They are split. Hold that copyrightability is a mixed question of law and fact. That it is therefore an issue for the jury or other factfinder. Hold that copyrightability is always an issue of law. Whether a particular work is copyrightable is fact specific. Tugging the other way is the concern that property Nos. 03 1331. This is not an apt occasion on which to reexamine our resolution of it in Publications Int'l. In which he is joined by a company controlled by him.
	MONTGOMERY V. NOGA (3/5/1999, NO. 95-3000) We endeavor to bring a small measure of clarity to certain
	OPINION/ORDER Plaintiff Broadcast Music Inc. (
	MONTGOMERY V. NOGA (3/5/1999, NO. 95-3000) We endeavor to bring a small measure of clarity to certain
	OPINION/ORDER The case was tried to a jury. Among them whether the court erred in instructing the jury that it could find copyright infringement if there were
	ERIC ELDRED, ET AL. V. JANET RENO With him on the briefs were Charles R. Jaffe was on the brief of amicus curiae Eagle Forum Education &. Were on the brief of amici curiae Laura N. With him on the brief were David W. Ogden. Schweitzer were on the brief of amici curiae The Sher wood Anderson Literary Estate Trust. 17 U.S.C. s 302(a). (2) For a work created in 1978 or later that is anonymous. Or is made for hire. The term is extended from 75 to 95 years from the year of publication or from 100 to 120 years from the year of creation. For which the initial term of copyright was 28 years. The renewal term is extended from 47 to 67 years. (L 290) 9.
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Charles R. Jaffe was on the brief of amicus curiae Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund. Were on the brief of amici curiae Laura N. With him on the brief were David W. Schweitzer were on the brief of amici curiae The Sher wood Anderson Literary Estate Trust. 17 U.S.C. s 302(a). (2) For a work created in 1978 or later that is anonymous. Or is made for hire. The term is extended from 75 to 95 years from the year of publication or from 100 to 120 years from the year of creation. For which the initial term of copyright was 28 years. The renewal term is extended from 47 to 67 years. The CTEA is but the latest in a series of congressional extensions of the copyright term. In 1976 the Congress altered the way the term of a copyright is computed so as to conform with the Berne Convention and with international practice. Where there was no identifiable author. The plaintiffs filed this suit against the Attorney General of the United States to obtain a declaration that the CTEA is unconstitutional.
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Charles R. Jaffe was on the brief of amicus curiae Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund. Were on the brief of amici curiae Laura N. With him on the brief were David W. Schweitzer were on the brief of amici curiae The Sher wood Anderson Literary Estate Trust. 17 U.S.C. s 302(a). (2) For a work created in 1978 or later that is anonymous. Or is made for hire. The term is extended from 75 to 95 years from the year of publication or from 100 to 120 years from the year of creation. For which the initial term of copyright was 28 years. The renewal term is extended from 47 to 67 years. The CTEA is but the latest in a series of congressional extensions of the copyright term. In 1976 the Congress altered the way the term of a copyright is computed so as to conform with the Berne Convention and with international practice. Where there was no identifiable author. The plaintiffs filed this suit against the Attorney General of the United States to obtain a declaration that the CTEA is unconstitutional.
	ERIC ELDRED, ET AL V. JANET RENO With him on the briefs were Charles R. Jaffe was on the brief of amicus curiae Eagle Forum Education &. Were on the brief of amici curiae Laura N. With him on the brief were David W. Ogden. Schweitzer were on the brief of amici curiae The Sher wood Anderson Literary Estate Trust. 17 U.S.C. s 302(a). (2) For a work created in 1978 or later that is anonymous. Or is made for hire. The term is extended from 75 to 95 years from the year of publication or from 100 to 120 years from the year of creation. For which the initial term of copyright was 28 years. The renewal term is extended from 47 to 67 years. (L 290) 9. The CTEA is but the latest in a series of congressional extensions of the copyright term. term of a copyright is computed so as to conform with the Berne Convention and with international practice. Where there was no identifiable author. The CTEA amends this scheme by adding 20 years to the term of every copyright. The plaintiffs filed this suit against the Attorney General of the United States to obtain a declaration that the CTEA is unconstitutional.
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER This appeal is primarily governed by the standard of review. Because the artists were employed by Creative Card when the artists created the card designs. Creative Card is considered the author and the original copyright owner of the six designs.2 At the time Creative Card authored the six card designs. Creative Card was a wholly owned subsidiary of AP&P Manufacturing. An employer is the author when an item is considered a work made for hire. Brunettin created six card designs Taylor contends are similar to six card designs the artists and Granger previously created for Creative Card. Which concluded
	OPINION/ORDER Was not copyrightable under the Copyright Act of 1976 (
	OPINION/ORDER To
	OPINION/ORDER Gemmy cross appeals a ruling by the district court refusing to strike certain evidence that Gemmy maintains was improperly withheld by Winfield during discovery. Because Gemmy's allegedly infringing work is not substantially similar to Winfield's work. The district court's refusal to strike the challenged evidence was harmless in any event. That the district court abused its discretion in finding that Winfield's complaint was frivolous. Winfield produced a design that enables consumers to craft a witch like figure that appears to have just crashed into a tree. Gemmy began to produce two witch figures that appear to have just crashed into a tree or similar object while flying on a broom (collectively. Both are the subject of Copyright Registration No. At no point does either party advance arguments involving any difference in appearance between the two Gemmy crashing witches. 1 2 Gemmy's witches are not made from plywood and other household materials. The figures are finished products made from refined materials.
	OPINION/ORDER To
	ESTATE OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., INC. V. CBS, INC. (11/5/1999, NO. 98-9079) Martin Luther King's famous
	ESTATE OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., INC. V. CBS, INC. (11/5/1999, NO. 98-9079) Martin Luther King's famous
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief was Laura A. Because no rebuttal evidence was submitted by the patent holder. Inc. (
	LIPSCHER V. LRP PUBLICATIONS (9/27/2001, NO. 00-10370) Which were consolidated for argument and decision in this court. Law Bulletin is an Illinois company which publishes and sells the Cook County Jury Verdict Reporter and the Illinois Jury Verdict Reporter. Both of which are newsletters summarizing individual jury verdicts. The Handbook is a nine volume set compiling statistical information which allows an attorney to calculate a statistical range of potential jury verdicts for different types of personal injuries. Which is made available to customers through the online legal research companies Westlaw and Lexis. Fiore was employed by LRP until 1998 and served as the Florida registered agent for LRP.
	OPINION/ORDER I. C.H.L.R. is a corporation that operates Stanford's Comedy House in Little Rock. Glazer Cass County Music are officers. Jones was dayto day manager of the Comedy House in Little Rock. Are members of the American Society of Composers. Authors and Publishers (ASCAP). rights of its members.1 ASCAP is a performing rights society. ASCAP contacted Jones to advise him of the need for an ASCAP license if ASCAP sound recordings were to be played at the club. That is. A list of ASCAP music was obtained. Music tapes were made that included no ASCAP recordings. The staff was instructed to play only the recorded non ASCAP tapes when the club was open for business. Is not a party to this suit. As will be seen. ASCAP was a key player in the events leading up to the lawsuit. 2 1 action on a copyright infringement claim. The music companies that are appellees here. that any copyright infringements were the result C.H.L.R. contends of its employees' inadvertence and were unknown to management. Another performing rights society) or
	OPINION/ORDER Which were consolidated for argument and decision in this court. Law Bulletin is an Illinois company which publishes and sells the Cook County Jury Verdict Reporter and the Illinois Jury Verdict Reporter. Both of which are newsletters summarizing individual jury verdicts. The Handbook is a ninevolume set compiling statistical information which allows an attorney to calculate a statistical range of potential jury verdicts for different types of personal injuries. Which is made available to customers through the online legal research companies Westlaw and Lexis. Fiore was employed by LRP until 1998 and served as the Florida registered agent for LRP.1 In November 1997. The letter noted that Law Bulletin was
	LIPSCHER V. LRP PUBLICATIONS (9/27/2001, NO. 00-10370) Which were consolidated for argument and decision in this court. Law Bulletin is an Illinois company which publishes and sells the Cook County Jury Verdict Reporter and the Illinois Jury Verdict Reporter. Both of which are newsletters summarizing individual jury verdicts. The Handbook is a nine volume set compiling statistical information which allows an attorney to calculate a statistical range of potential jury verdicts for different types of personal injuries. Which is made available to customers through the online legal research companies Westlaw and Lexis. Fiore was employed by LRP until 1998 and served as the Florida registered agent for LRP.
	OPINION/ORDER 2001 in this appeal is amended as follows: 4222 Slip opinion at 2196. Nimmer On Copyright зз 12.04[A][2] & [A][2][b] (2000) (confining Sony to contributory infringement analysis:
	OPINION/ORDER 2001 in this appeal is amended as follows: 4222 Slip opinion at 2196. Nimmer On Copyright зз 12.04[A][2] & [A][2][b] (2000) (confining Sony to contributory infringement analysis:
	01-4027 -- JACOBSEN V. DESERET BOOK CO. -- 04/19/2002 Jacobsen was a prisoner of war in the Philippines and Japan during World War II. Dean Hughes entitled Children of the Promise.
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs are engaged in the commercial recording. Inc. (
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs are engaged in the commercial recording. Inc. (
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs are engaged in the commercial recording. Inc. (
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs are engaged in the commercial recording. Inc. (
	OPINION/ORDER Claims to have obtained the copyright in a bankruptcy sale. Is making and selling copies of a modified version of the program. The modified program is a derivative work. Which it does not have. From ITOFCA. 2 No. 02 1069 ITOFCA was in 1986 a cooperative corporation owned by Ford. Registration is no longer required for a valid copyright. Among the
	OPINION/ORDER Before us is an appeal from the order of the District Court dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction this copyright infringement action filed by appellant Raquel. Which is a prerequisite for the filing of an action for infringement. 17 U.S.C. I. Raquel is a partnership comprising musicians and songwriters who authored the music. The video was produced by Elias/Savion. It identified the nature of the work for which copyright registration was sought as an
	OPINION/ORDER Was on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellees. Because the requirement of copyright notice was recently removed from the statute. Some confusion has arisen over the application of the cure provision in cases where copies without notice were distributed before or after the change in the law. We are presented here with such a case. The district court found that the cure requirements applied in this case and granted summary judgment on the ground that a proper cure was not effected. Although we disagree that some of the facts relied upon by the district court are undisputed. We find that the court's legal conclusions are correct and affirm the judgment based on an alternative version of facts that are not in dispute. Paris (
	97-6087 -- OKLAHOMA NATURAL GAS CO. V. LARUE -- 09/01/1998 The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This consolidated appeal involves three separate. Lester LaRue appeals the district court's grant of partial summary judgment for Oklahoma Natural Gas Company (the Company) deciding the Company was the copyright owner of certain photographs. The Company is a natural gas utility that serves Oklahoma City. LaRue was employed by the Company as the Safety Coordinator for its Oklahoma City district. It was part of Mr. LaRue was in his office when the explosion destroyed the Murrah Building. Thinking the explosion may have been due to a natural gas leak. Including the
	OPINION/ORDER For the reasons we will explain. I 4 The facts and procedural history of this nine year old dispute are long and. The underlying claims were each dismissed on summary judgment. The non movant.1 GUS's contract claim comes to us in a slightly different posture HAL was awarded judgment as a matter of law after GUS prevailed in a jury trial and we present the facts related to the contract issue in the light most favorable to GUS.2 A In 1979. The CHAMPION PACKER program was a tracking system designed GUS any for use in the freight forwarding and shipping industry. licensed the software to Lopez. Lopez was to contribute LOPEZ COBOL for use in developing the new system. Parkin was to provide the system design and programming expertise. Herrin was to supply industry expertise. Was detained in a Mexican jail for seven months during the initial stages of the software development project. He was ousted from the company without recompense in March 1993. Lopez claimed that MEPAW was an unauthorized copy of LOPEZ COBOL and that Parkin and Herrin had breached their obligation to compensate him for providing the LOPEZ COBOL system.
	OPINION/ORDER For the reasons we will explain. I 4 The facts and procedural history of this nine year old dispute are long and. The underlying claims were each dismissed on summary judgment. The non movant.1 GUS's contract claim comes to us in a slightly different posture HAL was awarded judgment as a matter of law after GUS prevailed in a jury trial and we present the facts related to the contract issue in the light most favorable to GUS.2 A In 1979. The CHAMPION PACKER program was a tracking system designed GUS any for use in the freight forwarding and shipping industry. licensed the software to Lopez. Lopez was to contribute LOPEZ COBOL for use in developing the new system. Parkin was to provide the system design and programming expertise. Herrin was to supply industry expertise. Was detained in a Mexican jail for seven months during the initial stages of the software development project. He was ousted from the company without recompense in March 1993. Lopez claimed that MEPAW was an unauthorized copy of LOPEZ COBOL and that Parkin and Herrin had breached their obligation to compensate him for providing the LOPEZ COBOL system.
	OPINION/ORDER Which was included in the sound track of the movie I Got the Hook Up (Hook Up). Westbound appeals from the district court's decision to grant summary judgment to defendant on the grounds that the alleged infringement was de minimis and therefore not actionable. The claims at issue in this appeal were originally asserted in an action filed on May 4. Based on the allegedly infringing work and ordered that amended complaints be filed.2 The claims in this case were brought by all four plaintiffs: Bridgeport and Southfield. Which are in the business of music publishing and exploiting musical composition copyrights. Which are in the business of recording and distributing sound recordings. It was conceded at the time of summary judgment. There seems to be no dispute either that
	OPINION/ORDER For the reasons we will explain. I 4 The facts and procedural history of this nine year old dispute are long and. The underlying claims were each dismissed on summary judgment. The non movant.1 GUS's contract claim comes to us in a slightly different posture HAL was awarded judgment as a matter of law after GUS prevailed in a jury trial and we present the facts related to the contract issue in the light most favorable to GUS.2 A In 1979. The CHAMPION PACKER program was a tracking system designed GUS any for use in the freight forwarding and shipping industry. licensed the software to Lopez. Lopez was to contribute LOPEZ COBOL for use in developing the new system. Parkin was to provide the system design and programming expertise. Herrin was to supply industry expertise. Was detained in a Mexican jail for seven months during the initial stages of the software development project. He was ousted from the company without recompense in March 1993. Lopez claimed that MEPAW was an unauthorized copy of LOPEZ COBOL and that Parkin and Herrin had breached their obligation to compensate him for providing the LOPEZ COBOL system.
	OPINION/ORDER A jury found for Altera on all claims and a judgment was entered for $30.6 million in damages. The SCPA aims to protect the substantial investment of innovative firms in creating the semiconductor chips that are
	OPINION/ORDER Karaoke is wildly popular. Countless people have lined up at various venues to perform their favorite songs with. Rights of the copyright owner is an
	OPINION/ORDER For the reasons we will explain. I 4 The facts and procedural history of this nine year old dispute are long and. The underlying claims were each dismissed on summary judgment. The non movant.1 GUS's contract claim comes to us in a slightly different posture HAL was awarded judgment as a matter of law after GUS prevailed in a jury trial and we present the facts related to the contract issue in the light most favorable to GUS.2 A In 1979. The CHAMPION PACKER program was a tracking system designed GUS any for use in the freight forwarding and shipping industry. licensed the software to Lopez. Lopez was to contribute LOPEZ COBOL for use in developing the new system. Parkin was to provide the system design and programming expertise. Herrin was to supply industry expertise. Was detained in a Mexican jail for seven months during the initial stages of the software development project. He was ousted from the company without recompense in March 1993. Lopez claimed that MEPAW was an unauthorized copy of LOPEZ COBOL and that Parkin and Herrin had breached their obligation to compensate him for providing the LOPEZ COBOL system.
	OPINION/ORDER For the reasons we will explain. I 4 The facts and procedural history of this nine year old dispute are long and. The underlying claims were each dismissed on summary judgment. The non movant.1 GUS's contract claim comes to us in a slightly different posture HAL was awarded judgment as a matter of law after GUS prevailed in a jury trial and we present the facts related to the contract issue in the light most favorable to GUS.2 A In 1979. The CHAMPION PACKER program was a tracking system designed GUS any for use in the freight forwarding and shipping industry. licensed the software to Lopez. Lopez was to contribute LOPEZ COBOL for use in developing the new system. Parkin was to provide the system design and programming expertise. Herrin was to supply industry expertise. Was detained in a Mexican jail for seven months during the initial stages of the software development project. He was ousted from the company without recompense in March 1993. Lopez claimed that MEPAW was an unauthorized copy of LOPEZ COBOL and that Parkin and Herrin had breached their obligation to compensate him for providing the LOPEZ COBOL system.
	OPINION/ORDER For the reasons we will explain. I 4 The facts and procedural history of this nine year old dispute are long and. The underlying claims were each dismissed on summary judgment. The non movant.1 GUS's contract claim comes to us in a slightly different posture HAL was awarded judgment as a matter of law after GUS prevailed in a jury trial and we present the facts related to the contract issue in the light most favorable to GUS.2 A In 1979. The CHAMPION PACKER program was a tracking system designed GUS any for use in the freight forwarding and shipping industry. licensed the software to Lopez. Lopez was to contribute LOPEZ COBOL for use in developing the new system. Parkin was to provide the system design and programming expertise. Herrin was to supply industry expertise. Was detained in a Mexican jail for seven months during the initial stages of the software development project. He was ousted from the company without recompense in March 1993. Lopez claimed that MEPAW was an unauthorized copy of LOPEZ COBOL and that Parkin and Herrin had breached their obligation to compensate him for providing the LOPEZ COBOL system.
	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
	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 Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred both in finding these claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations and in rejecting equitable estoppel as a basis to avoid the limitations bar. No other parties or claims are before The Honorab le Judith M. Were initially asserted in a complaint filed May 4. Sound recordings and their underlying musical compositions are separate works with their own distinct copyrights. Diamond Time's practice was to contact the proprietor or owner of the copyrights in the material its client wanted to use. Identify itself and the client on whose behalf it was acting. It would have Diamond Time undertake. Diamond Time maintains that it was not asked to obtain clearance for use of any other sample in
	OPINION/ORDER The primary questions before us are (1) whether the District Court erred in holding that a Michigan state court action. By the Williams group against Kid Rock is preempted by the Copyright Act under the developing doctrine of
	OPINION/ORDER We granted rehearing en banc in this case to decide whether the provision applies to lawsuits that are filed while the plaintiff is a confined prisoner but which are not decided until after he is released from confinement. I. BACKGROUND The factual and legal background of this case is set forth in some detail in the panel opinion. We will not repeat it at length here. All eleven of them were confined in the prison when the lawsuit was filed. Which is the part that concerns this issue. The lawsuit was filed on March 10. Judgment was entered on June 24. The six plaintiffs who were released from confinement during that interval are Danny Chadwick. 190 F.3d at 1283.The other five plaintiffs were still confined when judgment was entered in the district court but. Some of them have been released since then. All eleven of the plaintiffs are jointly represented in this appeal. Their counsel does not argue that any of those who were released after the date of the district court's judgment are. Our references hereafter to
	OPINION/ORDER For direct infringement under зз 501 and 106 of the Copyright Act because CoStar's copyrighted photographs were posted by LoopNet's subscribers on LoopNet's website. CoStar contended that the photographs were copied into LoopNet's computer system and that LoopNet therefore was a copier strictly liable for infringement of CoStar's rights under з 106. Regardless of whether LoopNet's role was passive when the photographs were copied into its system. Is simply the owner and manager of a system used by others who are violating CoStar's copyrights and is not an actual duplicator itself. It is not directly liable for copyright infringement. I CoStar is a national provider of commercial real estate information. It claims to have collected the most comprehensive database of 4 COSTAR GROUP v. LoopNet is an Internet service provider (
	OPINION/ORDER We granted rehearing en banc in this case to decide whether the provision applies to lawsuits that are filed while the plaintiff is a confined prisoner but which are not decided until after he is released from confinement. I. BACKGROUND The factual and legal background of this case is set forth in some detail in the panel opinion. We will not repeat it at length here. All eleven of them were confined in the prison when the lawsuit was filed. Which is the part that concerns this issue. Which is with the words of the statutory provision.
	HARRIS V. GARNER (6/27/2000, NO. 98-8899) We granted rehearing en banc in this case to decide whether the provision applies to lawsuits that are filed while the plaintiff is a confined prisoner but which are not decided until after he is released from confinement. BACKGROUND
	HARRIS V. GARNER (6/27/2000, NO. 98-8899) We granted rehearing en banc in this case to decide whether the provision applies to lawsuits that are filed while the plaintiff is a confined prisoner but which are not decided until after he is released from confinement. BACKGROUND
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judges This is an appeal in a copyright case. Holding that Southco was unlikely to succeed on the merits because the serial numbers lacked sufficient originality to be copyrighted. Holding that an affidavit submitted by Southco in opposition to Kanebridge's summary judgment motion was sufficient to demonstrate that the numbers reflected considerable creativity. We now hold that the numbers are not protected by copyright.
	WARREN PUBL'G CO. V. MICRODOS DATA CORP. Circuit Judge:
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from the district court's entry of a preliminary injunction1 enjoining a putative infringer from infringing the compilation copyright of a publisher of a cable television factbook. Finding that the copyright holder's system of selecting the names of communities under which to list the data in its factbook was sufficiently creative and original to warrant copyright protection. All have yet to be addressed by the district court. No final judgment was entered under 28 U.S.C. з 1291 because the court has not yet disposed of all the claims in the case and did not make its injunction a final judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). The order before us is an interlocutory order for an injunction that is subject to review under 28 U.S.C. з 1292(a)(1). 1 ** * Advertising & Publishing Corp. v. The focus of this case is the
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from the district court's entry of a preliminary injunction1 enjoining a putative infringer from infringing the compilation copyright of a publisher of a cable television factbook. System finding of that the the copyright selecting names of communities under which to list the data in its factbook was sufficiently creative and original to warrant copyright protection. All have yet to be addressed by the district court. No final judgment was entered under 28 U.S.C. з 1291 because the court has not yet disposed of all the claims in the case and did not make its injunction a final judgment pursuant to Fed. The order before us is an interlocutory order for an injunction that is subject to review under 28 U.S.C. з 1292(a)(1). 2 Publishing Corp. v. Did not have the benefit of our en banc opinion in BellSouth. Ed. 2d 232 (1994). 3 this case is the
	WARREN PUBL'G CO. V. MICRODOS DATA CORP. Circuit Judge:
	OPINION/ORDER One of which is an issue of first impression in this circuit: whether a state law claim alleging conversion of an idea is completely preempted by з 301 of the Copyright Act. Cotham liked Dunlap's idea and was invited by Dunlap to become the co founder of G&L Bank. Offered her the position of A detailed discussion of the intricate facts involved in this case is unnecessary because the outcome of this appeal depends upon whether the district court properly exercised federal subject matter jurisdiction. 3 1 President of G&L Bank. After Cotham and Griffith were on board. Before his employment term was to end. Dunlap was terminated from his position. Dunlap's claims in this appeal are based on the alleged breach of this employment agreement and the ownership and use of the G&L Bank trademark. (2) whether Dunlap's federally registered trademark was valid under 15 U.S.C. зз 1051. That they stole his Bank idea by continuing to operate the Bank after he was terminated and that they fraudulently induced him to give up his rights in the G&L Bank trademark and then continued to use the mark after his termination (
	U.S. V. MICROSOFT Holley argued the causes for appellant.
	OPINION/ORDER With them on the briefs were John L. Prabhu were on the brief of amici curiae The Association for Competitive Technology and Computing Technology Industry Association in support of appellant. Burton was on the brief for amicus curiae Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism in support of appellant. Getman was on the brief for amicus curiae Association for Objective Law in support of appellant. With them on the brief were A. Naughton were on the brief for amici curiae America Online. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Lee A. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Carl Lundgren. There are three principal aspects of this appeal. Because the substantive provisions of the order are flawed. Microsoft asserts that the trial judge committed ethical violations by engaging in impermissible ex parte contacts and making inappropriate public comments on the merits of the case while it was pending. The oral arguments before this court we find that some but not all of Microsoft's liability challenges have merit. There are several reasons supporting this conclusion.
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief was Sandra L. Of counsel on the brief were Michael D. Of counsel were Jerry A. Of counsel on the brief were Edwin G. Connected to each silo is a Library Control Unit that controls the robotic mechanisms in the silo and monitors their progress. The individual silos and Control Units are connected via a local area network to a Library Management Unit. Which is a computer that can direct and control several silos. A central element of this case concerns what occurs when the entire tape library is first turned on. When the Control Unit is powered up. Where it is loaded into the Control Unit's memory. StorageTek's claims in this case stem from the fact that the 9330 and 9311 computer code is copyrighted. Both the functional and maintenance code are automatically loaded into the RAM of the Control Unit and Management Unit upon startup. Copying the entire code is necessary to activate and run the library. (
	OPINION/ORDER Baumann were on brief. Were on brief. Were on the brief. Cosentino were on brief. Hochberg and Judith Jurin Semo were on brief. Royalties are apportioned among eight classes of claimants. In Phase II awards are made to individual copyright owners within each of the classes. The panel's proposal is then forwarded to the Librari an. Each of the petitioners here is a disappointed class claim ant challenging the Librarian's Phase I distribution of royal ties collected for the years 1990. Because our review of the Librarian's decision is limited. I. BACKGROUND In 1974 the Supreme Court ruled that a cable television system's retransmission of non network copyrighted pro graming to markets distant from those to which it was originally broadcast was not a
	OPINION/ORDER Are Detroit area real estate developers who brought suit against Crosswinds Communities and its principal shareholder. Which was The Honorable James L. Finding that they had been prejudiced by unnecessary delay between the time the plaintiffs had learned that construction was planned (or. The time that construction was undertaken) and the time that the complaint was filed. Even though the action was filed within the three year statute of limitations provided by the Copyright Act in 17 U.S.C. з 507(b). The dispositive question is whether the equitable doctrine of laches can be held to trump the statutorily prescribed period for filing suit under з 507(b). To the extent that the plaintiffs in this case are seeking only monetary damages and injunctive relief. To the extent that the relief sought is destruction of the condominium complex that allegedly infringes the plaintiffs' copyright. The facts before us suggest that this is indeed the extraordinary case in which the defense of laches is properly interposed.
	ELENA STURDZA V. UNITED ARAB EMIRATES With him on the briefs were Alyza D. Baker were on the brief for appellee The Government of the United Arab Emirates.
	ELENA STURDZA V. UNITED ARAB EMIRATES With him on the briefs were Alyza D. Baker were on the brief for appellee The Government of the United Arab Emirates.
	OPINION/ORDER 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
	OPINION/ORDER 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
	HAROLDS STORES, INC. V. DILLARD DEPT. STORES, INC. That it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law after trial. Dillard is a retail department store. Harold's is a retail clothing store with 22 stores in 7 states. Harold's represents to its customers that the original print fabric garments are available solely from Harold's. Harold's offers unique custom printed fabric designs in skirts and other sportswear that are not available from Harold's competitors. Oklahoma were offering for sale skirts with print fabric patterns identical to print skirts that Harold's had sold during the previous 1991 to 1992 sales season. The Dillard skirts were priced at $28.00 to $30.00. 223435. from Wadesboro were made from fabric similar or identical to fabric used by CMT to manufacture skirts for Harold's. That Dillard could sell the garments in markets where Harold's did not have stores. Ruling that the Copyright Act did not preempt Harold's claim under the Oklahoma Antitrust Act because the state law claim was qualitatively different from. 1994 order was fully 160 days out of time.
	OPINION/ORDER Inc. (
	BATEMAN V. MNEMONICS, INC. This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Bateman v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This appeal requires us to address two issues of first impression in this circuit: (1) what methodology is to be employed in analyzing claims of copyright infringement of computer software. (2) whether interface specifications are entitled to copyright protection. It is important to set forth the factual and technical background to this complex case. Both Bateman and Fricker are engineers. Including Generex Corporation.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E6C74EBA1558CF09882570BC00779208/$file/0357052.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Eisenhower's fascinating written account of World War II is the subject of a more mundane. I was approached by representatives of various publishing houses. Are often inclined to use contemporary accounts as source materials . . . . Certain of these books on the African and European campaigns were riddled with inaccuracies. They contained conclusions that had slight basis in fact and were the hasty conceptions or mis 15370 TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX v. Who were functioning partners for the proposal. Pointed out errors in these publications and said that since these were written during my lifetime and were not denied or corrected by me. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="545"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec95/93-3234.man.html">BATEMAN V. MNEMONICS, INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bateman v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This appeal requires us to address two issues of first impression in this circuit: (1) what methodology is to be employed in analyzing claims of copyright infringement of computer software. (2) whether interface specifications are entitled to copyright protection. It is important to set forth the factual and technical background to this complex case. Both Bateman and Fricker are engineers. Including Generex Corporation.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="539"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CE07E4E01DB1935C8825729D007EC8C4/$file/0615886.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> When the district court is asked to order outright disclosure. The burden of proof on the party seeking to vitiate the privilege is preponderance of the evidence. We conclude the appellees in this case have failed to make the requisite evidentiary showing to support a finding that the crime fraud exception applies. Leiber et al. and Capitol Records et al. (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2472.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. The district court determined that Yankee's evidentiary support for its federal copyright and trade dress claims was irrelevant with respect to the state claim for tortious interference. The court also concluded that the alleged actionable behavior was not committed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/01/96-6371.htm">96-6371 -- TRANSWESTERN PUBLISHING CO. V. MULTIMEDIA MARKETING ASSOCIATES INC. -- 01/08/1998<BR></A><BR> The account executives arranged information so that it was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E9CE41F2E90CC8D788256EF400822372/$file/0355894.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that the defendants are not liable for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement and affirm the district court's partial grant of summary judgment. This appeal is the latest reprise of that recurring conflict. The plaintiffs in the consolidated cases ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2244.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was tried to a jury. Local housing authorities that want grants from the federal department of Housing and Urban Development have to complete forms prescribed by HUD. There is more. Decisions have to be made regarding choice and size of font. These decisions were made by Bucklew. The ones we have named all involve the appearance of the forms. Software that is read only by the computer and not by its Nos. 02 2244. 02 2299 3 human user is also copyrightable. It is unexplained what he means by this or whether it has been infringed. The trial focused on one of the four forms (as the parties refer to the conversion of a prescribed HUD form into an electronic form that computes and displays the arithmetic manipulations that HUD requires) copyrighted by Bucklew that he claimed were copied by HAB. This form is a transformation of HUD form 52566. Some similarities between a copyrighted work and a work alleged to infringe it are consistent with an inference of independent creation. In that case evidence that the alleged infringer had access to (that is. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar96/93-3234.ma2_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar96/93-3234.ma2_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1066.html">FESTO CORP V. SHOKETSU KINZOKU KOGYO KABUSHIKI CO<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <u>Gerald T. Of counsel on the brief were <u>Charles L. Also of counsel on the brief was <u>James B. With him on the brief was <u>Louis T. Of counsel on the brief was <u>Joseph R. Of counsel on the brief were <u>John G. Also of counsel on the brief were <u>Rory J. With him on the brief were <u>Kendrew H. Of counsel on the brief were <u>Perry M. Also on the brief was <u>Mark J. Of counsel on the brief were <u>Frederick T. Also of counsel on the brief was <u>J. Of counsel on the brief was <u>James W. <u>Circuit Judge</u>.</p> <p ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2001/00-10510.man.html">GREENBERG V. NAT'L GEOGRAPHIC SOC'Y (3/22/2001, NO. 00-10510)<BR></A><BR> Holding that the allegedly infringing work was a revision of a prior collective work that fell within the defendants' privilege under з 201(c). Because we find that the defendants' product is not merely a revision of the prior collective work but instead constitutes a new collective work that lies beyond the scope of з 201(c). Is responsible for the publication of National Geographic Magazine ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2001/00-10510.man.html">GREENBERG V. NAT'L GEOGRAPHIC SOC'Y (3/22/2001, NO. 00-10510)<BR></A><BR> Holding that the allegedly infringing work was a revision of a prior collective work that fell within the defendants' privilege under з 201(c). Because we find that the defendants' product is not merely a revision of the prior collective work but instead constitutes a new collective work that lies beyond the scope of з 201(c). Is responsible for the publication of National Geographic Magazine ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982228.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case requires us to determine under what circumstances the configuration of a product can constitute inherently distinctive trade dress that is protectable under federal law. Because we conclude that a product's configuration qualifies as inherently distinctive trade dress if it is capable of functioning as a designator of an individual source of the product. The parties' roles were reversed: SanGiacomo sued Ashley charging that it had infringed the trade dress of SanGiacomo's bedroom furniture and seeking a declaratory judgment that a design patent obtained by Ashley was invalid as a matter of law. The design and overall appearance of the Sommerset suite were unique and unlike any other bedroom furniture ever sold. Although these individual features have been used in other bedroom suites. Another expert opined that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2475.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C.</SPAN> was on brief. LLP</SPAN> was on brief. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0082p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Both Fox and Murray Hill presented expert evidence to establish whether the JATW movie was substantially similar to the CTBC screenplay. Fox argues that it was The Honorable Walter Herbert Rice. That the trial was tainted by improper expert testimony by Murray Hill's expert witness and by misleading jury instructions. That the damages awarded were unsupported in law or fact. Murray Hill cross appealed and argues that it was entitled to the full damages awarded by the jury and also to attorney's fees. We reverse because Fox was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. I The principal author of the JATW screenplay was Randy Kornfield. The author of the CTBC screenplay was Brian Webster. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1533.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That a district court does not have the authority under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D093C847D5F1044488256DB7005B9CAF/$file/0135352.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lamps Plus seeks reversal on the ground that the district court erred in concluding that A Boy's Victorian style table lamp (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C38AD9E9A70DB15188256B5700813AD7/$file/0055521.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is a professional photographer who has copyrighted many of his images of the American West. Some of these images are located on Kelly's web site or other web sites with which Kelly has a license agreement. When Kelly discovered that his photographs were part of Arriba's search engine database. The creation and use of the thumbnails in the search engine is a fair use. The display of the larger image is a violation of Kelly's exclusive right to publicly display his works. I. The search engine at issue in this case is unconventional in that it displays the results of a user's query as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/33083B47394469AA88256D660081AAAA/$file/0255667.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because questions regarding the ownership of a copyright are governed by state law. We determine that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking and affirm. Which is a producer and marketer of motion picture. Fox was to air the initial exhibition of the shows on Fox Broadcasting and later distribute the series to other television outlets for a period of 15 years. Scholastic was entitled to a portion of the profits made during the distribution phase. The contract will expire in 2013. Which was not a party to the con 9808 SCHOLASTIC ENTERTAINMENT v. Was airing the Goosebumps series. Claiming that it was owed at least $2.7 million as a result of the FFC airings because they constituted a distribution under the agreement. Fox asserted that the FFC airings were exhibitions and. Scholastic was not entitled to additional licensing fees. Scholastic claims it was deprived of the benefit of the original agreement between itself and Fox. This unauthorized licensing frustrated the entire purpose of the agreement because the Fox airings alone were not intended to comprise Scholastic's total compensation for the production of the series. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0149p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> WITT hired away several of ATC's other employees and created a transmission parts catalog that was almost identical to the ATC catalog. On which Hester had worked while he was with * The Honorable Donald E. I There are three areas of dispute between ATC and the Appellees: (1) the relationship between ATC and Kenny Hester. Produced a flyer indicating that WITT was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/07/022309P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/38bb76995113d9ee88256bb30081aeb2/$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. з 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="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991617.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As follows: Footnote AI is deleted from page 11 of the opinion and moved to page 6. ORDER We have considered the petition for rehearing in this case. Luttig and Traxler voted to deny rehearing en banc.* Fewer than a majority of the circuit judges who are in regular active service having voted for rehearing en banc. It is accordingly ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the petition for rehearing en banc shall be. It hereby is. The panel considered the petition for rehearing and is of opinion it is without merit. It is accordingly ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the petition for rehearing shall be. It hereby is. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the opinion in this case shall be. It hereby is. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the slip opinion shall be. It hereby is. Which Footnote 10 is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Judge King Footnote AI is attached hereto and made a part He would grant rehearing and require judgment to be entered for the defendants. Footnote AI [PICTURES NOT AVAILABLE] Plaintiff's Drawing The Accused Work A copy of the plaintiff's shield logo and the accused work of the NFL Properties is shown above. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/495ab3dc0228e24688256c090059d5af/$FILE/0015166.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is withdrawn and replaced by the amended opinion filed concurrently with this order. The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are denied. We have jurisdiction over these multiple appeals from the amended judgment and two post judgment orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. з 1291. The jury's award of punitive damages was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DE8297F56287C0BC882572DC007DACC6/$file/0655405.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. з 1292(a)(1).1 Google argues that we lack jurisdiction over the preliminary injunction to the extent it enforces unregistered copyrights. Registration is generally a jurisdictional prerequisite to a suit for copyright infringement. As we will further explain below. Are connected to networks known collectively as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/495AB3DC0228E24688256C090059D5AF/$file/0015166.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is withdrawn and replaced by the amended opinion filed concurrently with this order. The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are denied. We have jurisdiction over these multiple appeals from the amended judgment and two post judgment orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. з 1291. The jury's award of punitive damages was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/38BB76995113D9EE88256BB30081AEB2/$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. з 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="514"></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="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510143.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Thompkins ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1574.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLP were on brief. Hall & Stewart were on brief. Hoag & Eliot LLP was on brief. Tingley sought to have the judgment in the first action modified to preserve the claims of the second action. BACKGROUND Bay State is a Boston. Tingley is a Florida corporation which creates. The Florida action was transferred to the District of Massachusetts. Tingley obtained several weekly status reports that were prepared by CSC consultants in connection with the Bay State software project. Then loaded them into the software that CSC was creating for Bay State. The motion was denied. A stipulation and order of dismissal was signed by the parties and entered by the court on September 11. The applicability of the doctrine of res judicata is a question of law subject to plenary review. A final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties from relitigating claims that were raised or could have been raised in that action. Because we find that the first element is not satisfied. (2) final judgments rendered in each individual action are final judgments. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2127.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Two conflicting interpretations of the Act's registration requirement have been upheld by circuit courts: 1) registration occurs when the copyright owner submits an application for registration to the copyright office. We hold that the second interpretation is correct. A La Resolana representative familiar with the drawings was in Angel Fire. The suit was docketed on November 20. The effective registration date was November 19. Finding the March 10 letter was not admissible evidence. The district court concluded that the drawings were not registered. ANALYSIS Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising under the Copyright Act of 1976. It is axiomatic that subject matter jurisdiction. Copyright law consisted of a confusing mix of federal and state laws that differed greatly depending on the state and whether a work was published or unpublished. A primary purpose of the Act was to improve this state of affairs. 5746 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1238.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Jonathan K. Of counsel was John A. With him on the brief were Kelsey I. With him on the brief were Christopher J. With him on the brief was Charles F. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were James A. With him on the brief were J. Of 2counsel was Herbert C. This is an interlocutory appeal by Cordis Corp. from a decision of the U.S. We agreed that the interlocutory appeal </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/03/01-6347.htm">01-6347 -- MICHAEL FOUNDATION INC. V. URANTIA FOUNDATION -- 03/11/2003<BR></A><BR> Background</center> <p> Urantia Foundation is a charitable trust formed under Illinois law. Michael Foundation is a non profit corporation organized under Oklahoma law. Or such of that history as is available. Sadler became convinced that the Conduit was channeling </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F51484D14B5306F388256C3100541786/$file/0016550.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a bankruptcy contest over unregistered copyrights between a bank that got a security interest in the 13694 IN RE: WORLD AUXILIARY POWER CO. copyrights from the owners and perfected it under state law. These simple facts are all that matters to the outcome of this case. Although the details are complex. Some of these copyrighted materials were attached to the Supplemental Type Certificates. As is common. Their copyrights were among their major assets. Aerocon was working on a venture with another company. As this litigation was pending on that date. After this transaction was completed. Buying off the trustees' and the bank's interests in the copyrights would have been a sensible. (These adversary proceedings were later consolidated.). The appeal was transferred to the district court. ANALYSIS We have jurisdiction to review the judgment of the district court13 and we review de novo.14 Copyright and bankruptcy law set the context for this litigation. The legal issue is priority of security interests. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19938474.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from a permanent injunction enjoining defendants from infringing a copyright of Warren Publishing. The subject matter of this case is the 1988 issue of the Factbook. These entities are called multiple system operators. Information on each cable system and MSO entry is broken down into a uniform set of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="502"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/mar96/94-6025.html">COUNTRY KIDS 'N CITY SLICKS, INC. V. SHEEN<BR></A><BR> Size and shape of the dolls are not copyrightable features. (2) misinterpreting the standard for copyright infringement by requiring Plaintiff to show that the Defendants' dolls were a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="500"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/M830.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> McDermott Will & Emery LLP. With them on the brief were Paul Devinsky and Natalia V. Also on the brief were Terrence P. With her on the brief were James T. Of counsel on the brief were Albert L. With him on the brief was Pankaj Venugopal. Also on the brief were Constantine L. With her on the brief were William L. With him on the brief was Steven C. Of counsel on the brief was Judith M. With him on the brief were Jay R. Of counsel on the brief was Keith A. With her on the brief was Peter J. Of counsel on the brief were Robert C. Of counsel on the brief were Scott A.M. With him on the brief were Steven C. With her on the brief were Harold J. Also on the brief were Charles S. With him on the brief was Richard J. With him on the brief were Kenneth W. Also on the brief were Marc S. Of counsel was Herbert C Wamsley. With him on the brief was Monica Mucchetti Eno. With him on the brief was Simon J. Of counsel on the brief was Vicki G. With him on the brief was Philip J. Of counsel on the brief were Peter J. LLC ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="497"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0170n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We determine that the Proposed Agreement was never ratified and that Plaintiffs should not be equitably estopped from pursuing their infringement claims. Even after they were granted five extensions by the district court. Within the time periods provided by these Rules shall indicate that the asserted facts are not disputed for purposes of summary judgment. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="497"></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'>а </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'>а </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'>а </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'>аа </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'>а </span>Mr. Mso bidi font family: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="497"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1954.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kreiger LLP</SPAN> was on brief for appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1024.html">DSC COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION V. PULSE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were John M. Of counsel on the brief were Thomas M. With him on the brief were Joseph B. Of counsel on the brief were Jonathan T. Of counsel were William F. A DLC is placed in a location central to a number of subscribers. Copper lines are run over the relatively short distances from the DLC to the subscribers. <p> The DLC acts as an analog to digital converter and as a signal modulator demodulator. The electrical signals that travel over the copper lines between the DLC and the subscribers are voice frequency analog signals. The signals that travel between the DLC and the central telephone office are digital signals that travel over a high bandwidth (e.g. The DLC converts the various analog signals it receives from individual subscribers to a digital format and modulates those digital signals into a high bandwidth composite signal that is sent to the central office through the digital channel. The DLC performs the reverse process on signals traveling from the central office to individual subscribers.<p> The devices at the heart of the dispute in this case are the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2003/022497p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is an approximately two minute segment of a movie. Video Pipeline challenges the injunction on the ground that its internet use of the clip previews is protected by the fair use doctrine and. Inc. and Miramax Film Corp.1 may not receive the benefits of copyright protection because they have engaged in copyright misuse. The requested trailer is then </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2498_013.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He is a white. Fred is a plush doll and when one squeezes Fred's extended finger on his right hand. Is a white. Two of Fartman's seven jokes are the same as two of the 10 spoken by Fred. Was not happy when Novelty. Argues that Illinois's punitive damages remedy for unfair competition is preempted by federal law. Contends that the attorneys' fees awarded by the district court should have been capped according to Tekky's contingent fee arrangement with its attorneys. It turns out that there is a niche market for farting dolls. It is quite lucrative. Fred was just the beginning. Is owned by Todd Green. Green testified that he might have photographed Fred since </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may95/93-8474.opa.html">WARREN PUBLISHING V. MICRODOS DATA<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Warren Publishing v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This is an appeal from a permanent injunction enjoining defendants from infringing a copyright of Warren Publishing. The subject matter of this case is the 1988 issue of the Factbook. These entities are called multiple system operators. Information on each cable system and MSO entry is broken down into a uniform set of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2002/002772.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. (collectively Geac) is the undisputed owner of certain proprietary. The system is designed to provide valuable services to the business community at large. Millennium contains highly confidential information and trade secrets that were designed and developed by Geac at great effort and expense. Int. (collectively Grace) deliberately have infringed on Geac's copyrighted software while in the course of providing consulting and maintenance services to companies licensed by Geac to use its software. The case was tried to a jury which returned a verdict in favor of the defendants. GEAC'S MILLENNIUM SOFTWARE Among the United States copyrighted products owned by Geac are twelve different software business applications. Trade secrets and highly confidential information are found in a wide variety of materials relating to Millennium. Millennium runs on a large mainframe computer that is typically licensed to large corporations and institutions. At issue here is the Human Resources application known as HR:M. Each of which are self contained units of code. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="493"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may95/93-8474.opa.html">WARREN PUBLISHING V. MICRODOS DATA<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Warren Publishing v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This is an appeal from a permanent injunction enjoining defendants from infringing a copyright of Warren Publishing. The subject matter of this case is the 1988 issue of the Factbook. These entities are called multiple system operators. Information on each cable system and MSO entry is broken down into a uniform set of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2A31B9ADAD5C7C56882572EC000096D9/$file/0457143.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 3577. Neither party in that case raised the question of whether state law counts as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/08468E0D5E386A2F882572AC0077AD1A/$file/0457143.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That CCBill and CWIE were immune from liability for state law unfair competition and false advertising claims based on the Communications Decency Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="489"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1552.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lockhart LLP</U> were on brief. Weld</U> were on brief. That Gillman's infringement was willful. The Supreme Court held there was a constitutional right to jury trial when statutory damages are claimed in copyright actions. <U>See</U> <U>Feltner</U> v. <U>Columbia Pictures Television. That the evidence was insufficient to support the court's findings of infringement. Some customers of the two companies were in common. </FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="487"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0233p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No other claims or parties are before us.1 After review of the record and the arguments presented on appeal. I. The claims at issue in this appeal were first asserted on May 4. Was based on the claim that the rap song </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="487"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199905/98-1263a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Cary H. With him on the brief were Frank W. Praed were on the brief for intervenors. The Librarian of Congress is charged with establishing the rates and terms for compul sory licenses of certain subscription transmissions of digital audio music. Claiming that it is too low. Because the Librarian's interpretation and application of the statute are permissible and consistent with established law. The petition for review is denied in part and granted in part. The case is hereby remanded. Digital audio services were not required to pay recording companies and recording artists for their performances. Although copyright owners now have protected interests under the 1995 law. They are nontheless required to give licenses to those who seek to transmit sound recordings. The terms of licenses are either negotiated by the parties or set pursuant to arbitration. Section 114 was amended on October 28. The only changes brought by the 1998 law that are relevant to this proceeding are that s 114(f)(1) and (2) were renumbered to s 114(f)(1)(A) and (B). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="487"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/182B1554DB1C5CA088256E310079A938/$file/0257011.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2003 is amended as follows: At Slip Opinion. Add the following after </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1995/95a1231p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These eleven consolidated[fn1] actions were brought by concerned Pennsylvanians who believed that they were being charged excessive fees and interest on their credit cards and that these charges violated Pennsylvania consumer protection laws. None of the defendants are Pennsylvania lending institutions. The cases were all brought in Pennsylvania state courts and then removed by the defendants to the federal system.[fn2] These cases require that we resolve the conflict between state consumer protection law and federal banking law. We will first consider the district courts' holdings that removal jurisdiction was proper. We will reverse the district courts on this issue. The Supreme Court's conservative extension of the complete preemption doctrine and the application of the Third Circuit's two pronged test establish that federal jurisdiction is lacking in those cases in which the plaintiffs did not amend their complaints to allege federal claims. We will next consider claims particular to these actions. We will affirm the district court to the extent that the court held that plaintiffs' state law claims regarding late charges and over limit fees were substantively preempted. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2290.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom <U>Alfredo Castellanos</U> was on brief for appellant.</FONT> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug96/94-5262.opa.html">MITEK HOLDINGS, INC. V. ARCE ENG. CO.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Mitek Holdings. In those instances where elements were protectable and appropriated by the putative infringer. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="485"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug96/94-5262.opa.html">MITEK HOLDINGS, INC. V. ARCE ENG. CO.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Mitek Holdings. In those instances where elements were protectable and appropriated by the putative infringer. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2001/99-14123.man.html">FOLEY V. LUSTER (5/2/2001, NO. 99-14123)<BR></A><BR> We decide whether a state common law claim for indemnification is preempted by the Copyright Act. Whether a jury instruction was confusing. Whether the claimants in an indemnity action were required to apportion damages among defendant Luster and others that potentially played a role in the copyright infringement. BACKGROUND</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2001/99-14123.man.html">FOLEY V. LUSTER (5/2/2001, NO. 99-14123)<BR></A><BR> We decide whether a state common law claim for indemnification is preempted by the Copyright Act. Whether a jury instruction was confusing. Whether the claimants in an indemnity action were required to apportion damages among defendant Luster and others that potentially played a role in the copyright infringement. BACKGROUND</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021999.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bouchat asserts that the court erroneously failed to accord him the benefit of a statutory presumption that an infringer's revenues are entirely attributable to the infringement. The team was to leave its entire Browns identity in Cleveland. He began drawing logo designs based on the various names that the team was considering. Bouchat's Shield Drawing was found to have been mistakenly used by National Football League Properties. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1994/94a0910p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will vacate the Order of the district court and we will remand the matter for further proceedings. I. Introduction and Factual Background[fn1] AT&T is a long distance telecommunications carrier that. Its rates and practices are governed by tariffs it files with the Federal Communications Commission. Only the reseller is a customer of AT&T. The end users are customers of the reseller and not of AT&T. Appellee Winback is a reseller of 800 inbound telecommunications services and appellee Inga is its president. Hereafter we usually will refer to both simply as Winback. As are other resellers. Winback is both a customer and a competitor of AT&T. Was infringing on AT&T's trademarks and service marks. Falsely representing that it was affiliated with AT&T and passing itself off as AT&T.[fn3] The parties resolved the case by entering into a Consent Final Order and Injunction. Were responsible for any infringing acts.[fn5] Consequently. The Final Order and Injunction was amended to obligate One Stop to serve each of its sales agents with a copy of the Order. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTAyNjMtY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/04-0263-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Appellants are freelance photographers and authors whose photographs and/or written works were originally published in various issues of the National Geographic Magazine. These photographs and writings have now been published in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CA673A8BD7057FC088256D3A00546401/$file/0156069.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who will raise the mother's children when the mother dies. The script was made into a CBS movie called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="479"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTAyNjMtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0263-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Appellants are freelance photographers and authors whose photographs and/or written works were originally published in various issues of the National Geographic Magazine. These photographs and writings have now been published in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="477"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2002/01-14511.opn.html">PALMER V. BRAUN (4/9/2002, NO. 01-14511)<BR></A><BR> The district court denied the request for a preliminary injunction after determining that Palmer was unlikely to succeed on the merits of his claim. THE AVATAR COURSE</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="477"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/09/95-1394.htm">95-1394 -- MITEL, INC. V. IQTEL, INC. -- 09/22/1997<BR></A><BR> At issue is the protectability of a set of four digit numeric instructions known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="477"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2061A.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We described it as a case </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="477"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar96/93-3234.ma2.html">BATEMAN V. MNEMONICS, INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bateman v. Substitutes the following opinion:<p> This appeal requires us to address two issues of first impression in this circuit: (1) what methodology is to be employed in analyzing claims of copyright infringement of computer software. (2) whether interface specifications are entitled to copyright protection. It is important to set forth the factual and technical background to this complex case. Both Bateman and Fricker are engineers. Including Generex Corporation.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="477"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2002/01-14511.opn.html">PALMER V. BRAUN (4/9/2002, NO. 01-14511)<BR></A><BR> The district court denied the request for a preliminary injunction after determining that Palmer was unlikely to succeed on the merits of his claim. THE AVATAR COURSE</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="477"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-4125.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which were consolidated and transferred to the Northern District of Illinois by the Multidistrict Litigation Panel. Against John Deep and corporations that are controlled by him and need not be discussed separately. Claim that Deep's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="477"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar96/93-3234.ma2.html">BATEMAN V. MNEMONICS, INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bateman v. Substitutes the following opinion:<p> This appeal requires us to address two issues of first impression in this circuit: (1) what methodology is to be employed in analyzing claims of copyright infringement of computer software. (2) whether interface specifications are entitled to copyright protection. It is important to set forth the factual and technical background to this complex case. Both Bateman and Fricker are engineers. Including Generex Corporation.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0223n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Reasoning that (1) the defendants were not the prevailing parties within the meaning of Buckhannon Board and Care Home. (2) even if they were the prevailing parties. Was nearly one thousand pages long and contained approximately 500 separate counts set forth in more than 5. Only 14 of which are at issue in this appeal. These 14 actions were among the nearly 110 separate complaints served on the defendants and their affiliates in September of 2001. None of which are at issue here. Believing that they were the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19985651.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A copy of the opinion is annexed hereto. The allegedly infringing work is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jun2004/Jun22/03-50859.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Two paragraphs of these agreements are at the center of the parties' dispute: IX. Other documents prepared by the Architect for this project are the instruments of the Architect's service for use solely with respect to this project and the Architect shall be deemed the author of these documents and shall retain all common law. Copy or cause to have copied. Except that the stated base architectural fee for one of the projects was $250. After all five projects were completed. In WHA sued several related Trammell Crow entities. refer to all the entities collectively as TCR. 3 1 We will designing The North Bend. Construction Documents for Trammell Crow Residential utilizing plans which are copyrighted property of Womack+Hampton Architects. An agreement was reached between Womack+Hampton Architects. Trammell Crow Residential and Chiles Architects allowing him to utilize our designs on that development for a Use Fee which is common in this industry. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jun2004/Jun22/03-50549.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Two paragraphs of these agreements are at the center of the parties' dispute: IX. Other documents prepared by the Architect for this project are the instruments of the Architect's service for use solely with respect to this project and the Architect shall be deemed the author of these documents and shall retain all common law. Copy or cause to have copied. Except that the stated base architectural fee for one of the projects was $250. After all five projects were completed. In WHA sued several related Trammell Crow entities. refer to all the entities collectively as TCR. 3 1 We will designing The North Bend. Construction Documents for Trammell Crow Residential utilizing plans which are copyrighted property of Womack+Hampton Architects. An agreement was reached between Womack+Hampton Architects. Trammell Crow Residential and Chiles Architects allowing him to utilize our designs on that development for a Use Fee which is common in this industry. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-50859.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Two paragraphs of these agreements are at the center of the parties' dispute: IX. Other documents prepared by the Architect for this project are the instruments of the Architect's service for use solely with respect to this project and the Architect shall be deemed the author of these documents and shall retain all common law. Copy or cause to have copied. Except that the stated base architectural fee for one of the projects was $250. After all five projects were completed. In WHA sued several related Trammell Crow entities. refer to all the entities collectively as TCR. 3 1 We will designing The North Bend. Construction Documents for Trammell Crow Residential utilizing plans which are copyrighted property of Womack+Hampton Architects. An agreement was reached between Womack+Hampton Architects. Trammell Crow Residential and Chiles Architects allowing him to utilize our designs on that development for a Use Fee which is common in this industry. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-50549.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Two paragraphs of these agreements are at the center of the parties' dispute: IX. Other documents prepared by the Architect for this project are the instruments of the Architect's service for use solely with respect to this project and the Architect shall be deemed the author of these documents and shall retain all common law. Copy or cause to have copied. Except that the stated base architectural fee for one of the projects was $250. After all five projects were completed. In WHA sued several related Trammell Crow entities. refer to all the entities collectively as TCR. 3 1 We will designing The North Bend. Construction Documents for Trammell Crow Residential utilizing plans which are copyrighted property of Womack+Hampton Architects. An agreement was reached between Womack+Hampton Architects. Trammell Crow Residential and Chiles Architects allowing him to utilize our designs on that development for a Use Fee which is common in this industry. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="473"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2104.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. We affirm.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTAxNTEtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0151-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Published a book entitled Currier and Ives: America Imagined (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/08/003420P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concluded that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9B0A55634A78267788256E35007C151D/$file/0255797.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The USENET.1 Because AOL provides its subscribers access to the USENET is an abbreviation of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="468"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992255.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 7 the references to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="468"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200214131.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issue is whether Siemens's refusal to sell or license patented or copyrighted goods to the appellants is an illegal use of monopoly power in a secondary market. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="468"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2003/013720p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court found that the Copyright Office's rulemaking 4 with respect to the Internet </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="462"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2403.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Character generation is the process of placing text over video and audio. Only portions of the 1995 agreement are relevant to this case. Are compatible only with a video component called a PCI bus. The programming language for Macintosh and Windows machines was similarly incompatible. It soon became clear that the personal computing market was going the way of Windows. That all other intellectual property rights not licensed by the agreement were deemed held exclusively by MSI. Then [Media 100] shall have a paid up license to (1) modify the CG Option 2.0 source code. This new product line was named </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="462"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/102E2880CDD98F8488256E5A00707CC8/$file/0055363.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Holding that their California state claims were foreclosed because Abercrombie's use of the photograph was protected by the First Amendment. Those claims were also preempted by the federal Copyright Act. That Hawaii law was the proper choice of law for some of these claims. That the Lanham Act claim was precluded by the First Amendment and it was also precluded by the nominative fair use doctrine. That there was insufficient evidence to sustain the negli13169 gence or defamation claims. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. з 1291. Factual Background Abercrombie is an outfitter catering to young people. The Quarterly is Abercrombie's largest advertising vehicle. The primary purpose of the Quarterly is to build brand awareness and increase sales. Each issue is over 250 pages in length and embraces a theme such as collegiate lifestyle. Approximately one quarter of each issue is devoted to stories. The t shirts were advertised for sale in the Quarterly. Still another article entitled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="462"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F5FC54966492D55688256AC600156663/$file/0055363.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Holding that their California state claims were foreclosed because Abercrombie's use of the photograph was protected by the First Amendment. Those claims were also preempted by the federal Copyright Act. That Hawaii law was the proper choice of law for some of these claims. That the Lanham Act claim was precluded by the First Amendment and it was also precluded by the nominative fair use doctrine. That there was insufficient evidence to sustain the negli13169 gence or defamation claims. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. з 1291. Factual Background Abercrombie is an outfitter catering to young people. The Quarterly is Abercrombie's largest advertising vehicle. The primary purpose of the Quarterly is to build brand awareness and increase sales. Each issue is over 250 pages in length and embraces a theme such as collegiate lifestyle. Approximately one quarter of each issue is devoted to stories. The t shirts were advertised for sale in the Quarterly. Still another article entitled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="460"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2014.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P. 59(e) is ever available to alter or amend a default judgment entered under Fed. The judgment was based on statutory damages for sixteen albums that each included at least one of two infringed songs. The court at the default judgment hearing found that such damages and profits were not proven. To amend the judgment to reduce the damages award. </P> <P> Sonolux's attempt to remove the default and the entry at all of a default judgment was heard and rejected by a second judge. The statutory damages award for the copyright infringement was reduced from $1. 000 on the ground that the larger amount was based on an incorrect reading of the statutory damages provision of the Copyright Act. We vacate the amount of that judgment and remand the amount determination to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. </P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="458"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2002/01-11413.opn.html">CALHOUN V. LILLENAS PUBL'G (7/23/2002, NO. 01-11413)<BR></A><BR> The district court found that Calhoun had no claim for copyright infringement because there was insufficient evidence to show that (1) McGee had access to Calhoun's song </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="458"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6205C146C29519CC88256E0B005D8100/$file/0156695.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. з 1291 and affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment to Forsythe. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="458"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2002/01-11413.opn.html">CALHOUN V. LILLENAS PUBL'G (7/23/2002, NO. 01-11413)<BR></A><BR> The district court found that Calhoun had no claim for copyright infringement because there was insufficient evidence to show that (1) McGee had access to Calhoun's song </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="458"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2016.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: Page 10. Polich & Shaw was on brief for plaintiffs appellees/cross appellants Taing Tao. Judgment was entered in favor of plaintiffs. Gamma was awarded $2. Because we hold that four works were infringed. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND Television Broadcasts Ltd. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="458"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1995/94a0973p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a trade dress infringement action in which plaintiff Versa Products Company. Which Versa maintains copies the product configuration of the B 316.[fn1] The action was brought under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. That there was a likelihood of confusion of the sources of Bifold's Domino Junior and Versa's B 316 valves. In connection with which we are called upon to determine whether the jurisprudence that lowers the standard to a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="458"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A419A63973E4E91788256DD50079411E/$file/0257011.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The King is dead. I A Plaintiffs are a group of companies and individuals holding copyrights in various materials relating to Elvis Presley. Is the registered 15850 ELVIS PRESLEY ENTER'S v. Plaintiffs Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller are songwriters who own copyrights in many of Elvis' most famous songs. Plaintiff Alfred Wertheimer is a professional photographer who owns numerous copyrighted photographs of Elvis. Many Plaintiffs are in the business of licensing their copyrights. Plaintiffs allege that thousands of copies were sent to retail outlets and other distributors. In depth look at the life and career of a man whose popularity is unrivaled in the history of show business and who continues to attract millions of new fans each year. Sixteen hour series is brimming with classic film clips. PASSPORT VIDEO 15851 Every Film and Television Appearance is represented in this series as well as Rare Footage Of Many of Elvis' Tours & Concerts (emphasis in original). The biography itself is indeed exhaustive. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="456"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200111413.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. as a third party defendant. 3 1 because there was insufficient evidence to show that (1) McGee had access to Calhoun's song </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="452"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2000/99-10087.man.html">LEIGH V. WARNER BROS., INC. (5/25/2000, NO. 99-10087)<BR></A><BR> The role of the court in determining whether images are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="452"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2000/99-10087.man.html">LEIGH V. WARNER BROS., INC. (5/25/2000, NO. 99-10087)<BR></A><BR> The role of the court in determining whether images are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="450"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1399.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellant. Lesser were on brief for appellee. I. Background Lotus 1 2 3 is a spreadsheet computer program that enables users to perform various functions and calculations. The substance of which is set forth in our prior opinion. Holding as a matter of first impression that the 1 2 3 menu command hierarchy was an uncopyrightable </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="448"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1043.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Barlow</SPAN> were on brief for appellees.</SPAN></P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="448"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1C070B976CB594E988256C4500806640/$file/0017352.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2002 is hereby recalled. 2002 appearing at 285 F.3d 857 (9th Cir. 2002) is further amended as follows: 1. IT IS SO ORDERED. We consider whether a party may obtain a judgment declaring that a copyright registration owned by another is invalid. Are highly integrated circuits used to control a particular system or process in an electronic product. The operation of microcontrollers is dictated by low SYNTEK SEMICONDUCTOR v. Which are fixed in storage. Microchip again came to believe that Syntek was manufacturing and selling products that infringed Microchip's copyright in the PIC 16C5x microcode. As the Taiwan criminal proceedings were drawing to a close. Syntek filed this action seeking a declaratory judgment that Microchip's U.S. copyright registration of the PIC 16C5x microcode is invalid because Microchip did not comply with the applicable regulations when registering its program. II [1] Microchip's PIC 16C5x microcode is a computer program. Computer programs are works of authorship entitled to protection under the Copyright Act. 17 U.S.C. з 101. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="446"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/39B1A034FA2ADE3688256C3600526BAF/$file/0056470.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the briefs. Whether a television network's incorporation of that video into promotional materials was a fair use. It is frequently the image accompanying the story that leaves an event seared into the viewership's collective memory. CBS BROADCASTING Angeles in April 1992 are bookended by two such images: the footage of police officers beating motorist Rodney King. The latest installment in a series of suits by which the owners of the rights to that videotape have sought to ensure that renown translates into remuneration. Is an independent newsgathering organization that makes and licenses video and audio recordings of breaking news events. Who is LANS's co owner. Are known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="446"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F2C17F67DE4A8E3888256C94005C4F75/$file/0056470.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the briefs. 2002 is hereby ordered amended as follows: Slip Op. at 13984: Add a footnote on line 3 of the first full paragraph after the word </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="446"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BDBDD48DC274EEB688256B5200603869/$file/0056404.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Did not have the right to 1490 transfer its rights to Gardner under the exclusive license with the licensor. Although we have previously addressed this issue under the Copyright Act of 1909. This is a case of first impression under the Copyright Act of 1976.1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. з 1291. It is undisputed that the agreement contemplated an exclusive license. The agreement was silent as to Sony's right to assign its rights under the exclusive license. 1 The other issue in this appeal is disposed of in a separate memorandum disposition. 2 Under the agreement. Sony was permitted to transfer its rights to use the MC Teach character. The District Court remanded the action to state court because Nike's removal petition was untimely. Seeking declaratory relief that the transfer of rights from Sony to Gardner was valid. Sony was deemed an involuntary plaintiff. Subject to its opportunity to be noticed and 3 Appellants contend that Nike was kept apprised of their efforts to license and promote MC Teach in a variety of educational materials from 1992 thru 1996. 1492 heard. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="446"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/26E74E07D504780288256C16007B3904/$file/0017352.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2002 appearing at 285 F.3d 857 (9th Cir. 2002) is amended as follows: At 285 F.3d at 864. If application of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is limited to an issue in the pending action. The question of whether a party is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="446"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/sept97/95-1394.wpd.html">MITEL, INC. V. IQTEL, INC.<BR></A><BR> At issue is the protectability of a set of four digit numeric instructions known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="445"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0218p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Thoroughbred appeals the district court's denial of: (1) an award of actual damages for infringing software that was not used by Dice Corp.'s customers. (3) attorney's fees on the ground that Thoroughbred was not a prevailing party. Is entitled to an award for attorney's fees. I. BACKGROUND Thoroughbred is a New Jersey based company that develops and sells business accounting computer software. A license is required for each copy of the software purchased. Certain modules will not operate without others. It is permissible to move the software from one computer to another. As long as the software is deleted from the first computer. A user must inform Thoroughbred when software is moved. It is undisputed that Thoroughbred has valid. Dice Corp. is a Michigan based company that provides computer hardware with pre installed software to its business customers in the security and alarm monitoring industry. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="445"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-7156a.html">BOEHNER, JOHN A. V. MCDERMOTT, JAMES A.<BR></A><BR> With </P> <P>him on the briefs was R. With him on </P> <P>the briefs were Frank W. Assistant Attorney Gener </P> <P>al at the time the briefs were filed. With him </P> <P>on the brief were Christopher Landau and Daryl Joseffer.</P> <P> Theodore J. With him on </P> <P>the brief were Seth M.M. If the person knew it </P> <P>was illegally intercepted. Is it part of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="445"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199909/98-7156a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was R. With him on the briefs were Frank W. Assistant Attorney Gener al at the time the briefs were filed. With him on the brief were Christopher Landau and Daryl Joseffer. With him on the brief were Seth M.M. If the person knew it was illegally intercepted. Is it part of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199910087.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The role of the court in determining whether images are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/07CE58933D0EAE4F88256B930005E367/$file/0017352.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We consider whether a party may obtain a judgment declaring that a copyright registration owned by another is invalid. Are highly integrated circuits used to control a particular system or process in an electronic product. The operation of microcontrollers is dictated by low level programming microinstructions called microcode. Which are fixed in storage. Microchip again came to believe that Syntek was manufacturing and selling products that infringed Microchip's copyright in the PIC 16C5x microcode. As the Taiwan criminal proceedings were drawing to a close. Syntek filed this action seeking a declaratory judgment that Microchip's U.S. copyright registration of the PIC 16C5x microcode is invalid because Microchip did not comply with the applicable regulations when registering its program. Syntek timely appealed. 5250 II Microchip's PIC 16C5x microcode is a computer program. Computer programs are works of authorship entitled to protection under the Copyright Act. 17 U.S.C. з 101. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200504/04-5138a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Thomas P. With him on the briefs was Vidya S. With him on the brief were Peter D. Circuit Judge: Cable and satellite companies are required to pay royalties into a common fund when they retransmit certain copyrighted television broadcasts. Which were received at the Copyright Office in August. I. Congress has established a compulsory licensing scheme for broadcast copyrighted material that is retransmitted by cable and satellite companies. Cable and satellite companies are permitted to retransmit broadcasts of over the air television programming. Royalties are distributed proportionally by means of settlement agreements among the various claimants or arbitration. Copyright Office regulations specify that a claim will be considered timely if the claim (1) was actually received by the Office during July. Or (2) bears a July U.S. postmark and was sent via the United States Postal Service. 37 C.F.R. з 252.4(a) (2001). The regulations also expressly state that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="437"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B4EF4058496AF3AB88257170007CD791/$file/0356559.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to determine whether the Sheriff's Department's conduct constituted copyright infringement. The wrinkle in this otherwise smooth question is that. Although the software was installed onto 6. The computers were configured such that the total number of workstations able to access the installed software did not exceed the total number of licenses the Sheriff's Department purchased. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. з 1291 and hold that such copying constitutes copyright infringement despite the Sheriff's Department's configuration. RUMBA Office is the more expensive and more powerful computer program. The Sheriff's Department soon realized that this process was too time consuming and would delay opening the Twin Towers. It was not clear where those employees who would need to use RUMBA programs would be assigned to work. To speed up the process of installation and to ensure that employees would be able to use the RUMBA software regardless of where they were assigned. This was done by simultaneously copying the entire contents of a single </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="437"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2001/00-15378.opn.html">CBS BROAD. V. ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATION CORP. (9/17/2001, NO. 00-15378)<BR></A><BR> Chief Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="437"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2001/00-15378.opn.html">CBS BROAD. V. ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATION CORP. (9/17/2001, NO. 00-15378)<BR></A><BR> Chief Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="435"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200015378.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chief Judge: This is an interlocutory appeal from the entry of a preliminary injunction in a copyright infringement suit that was initiated by four major television network stations and associations representing hundreds of local network affiliates against EchoStar Satellite Company and its subsidiaries. That there was a substantial likelihood that the Networks could establish that EchoStar provides distant network signals to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="435"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTI1MTQtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-2514-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We agree with the court that DK's reproduction of BGA's images is protected by the fair use exception to copyright infringement. DK reproduced seven artistic images originally depicted on Grateful Dead event posters and tickets.1 reduced BGA's form and seven are images are displayed by in significantly the accompanied captions describing concerts they represent. The district court determined that DK's reproduction of the images was fair use and granted DK's motion for summary judgment. The district court assumed plaintiff possessed these rights in the contested images and there is no dispute that copying the images was not authorized by plaintiff. As it was in the district court. Is whether DK's unauthorized use of BGA's copyrighted images is fair use. The fair use doctrine is a statutory exception to copyright infringement. Section 107 of the Copyright Act permits the unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted work if it is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="433"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/97-1437.htm">97-1437 -- JURADO-GUTIERREZ V. GREENE -- 08/19/1999<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="433"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/99-4210.htm">99-4210 -- U.S. V. HARDMAN -- 08/05/2002<BR></A><BR> Jr. were convicted for unrelated counts of illegally possessing eagle feathers in violation of sections 703 and 668(a) of Title 16 of the United States Code. Was not criminally prosecuted.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="431"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1996/96a1287p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Have standing to bring an antitrust action against the sellers of the photocopies. We hold that such clients lack standing to bring a treble damages claim because they are not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="431"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/96058D191C528691882571AF007F7F09/$file/0455874.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> GMP cross appeals the district court's determination that it is engaged in unauthorized sublicensing. That Appellants are barred by the doctrine of laches from taking legal action now. Based on undisputed evidence establishing that they should have known of GMP's allegedly infringing activities well beyond the statutory period for bringing suit. 1454 (9th Cir. 1985) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="431"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/97-3268.htm">97-3268 -- U.S. V. PEARSON -- 02/22/2000<BR></A><BR> (6) the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's finding that he committed felony murder as defined by 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="431"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2061.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is about the attempt of a copyright owner to use copyright law to block access to data that not only are neither copyrightable nor copyrighted. Were not created or obtained by the copyright owner. The owner is trying to secrete the data in its copyrighted program a program the existence of which reduced the likelihood that the data would be retained in a form in which they would have been readily accessible. It was not addressed either by the district court or by the parties in their submissions in this court. The copyright is of a compilation. The general issue that the appeal presents is the right of the owner of such a copyright to prevent his customers (that is. The copyright licensees) from disclosing the compiled data even if the data are in the public domain. So forth from the southeastern Wisconsin municipalities in which the properties are located. Ordinarily they're happy to provide the data to anyone who will pay the modest cost of copying the data onto a disk. Which is applicable to data in digital form. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="429"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/50507A2C222A41B8882573530050F816/$file/0555742.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2007 is amended as follows: On page 6443 of the slip opinion. After the sentence </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="429"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkwMjZfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9026_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="429"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec2000/00-15981.ma2.html">SIEGEL V. LEPORE (12/6/2000, NO. 00-15981)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="429"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug96/95-5006.wpd.html">CARDTOONS, L.C. V. MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYERS ASSOC.<BR></A><BR> Arguing that (1) the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment and (2) Cardtoons does not have a First Amendment right to market its trading cards. Have caricatures of active major league baseball players on the front and humorous commentary about their careers on the back. The balance of the set is comprised of 20 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="429"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec2000/00-15981.ma2.html">SIEGEL V. LEPORE (12/6/2000, NO. 00-15981)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="427"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/01/033802P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Permits copyright owners and their representatives to obtain and serve subpoenas on internet service providers (ISPs) to obtain personal information about an ISP's subscribers who are alleged to be transmitting copyrighted works via the internet using so called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="425"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0355p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Finding that defendants' use constituted fair use and was de minimis. We agree that the use of Gordon's illustrations was de minimis and therefore affirm the summary judgment as to the copyright infringement claim. We find that Gordon failed to introduce sufficient evidence that the copyright notice was removed with the The Hon orable A drian G. I. Facts Gordon is a medical artist whose copyrighted artwork includes a Dentist Patient Consultation Illustrations booklet. The defendants have asserted two defenses: fair use and de minimis use. A court will examine the fair use defense only if the de minimis threshold for actionable copying has been exceeded. To establish that a copyright infringement is de minimis. The alleged infringer must demonstrate that the copying of the protected material is so trivial </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="425"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200312/03-7015a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="425"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961827.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 17 a new footnote 7 is added at the end of the final sentence of the paragraph. The issue of authorship was erroneously presented to the jury. The district court erred in deciding whether Pittman was still entitled to writer's royalties. 2 The previous footnotes 7 and 8 are renumbered 8 and 9. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Killette sought to have it vacated. While Killette's appeal of the district court's order was pending before this Court. Was considered </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="425"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011369.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lines 5 6 and line 8 the references to the Ninth Circuit are corrected to read Second Circuit in the case of Davis v. A schematic building footprint is a drawing of a proposed building that shows the building shape in relation to the property on which it will be constructed and reflects the exterior elevations for the proposed building. 2 failed to execute this proposed agreement. While the Zoning Exception application was pending before the Zoning Board. It stated that: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="425"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8E22982657C96BE188256D5C00518BF5/$file/0055521oop.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is withdrawn. Appellee's petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED as moot. Is a professional photographer who has copyrighted many of his images of the American West. Some of these images are located on Kelly's web site or other web sites with which Kelly has a license agreement. When Kelly discovered that his photographs were part of Arriba's search engine database. The creation and use of the thumbnails in the search engine is a fair use. It is now known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="425"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/10/033112P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a copyright dispute between two organizations that offer competing courses to prepare students to pass the Project Management Professional (PMP) Exam given by the Project Management Institute (PMI). We conclude there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether PMP Exam Prep infringes PMI's exclusive right to prepare derivative works based on its preexisting copyrighted work and whether PMP Exam Prep is a fair use of that work. PMI is a not for profit association for project management professionals (PMPs) that now </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="425"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200401/03-7015b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="421"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/978538581311BFCF8825705E0052E294/$file/0356703.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the briefs. 10578 KOURTIS v. Circuit Judge: We must decide whether the creators of the yet unproduced film The Minotaur are collaterally estopped from pursuing a copyright infringement claim against the producers of Terminator II. Who was an ICM client. Although Filia Kourtis was deposed by Cameron. The court ultimately found that Terminator II and The Minotaur are not substantially similar and granted summary judgment to Cameron and the other defendants on Green's copyright infringement claim. The court concluded that the Kourtises are collaterally estopped by the Green decision from relitigating the copyright infringement issue. The court further held that the Kourtises' state law claims are barred by the statute of limitations. Wisher is not a party to this appeal. The defendants are collectively referred to as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="421"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F01241E0A48918F588256D24007FB17D/$file/0157107.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concluding that Warren has no standing to sue for infringement because he is neither the legal nor beneficial owner of the copyrights in question. MTM was to make a written accounting of all sales of broadcast rights to the series and was required to pay Warren a percentage of all sales of broadcast rights to the series made to third parties not affiliated with ASCAP or BMI.2 Warren brought suit in propria persona against Fox. MTM is now a subsidiary of Fox. These agreements were renewed and re executed with slight modifications in 1984. That MTM and Fox have materially breached their obligations under the contracts by failing to account for or pay the full amount of royalties due Warren from sales to parties not affiliated with ASCAP or BMI. While alleging that CBN and Princess were operating pursuant to a license or distribution from MTM. Warren claims that their behavior was nevertheless infringement because the broadcasts occurred after MTM breached its agreement with him. So the copyright reverted to him and any license CBN or Princess may have had was no longer valid.3 Warren seeks damages. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1314_019.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That a distributed file sharing system is engaged in contributory copyright infringement when its principal object is the dissemination of copyrighted material. The foundation of this holding is a belief that people who post or download music files are primary infringers. She contends that her activities were fair use rather than infringement. A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="416"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/09/043654P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Determined that: (1) Blizzard's software end user license and terms of usage agreements were enforceable 2 Amici on Behalf of Appellants. Combs and Crittenden are computer programmers. Jung is a systems administrator. Internet Gateway is an Internet service provider based in St. Jung is also the president. Battle.net is a free service that allows owners of Blizzard games to play each other on their personal computers via the Internet. The various games have the capacity for and permit non Internet multi player gaming for a limited number of players who connect to each other via a local area computer network ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5100.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was John S. Of counsel on the brief were James F. With her on the brief were Peter D. The United States is liable for the use of a method patent only when it practices every step of the claimed method in the United States. I. Zoltek Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D791D50A58397FF388256F470054A6A0/$file/0255983.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is hereby amended. The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing will be entertained. Are the members of the musical group Beastie Boys. Which is also copyrighted. It held that no license to the underlying composition was required because. The district court also held that even if the sampled segment of the composition were original. Beastie Boys' use of a brief segment of the sound recording of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="410"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3D534390583B882F88256C380004FE18/$file/0056603.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Total Myanmar was appointed Operator of the Gas Production Joint Venture and the Gas Transportation Company. Total Myanmar was responsible. For </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="410"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2002/013411up.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> D.C. 20036 5339 Counsel for Amicus Curiae Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association OPINION OF THE COURT PER CURIAM: This is an appeal from the District Court's denial of a preliminary injunction. Because the decision to enter a preliminary injunction is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. We will reverse such a decision </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="410"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9D631F7F083D44B588256A8200632C97/$file/9956215.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. з 1291. I. FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY Feltner is the sole shareholder of Krypton International Corporation. Which were also named as defendants in this action.1 In 1990. Including 1 The three subsidiary television stations are Krypton Broadcasting of Jacksonville. Feltner asserted that Columbia was not the exclusive licensee of the series in question at the time Columbia filed the lawsuit. The district court found as a matter of law that each episode of each series was a separate </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="410"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/07/02-2214.htm">02-2214 -- CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE V. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR -- 07/27/2004<BR></A><BR> We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. <p> The heart of this dispute is a 2001 Solicitation for Offers issued by Interior for the provision of office space to house the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians. 072 provides </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="410"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033515p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. The EPA concluded remedial action was necessary to protect human health. Was responsible for the lead contamination. Was long 3 since out of business. Alleging it was responsible for Price Battery's CERCLA liability as a successor in interest. Exide is General Battery's successor. The disputed issue is whether General Battery. Was a successor to Price Battery. The relevant aspects of the Price/General transaction are as follows. Price Battery was owned by a single shareholder. A seat on General's board of directors.1 At The only Price Battery asset nominally excluded from the transaction was its real property. When the deed was transferred to General for $1.00. 000 General Battery shares were valued at approximately $1 million and represented 4.537% of General's outstanding equity. William Price Sr.'s resulting stake in General Battery was comparable to that of the company's cofounders. Was required under the agreement to immediately change its name to Price Investment Company and to retain $150. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="410"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/79C54648F1CD43F388256E5A00707BD9/$file/9956215.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. з 1291. I. FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY Feltner is the sole shareholder of Krypton International Corporation. Which were also named as defendants in this action.1 In 1990. Including 1 The three subsidiary television stations are Krypton Broadcasting of Jacksonville. Feltner asserted that Columbia was not the exclusive licensee of the series in question at the time Columbia filed the lawsuit. The district court found as a matter of law that each episode of each series was a separate </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="410"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021139.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> When the substance of the manuscript was relevant to the issues in the child custody proceeding and the defendants' use of the manuscript was solely for its content and not for its mode of expression. BLUM were represented by a member of the firm and thus were acting pro se. Bond's manuscript was entitled Self Portrait of a Patricide: How I Got Away with Murder. Who was formerly known as William Rovtar. Was 17. After Rovtar was arrested and detained in a juvenile detention facility in Ohio. He entered into a guilty plea agreement in juvenile court with the result that in September 1981 he was transferred to the Sheppard & Enoch Pratt Hospital in Baltimore. Rovtar was released in 1982. Although verifiable facts of the murder are consistent with the details provided in the manuscript. Bond has now stated in an affidavit that the manuscript is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTA3NDQtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0744-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That copyright infringement was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B7ED5F8C5B05653888256EF9007BFF21/$file/0355033.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: At slip op. at 9111. Carey argues that the first measure of One's chorus is not original because it is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="406"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/38D1DF2306D7CD8C88256DD4005CF20B/$file/0255983.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are the NEWTON v. Which is also copyrighted. It held that no license to the underlying composition was required because. The district court also held that even if the sampled segment of the composition were original. Beastie Boys' use was de minimis and therefore not actionable. We affirm on the ground that the use was de minimis. Is an accomplished avant garde jazz flutist and composer. The song was inspired by his earliest memory of music. DIAMOND it is undisputed that Newton retained all rights to the composition of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/11/003982P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This declaratory judgment action was brought by GRE Insurance Group. GRE's case was tried to the district court2 which concluded that it had no duty to indemnify. On appeal Complete Music argues that there is coverage under the advertising injury provision of its insurance policy. Inc. is a franchisor of mobile disc jockey services. One of these services was the distribution of compilation music discs produced by Halland Broadcasting Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1415.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 4. Goldberg was on brief for appellant. Fialkov were on brief for appellee. * of the District of Maine. This is an appeal from a final judgment determining the copyright ownership of certain unpublished tape recordings of the musical group George Thorogood and the Destroyers (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec99/98-5257.opn.html">MITEK HOLDINGS, INC. V. ARCE ENG'G CO., INC. (12/20/1999, NO. 98-5257)<BR></A><BR> While <U>MiTek I</U> was pending in this court. The magistrate judge noted:</P> <P> [A] review of the record indicates that this case was closely contested and required the consideration of sophisticated issues of fact and law. The question of the scope of copyright protection for non literal elements of computer programs is relatively new. Because MiTek </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/10/01-1053a.htm">01-1053 -- GONZALES V. CITY OF CASTLE ROCK -- 10/15/2002<BR></A><BR> Gonzales alleged that plaintiffs' substantive and procedural due process rights were violated when defendant police officers failed to enforce a restraining order against her estranged husband. Gonzales was seeking enforcement of the order. The order was entered into the central registry of restraining orders. The order was served on Mr. Gonzales was excluded from the family home and was prohibited from molesting or disturbing the peace of Ms. Simon Gonzales abducted the three girls while they were playing outside their house. Gonzales discovered the children were gone. Officers Brink and Ruisi were sent to the Gonzales home. The Officers </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/10/00-1442.htm">00-1442 -- U.S. V. DELUCA -- 10/25/2001<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec99/98-5257.opn.html">MITEK HOLDINGS, INC. V. ARCE ENG'G CO., INC. (12/20/1999, NO. 98-5257)<BR></A><BR> While <U>MiTek I</U> was pending in this court. The magistrate judge noted:</P> <P> [A] review of the record indicates that this case was closely contested and required the consideration of sophisticated issues of fact and law. The question of the scope of copyright protection for non literal elements of computer programs is relatively new. Because MiTek </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/05/97-1095.htm">97-1095 -- MORRISON KNUDSEN CORP. V. FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE CO. -- 05/11/1999<BR></A><BR> 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 $9.3 million. GIT's central theory is that its plan to complete the project before the deadline displeased MK. The contract allowed MK to do so if GIT was not prosecuting the work with a diligence that would ensure its timely completion. The subs were demanding payment from GIT. GIT was still involved in litigation with Robinson and had not settled with or paid Bogue or GA Western. Arguing that GIT had changed its damage theory just weeks before trial and was using previously undisclosed documentation. <p> Twelve days before trial. GIT's Alleged Discovery Violation <p> MK argues that GIT's supplemental damage disclosure was subject to mandatory exclusion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1).<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/99-1162.htm">99-1162 -- FISHER V. UNITED FEATURE SYNDICATE INC. -- 02/07/2000<BR></A><BR> Plaintiff's request for oral argument is denied and the case is ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff Philip Condon Fisher. (6) in dismissing his claim that United Feature Syndicate infringed his copyright in its comic strip </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="402"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/14ECC72A3D2BE1C988256BDC0080619B/$file/0056217.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> After Judge Paez was elevated to the Ninth Circuit. Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs Appellants are the trustees of the Diana Princess of Wales Memorial Fund ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="402"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1323.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were <U>David . Of counsel on the brief were <U>P. With him on the brief were <U>Jonathan I. Of counsel on the brief were <U>C. Of counsel on the brief was <U>Joseph . Of counsel on the brief were <U>Bruce M. Of counsel on the brief was <U>Joseph Kattan</U>.</P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="402"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTM4OTAtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3890-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Infringed copyrights in its constituent parts is not a compilation contemplated by the last sentence of з 504(c)(1). Schachner was the president of the corporate defendants and guided their illegal activities. The magistrate judge concluded that the infringement was willful. The defendants argued that the infringement was not willful or in bad faith. For which any one infringer is liable individually. Or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="402"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FE4764BC4E4D78A788256CEE00814B67/$file/0216347.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Thereby giving them a financial incentive to create works to enrich our culture.1 But it denied Justice Potter Stewart explained this feature of copyright law: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="402"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6040339211A3ADB2882572CD005A9D01/$file/0535609opn.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Chase Jarvis is a professional photographer who created several thousand photographic slides over a three year period for K2. The district court agreed that K2 was liable under each of these theories and awarded damages to Jarvis. The district court found that 24 of Jarvis' images contained in four K2 collage advertisements that combined Jarvis' images with other images and graphics were not infringed because the ads were covered by the collective works privilege of 17 U.S.C. з 201(c).1 Jarvis now appeals the district court's damages awards and its ruling as to the collage ads' privileged status. That the 24 images in the collage ads were privileged under з 201(c). The collage ads were derivative rather than collective works because they transformed Jarvis' original images into new promotional posters.2 The collective works privilege therefore did not apply to the ads. Factual History BACKGROUND Jarvis is a professional photographer who specializes in outdoor sports images. K2 is a corporation that sells outdoor Unless otherwise noted. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="402"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D4A310BE2772240088256ECF0057DDE1/$file/0355033.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that the plaintiffs' expert's evidence was sufficient to present a triable issue of the extrinsic similarity of the two songs. That the district court's ruling to the contrary was based on too mechanical an application of the extrinsic test to these musical compositions. One was jointly composed by plaintiffs Seth Swirsky and Warryn Campbell (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="400"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/995326.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The mark </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="400"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1994/94a0706p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal from summary judgment granted by the district court in favor of the defendant. The product at issue here is an anchoring system made by Lucker for the off shore oil drilling industry and called a Lateral Mooring System ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="398"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1479.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="398"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/06/02-4174.htm">02-4174 -- UTAH ANIMAL RIGHTS COALITION V. SALT LAKE CITY CORP. -- 06/16/2004<BR></A><BR> One of those groups was Appellant. Are Salt Lake City and certain officials who had the responsibility of determining when and where various groups would be permitted to demonstrate. The question is whether the slow pace of the permit process violated the First Amendment. <p> Almost a year before the Olympics </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="398"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2211.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Uhrbach were on brief for appellant. Hagopian and Visconti & Petrocelli Ltd. were on brief for appellee. CBS provided television stations with a program called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="398"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200416554.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BACKGROUND This appeal arises out of a copyright infringement suit filed by Corwin against WorldCo.1 Corwin is the former neighbor of Mark Waters II and the sole heir to his estate. Everything was to be in miniature. Shortly after the Painting was complete. That he took the Painting and a presentation of the concept Although the Walt Disney Company was also originally named in this suit. It was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction in April 2003. 3 1 to a meeting with a Disney representative in 1962 or 1963. Which was opened by WorldCo in 1982. Was copied from Waters's illustration of Jaffray's concept. She said that Waters had not discussed the Jaffrays in detail but that he had told her he was doing work for Jaffray. She also reported that Waters had talked to her about the Miniature Worlds project which she understood was to be located outside Washington. Marian Jaffray was not at the alleged meeting and conceded that she did not know what Jaffray took with him to that meeting. She was unable to produce the rejection letter. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="396"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19962636.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Miracle Is Here </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="396"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001351.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We are presented with an issue of first impression whether an Internet service provider enjoys a safe harbor from copyright infringement liability as provided by Title II of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="393"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1334.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Peabody & Brown were on briefs. Kohler Co. were on briefs. This is an appeal from the district court's issuance of a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants Kohler Company and Robern. There were two basic claims before the trial court: that the Falling Water faucet </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="393"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/97-2064.htm">A. BACKUP DOCUMENTATION, MOTIONS, ORDERS, AND HEARING TRANSCRIPTS97-2064 -- U.S. V. GONZALES -- 07/28/1998<BR></A><BR> If there is a right of access. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="393"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5125.html">JOHN C. BOYLE V. US<BR></A><BR> With her on the brief were <U>David W. Of counsel on the brief was <U>Thomas J. Mutual fund products that are targeted to different maturity dates depending upon the year the money is desired by the investor. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. з . 1295(a)(3) (1994).</P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="393"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/01/00-3224.htm">00-3224 -- BEEM V. MCKUNE -- 01/27/2003<BR></A><BR> Their cases were consolidated for our review. Background</u> <p> Beem was charged in the District Court of Reno County. Arguing that because he was related to his victim. He should have been charged with aggravated incest rather than indecent liberties with a child pursuant to a state law rule announced in <u>State v. The Kansas Supreme Court denied review. <p> Henson was charged in the District Court of Miami County. Because the victim was his step daughter. He should have been charged with aggravated incest </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="393"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0118p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND The appellants are affiliated record and/or music publishing companies. Bridgeport is also a music publishing company. Its initial complaint was nearly 1. Only 20 of which are at issue in this appeal. These 20 actions were among more than 110 separate complaints served on the appellants in September of 2001. None of which are at issue here. Other than a temporary lifting of the stay authorized in early 2003 in an attempt to have the parties to the present appeal settle. Bridgeport conceded that its claims against the appellants were without merit. This request was based upon language found in the district court's earlier order denying a motion for attorney fees filed by related defendants pursuant to 17 U.S.C. з 505 (the fee shifting provision of the Copyright Act). Which read in pertinent part as follows: The plaintiffs' motion . . . to dismiss this action as to the defendants . . . is granted. This action is dismissed without prejudice as to the defendants . . . . Arguing that the justification upon which the district court granted all 20 motions is ascertainable from the record as a whole. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="393"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/08878B3F87AA23AB88256B970082A04D/$file/9935932.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Tidyman's argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying Tidyman's' motion for a new trial on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient. That the size of the jury verdict was excessive. Tidyman's argues that the Washington state law is intended to cover only accrued wages that are not paid. Arguing that we should not apply the Title VII damages cap to these awards because it is unconstitutional. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. з 1291. We reverse the district court's determination that the plaintiffs were not entitled to punitive damages. We conclude that Title VII's cap on punitive damages is constitutional. Was promoted to officer manager. Hemmings was promoted to controller in 1987. Hemmings was concerned about the lack of women in management positions at Tidyman's and what she perceived as roadblocks to their promotions. Was promoted to Chief Operating Officer and the CFO position opened. Trial witnesses testified that Hemmings was wellqualified for the CFO position. Hemmings was interviewed for the position along with another woman and one man. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="393"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199806/97-7049a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Brenner was on the brief. Appellants' primary con tention before this court is that Stenograph failed to present evidence of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="393"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/01-4176.htm">01-4176 -- AXSON-FLYNN V. JOHNSON -- 02/03/2004<BR></A><BR> Who is Mormon. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants on both claims and found that they were also entitled to qualified immunity. Sandy Shotwell asked Axson Flynn if there was anything she would feel uncomfortable doing or saying as an actor. Although the record is unclear as to whether Axson Flynn explained at the time why she had those objections. The district court summarized her reasons as follows: <p> [H]er refusal to use the words </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="389"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/99-2063.htm">99-2063 -- U.S. V. DAVIS -- 04/17/2000<BR></A><BR> Were driving home in Bordy's truck when Davis began drinking beer. Davis was pulling her up the hill by her hair. He then kicked her arm and told her she was stupid to run and that he was going to kill her. Davis was swearing at her and threatening to cut out her </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="389"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-1269.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Neal S. Of counsel on the brief were Maurice M. Of counsel was Scott E. With him on the brief were James A. Of counsel on the brief were Peter D. With him on the brief were Nicholas N. With him on the brief was Joshua R. Of counsel on the brief was J. Of counsel was Herbert C. With him on the brief were Robert C. Of counsel on the brief were Robert D. With him on the brief was Richard J. Of counsel on the brief were William J. With him on the brief were Kurt M. Of counsel on the brief were Ned A. John Will Ongman. With him on the brief was Alice O. Of counsel on the brief was Stephan E. With him on the brief was Mary Jo Boldingh. Of counsel on the brief was Charles F. Of counsel with him on the brief were Patrick G. Of counsel on the brief was John P. With him on the brief were Frank L. Of counsel on the brief were Jeremy P. With him on the brief were Joseph A. With him on the brief were Matthew S. With him on the brief was David R. Of counsel on the brief were Denise W. With him on the brief were John C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="389"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-30473.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. We consider whether defendant appellant's appeal is frivolous and deserving of sanctions pursuant to FED. Were members of the 1960's pop group. Plaintiffs learned Jones was exploiting the song in foreign territories when the song appeared in the movie. These statements are in direct contradiction to statements made by Jones in earlier sworn statements in previous litigation over the authorship of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="389"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/98-2247.htm">98-2247 -- ATKINSON TRADING CO. INC. V. SHIRLEY -- 05/02/2000<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="387"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0BBBC31B68DD202288256E5A00707C79/$file/0055781.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="387"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2072.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.A.</U> were on brief for appellant.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="387"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/12/01-5011.htm">01-5011 -- IDG, INC. V. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY -- 12/26/2001<BR></A><BR> These policies provided liability and defense coverage in the event IDG was sued for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="387"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F43A980D299ECAF988256FA8007A2836/$file/0215035.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the briefs. Were substituted as counsel for the appellant after oral argument. Was on the brief. Were on the brief for amicus curiae The Chamber of Commerce of the United States. INC. 1837 advertising program is rendered moot by a settlement under which the vendor permanently modified its software and the website owner relinquished all claims. I Gator.com Corporation1 is the proprietor of a software program that enables computer users to store personal information including addresses. One of the targets of Gator's pop up advertisements was the website operated by L. When a user of computer equipment on which the Gator software was installed visited L. L. Bean alleged that these pop up advertisements misappropriated the good will associated with its trademark and threatened to initiate legal action if Gator did not discontinue this advertising practice. A deceptive or unfair trade or Gator.com Corporation is now known as the Claria Corporation. It will be referred to as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="387"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/12/01-5011a.htm">01-5011A -- IDG INC. V. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY CO. -- 12/26/2001<BR></A><BR> Is a member of the firm of Winstead. These policies provided liability and defense coverage in the event IDG was sued for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="387"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/010A5261AE3A08E788256AB4006DD2D5/$file/0055781.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1258.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0494n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. The events giving rise to the instant suit involve the copying and distribution of a video in which Bosley was depicted in a state of undress while participating in a wet T shirt contest at a bar in Key West. The proceedings in the district court have been extensive and rancorous. The underlying facts relevant to these merits issues are. Several days before trial was scheduled to begin. Defendants notified the district court that the parties had effectively settled their dispute and advised the court that there was no need to impanel a jury. Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking enforcement of the parties' settlement agreement and alleging that defendants were attempting to modify the terms of settlement and add additional terms to which the parties had never agreed. One of which was filed before the district court adopted the report and recommendation and one of which was filed after. The docket entry also states that the plaintiffs will refile the document as a motion. Plaintiffs filed a document identical in all respects to the original notice of withdrawal except that it is captioned on the docket sheet as a motion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051715p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Before us now is Banks's appeal from his conviction and sentence. Banks was sentenced after the Supreme Court announced its landmark decision in United States v. Two are novel to 2 this Court. Banks raises the question whether the District Court was obligated to provide him with advance notice under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(h) of its intent. We conclude the District Court had statutory authority to issue the in personam forfeiture judgment and was not obligated to provide advance notice of its intent to vary from Banks's Guidelines sentencing range. We will affirm Banks's convictions and sentence in their entirety. Amazon.com informed him that only full retail versions of software products could be sold through his account and that sales of copied or duplicated software were prohibited. These buyers suspected that the software they purchased from Banks was illegally copied because the compact discs ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar98/96-6809.man.html">ALLISON V. VINTAGE SPORTS PLAQUES (3/18/1998, NO. 96-6809)<BR></A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge:</P> <P> The issue presented in this case is whether the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar98/96-6809.man.html">ALLISON V. VINTAGE SPORTS PLAQUES (3/18/1998, NO. 96-6809)<BR></A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge:</P> <P> The issue presented in this case is whether the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3721F2593226CB74882571D90081885D/$file/0455578.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellants assert that the district court erred in concluding that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044368np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200505/04-5240a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Geoffrey S. With him on the brief were Decided May 24. Plaintiff Luck's Music Library is a corporation that rents and sells classical orchestral sheet music. Moviecraft is a commercial film archive that preserves. The Copyright and Patent Clause provides that Congress shall have the power </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5F0FA19839BAF10A88256F5D0003D3C3/$file/0316034.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We agree that no material issue of fact was raised regarding the Motion Picture Association of America's (MPAA) </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200312565.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> District Judge: At issue on this appeal is whether plaintiff appellee State Farm Fire & Honorable Fern M. Sitting by designation. * Casualty Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr97/96-2636.opa.html">JACOB MAXWELL, INC. V. VEECK<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Jacob Maxwell. The Miracle Is Here </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr97/96-2636.opa.html">JACOB MAXWELL, INC. V. VEECK<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Jacob Maxwell. The Miracle Is Here </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/96-3299.htm">96-3299 -- RILEY MANUFACTURING CO. INC. V. ANCHOR GLASS CONTAINER CORP. -- 09/11/1998<BR></A><BR> We disagree with the district court's conclusion that there was no valid and enforceable arbitration agreement between the parties. To supply the plastic spigots and plastic lids that were made from injection molds that Riley designed and over which Riley asserted trade secret protection. The three provisions that are most relevant in this dispute are the copyright assignment. Arbitration clauses. <p> The copyright provisions in the Manufacturing Agreement indicated that Riley already had assigned to Anchor Glass the copyrights for all of the ornamental designs that were then being used on the sun tea containers that Anchor Glass would be selling for Riley. Although Anchor Glass would have the right to sell off its remaining inventory of Riley manufactured sun tea jars when the contract expired. It would have no right to use or sell the Riley designs after the copyrights were reassigned to Riley. <p> Under the termination clause. The parties specified what continuing rights each would have when the three year contract expired. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/03-1002.htm">03-1002 -- BIODIVERSITY ASSOCIATES V. CABLES -- 02/04/2004<BR></A><BR> Explicitly supersedes a settlement agreement between the Forest Service and various environmental groups regarding management of these lands. <p> The question presented is whether the extraordinary specificity of this legislation. Congress is permitted to be as specific as it deems appropriate. Settlement agreements between private litigants and the executive branch cannot divest Congress of its constitutionally vested authority to legislate. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/99-4210.htm">99-4210 -- U.S. V. HARDMAN -- 08/08/2001<BR></A><BR> That the Act is enforced in a discriminatory fashion in violation of his equal protection rights. Hardman is not of Native American descent. His ex wife and two children are. His ex wife and children are enrolled members of the S'Kallum Tribe. Hardman was still married to and living with his ex wife. He was informed that he would not be allowed to apply as he was not a member of a federally recognized tribe. <p> Years later. Hardman and his wife were separated. Ute tribal officers were informed by Mr. Officer Murray was a cross commissioned federal law enforcement officer acting under the authority of the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs. Which were hanging from the rear view mirror of his truck. <p> On March 10. Hardman was issued a federal violation notice for possessing golden eagle feathers without a permit in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. A bench trial was held before a magistrate judge. Hardman was found guilty of violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and sentenced to pay a small fine. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="379"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2753.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Michael McKevitt is being prosecuted in Ireland for membership in a banned organization and directing terrorism. He asked the district court for an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. з 1782 to produce tape recordings that he thinks will be useful to him in the crossexamination of David Rupert. 03 2754 motion is the key witness for the prosecution. Its order is directed against a group of journalists who have a contract to write Rupert's biography and who in the course of their research for the biography interviewed him. The tape recordings that they made of the interviews and are in their possession are the recordings sought in McKevitt's motion. The recordings were turned over to McKevitt. He would have memorialized the information contained in them and the information would inevitably become public at his trial. The appeal was not yet moot. There is no irregularity in a court's explaining the ground of a decision after the decision itself has been made ending the case. Provided the materials are not privileged. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="379"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-2087.htm">98-2087 -- U.S. V. CHARLEY -- 08/27/1999<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="379"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/03/01-2301.htm">01-2301 -- U.S. V. HAHN -- 03/04/2004<BR></A><BR> Hahn was convicted of marijuana and firearms violations and sentenced to forty years' imprisonment. We hold that we have subject matter jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Part III.C of the Per Curiam opinion is an opinion concurring in the result. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/06/00-1153.htm">00-1153 -- MEDINA V. CRAM -- 06/12/2001<BR></A><BR> Background</strong></center> <p> The following facts are undisputed. When that was unsuccessful. Officer Cram was following Mr. As Officer Cram was communicating his plan to his fellow officers. The attack dog was released the second time. Causing Officer Cram to conclude he and other officers were in the line of fire. Medina was taken to the hospital where he survived his injuries. <p> Claiming Officers Cram and Bruning used excessive force in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Concluding genuine issues of material fact remain regarding whether the officers' actions were objectively reasonable under the circumstances. <p> <strong><center>II. He must then demonstrate that the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the defendant's unlawful conduct. <u>Albright</u>. In determining whether the right was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C58EEDE5499DB9F988256E5A00707B7F/$file/9956856.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: As is often true in the field of intellectual property. The question that we decide today is whether 35 U.S.C. з 261 of the Patent Act. Matsco Financial Corporation (Petitioners) have a security interest in a patent developed by Cybernetic Services. The patent is for a data recorder that is designed to capture data from a video signal regardless of the horizontal line in which the data is located. Petitioners' security interest in the patent was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3470A4422044C7EA88256A6200834EE3/$file/9956856.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: As is often true in the field of intellectual property. The question that we decide today is whether 35 U.S.C. з 261 of the Patent Act. Matsco Financial Corporation (Petitioners) have a security interest in a patent developed by Cybernetic Services. The patent is for a data recorder that is designed to capture data from a video signal regardless of the horizontal line in which the data is located. Petitioners' security interest in the patent was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D0D65EE63181974B88256DB7007AFAA0/$file/0256956.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Salvaty and Vanessa Koury were on the brief. Is hereby ordered amended as follows: Slip Op. at 11878: In the first sentence of the first paragraph. The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are denied. I The copyrighted works at issue here ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DD1D64C89DB4D64188256D8800793C2D/$file/0256956.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Salvaty and Vanessa Koury were on the brief. I The copyrighted works at issue here ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/10/02-1277.htm">02-1277 -- KIDNEIGH V. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA -- 10/03/2003<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/07/99-6007.htm">99-6007 -- NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL LEAGUES INC. V. VERY MINOR LEAGUES INC. -- 07/28/2000<BR></A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199802/97-7040a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This appeal is brought by the Boards of Trustees of two employee benefit plans. (We will refer to the two plans as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/03/99-2287.htm">99-2287 -- CURRIER V. DORAN -- 03/01/2001<BR></A><BR> Regina Sentell are social workers for the Children. Defendant Melba Gonzales is a supervisor for CYF.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="375"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1995/95a1214p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that the action was not time barred and that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="373"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1285_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-3.gif" ALT="371"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/02-6217.htm">02-6217 -- CANNON V. MULLIN -- 07/19/2002<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="371"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/07/98-6196.htm">98-6196 -- HOOKS V. WARD -- 07/16/1999<BR></A><BR> His common law wife and the 24 week old fetus she was carrying. Hooks was sentenced to death on the murder conviction and to 500 years' imprisonment on the manslaughter conviction. Father of Shalimein's then one year old daughter Vargus Shalimar and the father of the fetus she was carrying. Plumley noticed that Shalimein's hair was shaven and her face </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="371"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C01/01-20861-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The jury concluded that any copying by Compaq was de minimis and constituted fair use according to 17 U.S.C. з 107. (4) Brown and Mowrey are not the alter egos of Ergonome and should not be held jointly and severally liable for the attorneys' fee award. Ergonome would have to persuade this court that each of the four independent bases for finding in Compaq's favor (de minimis. Equitable estoppel) is legally erroneous. Because no such sanction was imposed on Mowrey. Including THB was formally published in 1994. market the book. the copyright. Compaq decided to update a booklet entitled Creating a Comfortable Work Environment that was packaged with each Compaq computer. Contained four illustrations and seven phrases that were similar to photographs and phrases in THB.1 Like its predecessor. The SCG was packaged and included with every Compaq computer. Which was transferred and consolidated with Compaq's declaratory judgment action in Houston. The district court concluded as a matter of law that the portions of THB at issue were copyrightable. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="371"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/07/98-6196a.htm">98-6196A -- HOOKS V. WARD -- 07/16/1999<BR></A><BR> His common law wife and the 24 week old fetus she was carrying. Hooks was sentenced to death on the murder conviction and to 500 years' imprisonment on the manslaughter conviction. Father of Shalimein's then one year old daughter Vargus Shalimar and the father of the fetus she was carrying. Plumley noticed that Shalimein's hair was shaven and her face </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="371"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct05/01-20861-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The jury concluded that any copying by Compaq was de minimis and constituted fair use according to 17 U.S.C. з 107. (4) Brown and Mowrey are not the alter egos of Ergonome and should not be held jointly and severally liable for the attorneys' fee award. Ergonome would have to persuade this court that each of the four independent bases for finding in Compaq's favor (de minimis. Equitable estoppel) is legally erroneous. Because no such sanction was imposed on Mowrey. Including THB was formally published in 1994. market the book. the copyright. Compaq decided to update a booklet entitled Creating a Comfortable Work Environment that was packaged with each Compaq computer. Contained four illustrations and seven phrases that were similar to photographs and phrases in THB.1 Like its predecessor. The SCG was packaged and included with every Compaq computer. Which was transferred and consolidated with Compaq's declaratory judgment action in Houston. The district court concluded as a matter of law that the portions of THB at issue were copyrightable. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="371"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/67E2315E526009AD882570F2007CBD6A/$file/0416677.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on the briefs. Was on the brief. Circuit Judge: We must decide whether an architectural firm is entitled to a preliminary injunction prohibiting a client from using its LGS ARCHITECTS v. The licensing agreement is based upon the language of the American Institute of Architects' Standard Form of Agreement for Residential Projects. It provides that [a]ll architectural documents prepared by Architect pursuant to this contract are instrumentalities of the Architect's services and are Architect's property solely for use by the Client on this project and no other. Any other use of such architectural documents is prohibited unless the Client first obtains express written authorization from Architect. C. These provisions are also applicable to the parties' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="371"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200310226.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Facts Morris is a media company that publishes print and electronic newspapers. PGA is the sponsor of a series of professional golf tournaments throughout North America known as the PGA Tour. RTSS is an elaborate electronic relay scoring system that relies on state of the art computer technology and equipment as well as dozens of trained workers and volunteers. 2 RTSS works as follows. The scores are then collected by other volunteers. The scores of all participating golfers are then processed at the remote production truck and transmitted to PGA's website. Which are scores that are transmitted electronically nearly contemporaneously to their actual occurrence on the golf course. The compiled scores are also transmitted to an on site media center where members of the media are able to access the scores. The same information is also transmitted to various electronic leaderboards located throughout the golf course. The 3 only source of compiled golf scores for all tournament players is RTSS. The only physical location at which to obtain compiled golf scores is the media center. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="371"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2001/002473.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Herr alleges that his right to substantive due process was violated by an eleven year campaign of the Township and its officers to delay and obstruct his development of an industrial park. While it acknowledged that Herr's project was grandfathered under the prior land use plan if he completed it within five years. Herr claims that the defendants' conduct with respect to his proposed development was motivated throughout by a strong desire to preserve agricultural land and restrain development in the Township. He has tendered evidence tending to show that the individual defendants had run for office on </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="371"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/11/01-1220.htm">01-1220 -- Z.J. GIFTS D-4 V. CITY OF LITTLETON -- 11/18/2002<BR></A><BR> Including one in which the circuits are substantially divided: namely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="371"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1970.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="371"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200416554.opn2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because Corwin's objection to the district court's costs order was untimely. I. BACKGROUND This appeal arises out of a copyright infringement suit filed by Corwin against WorldCo.1 Corwin is the former neighbor of Mark Waters II and the sole heir to his estate. Everything was to be in miniature. Shortly after the Painting was complete. Although the Walt Disney Company was also originally named in this suit. It was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction in April 2003. 3 1 Corwin asserts that Jaffray attempted to take his theme park concept to Walt Disney in the 1960s. Which was opened by WorldCo in 1982. Was copied from Waters's illustration of Jaffray's concept. She said that Waters had not discussed the Jaffrays in detail but that he had told her he was doing work for Jaffray. She also reported that Waters had talked to her about the Miniature Worlds project which she understood was to be located outside Washington. Marian Jaffray was not at the alleged meeting and conceded that she did not know what Jaffray took with him to that meeting. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="367"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/02/96-3181.htm">96-3181 -- COPELAND V. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES U.S. INC. -- 02/17/1998<BR></A><BR> </strong>Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="367"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/06/97-2224.htm">97-2224 -- U.S. V. CONTRERAS -- 06/17/1999<BR></A><BR> Contreras was re indicted. Late in 1994 she was convicted on four counts conspiracy. Background</strong></center> <p> The history of this case up through the first appeal is well documented in <u>United States v. We only briefly recount some early background for context and focus on events since our remand. <p> Dolores Contreras is one of twenty two people charged by the government with participating in an extensive drug conspiracy run by her father. Contreras started assisting her father in this illegal enterprise when she was 17. She remained active in the criminal enterprise until she was 24. Her participation stopped only because she and her father were arrested. Denogean was an inappropriate ground for departure because the two were not similarly situated </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="364"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1159.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Daniel M. Of counsel was Thomas T. James Chang is Anthony's president and principal shareholder. These products were first sold in 2000 and 2001. Amini informed James Chang of its belief that Anthony was infringing Amini's copyrights and patents. Summary judgment is improper. The non movant need only show that one or more of the facts on which the district court relied was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="364"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/05/951705P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. 2 1 Pinkham brought a copyright infringement case against L'Eggs and others. were Pinkham's corporation. That the hourly rates charged were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="364"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/03-6186.htm">03-6186 -- MISKOVSKY V. GRAY -- 08/27/2004<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff appellant Grover Lee Miskovsky. Plaintiff's claims against defendant Gray are based on a court ordered seizure of a trial transcript (the <em>Gregg</em> transcript<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="364"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/12/97-2343.htm">97-2343 -- PERRY V. WOODWARD -- 12/20/1999<BR></A><BR> <strong> </strong>Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="364"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/10/976014P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chief Bankruptcy Judge Eugene Chamberlain ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="364"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/12/00-3056.htm">00-3056 -- U.S. V. MCELHINEY -- 12/26/2001<BR></A><BR> McElhiney was indicted by a federal grand jury of conspiracy to distribute and possess heroin with the intent to distribute it. The conspiracy charge was based on Mr. A jury trial was held. The result of the trial was a hung jury: ten to two in favor of conviction. McElhiney was allegedly involved first came to light while the government was investigating the murder of a prisoner. The murder was ordered by the leadership of the Aryan Brotherhood. McElhiney was a ranking member. Was charged with the murder. Was a hung jury. The jury informed the district court that it was unable to reach a verdict. (3) the district court's <u>Allen</u> charge was impermissibly coercive. (4) his conviction and sentence were improper in light of <u>Apprendi v. (6) he was denied an impartial jury. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="364"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/06/00-6298.htm">00-6298 -- DANIELS V. U.S. -- 06/25/2001<BR></A><BR> Because this is his first habeas application following the amendment of section 2255 by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Applying AEDPA's standards to his application is impermissibly retroactive. We conclude that no impermissible retroactive result will arise from the application of AEDPA's rules to Mr. Daniels' request. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="364"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/97-1287.htm">97-1287 -- U.S. V. MCVEIGH -- 09/08/1998<BR></A><BR> McVeigh ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="364"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/10/97-3370.htm">97-3370 -- LYNN V. MCCLAIN -- 10/19/1998<BR></A><BR> These cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff Patrick C. Although it is yet unclear whether we review a dismissal under </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="362"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031116.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lay </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="362"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1998/98a1958p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a long arm service of process case which requires us. The complaint alleges that Kiekert tortiously interfered with 2 Imo's attempt to sell its wholly owned Italian subsidiary to a French corporation that was one of Kiekert's competitors. The asserted mechanism by which the tort was accomplished was a series of letters sent by Kiekert to the Italian subsidiary and to the New York investmentfirm of C.S. The sale was never consummated because of these threats. Imo contends that personal jurisdiction over Kiekert was proper based upon its contacts with Imo in New Jersey and upon Kiekert's claimed commission of an intentional tort. The effects of which were allegedly felt by Imo in New Jersey. The defendant must have committed an intentional tort. The plaintiff must have felt the brunt of the harm caused by that tort in the forum. The defendant must have expressly aimed his tortious conduct at the forum. The order of the district court will therefore be affirmed. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that personal jurisdiction is proper. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="362"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1710.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellant.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/97-3061.htm">97-3061 -- U.S. V. SHINAULT -- 07/08/1998<BR></A><BR> The defendant was charged with two counts of violating the Hobbs Act. Including contentions that the trial violated his constitutional protection against double jeopardy and that underrepresentation of minority racial groups in the pool from which his jury was drawn violated his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. A jury with no alternates was sworn. (5) that Congress did not have the power to enact the Hobbs Act. The Jury Act </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/97-3061a.htm">97-3061A -- U.S. V. SHINAULT -- 07/08/1998<BR></A><BR> The defendant was charged with two counts of violating the Hobbs Act. Including contentions that the trial violated his constitutional protection against double jeopardy and that underrepresentation of minority racial groups in the pool from which his jury was drawn violated his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. A jury with no alternates was sworn. (5) that Congress did not have the power to enact the Hobbs Act. The Jury Act </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/05/98-2087.htm">98-2087 -- U.S. V. CHARLEY -- 05/07/1999<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/03/02-2050.htm">02-2050 -- SLOAN V. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY -- 03/04/2004<BR></A><BR> Reverse the judgment insofar as damages and remand for a new trial on compensatory and punitive damages. <p> <center><u>Background</u></center> <p> The insured and his family were traveling eastbound on I 40 near Grants. Shelton was seriously injured. The claims of the insured's two children were settled (for $35. Shelton were tried to a jury. 000 of coverage was available to compensate Mrs. That policy form is shown as # 9805.<u>3</u> and is different from what the insurer now relies upon. The <u>Haney</u> court concluded that the per accident limits were not subject to the per person limits. Was actually issued. Whether the change was the correction of an inadvertent error or an attempt to prevent the insured from exercising his contractual rights was the subject of the federal court trial. It is clear. That the insurer was well aware of the potential for an excess judgment against its insured. <p> On appeal. Because (2) the evidence supported compensatory damages and (3) there was sufficient evidence for punitive damages. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/03/02-6241.htm">02-6241 -- PIERCE V. MACY -- 03/02/2004<BR></A><BR> Because DNA analysis demonstrated that Pierce could not have been the source of the semen found on the rape victim. His conviction was vacated on May 7. He was released from prison. Pierce's complaint is that Dr. Were routinely used to secure convictions. While this system may have provided the citizens of Oklahoma with a false sense of efficient justice. If the allegations are correct. Are limited to the facts and legal issues bearing on the claims against Defendants Gilchrist and Macy. <p> Because Defendants raise only issues of law in connection with their appeal of the district court's denial of qualified immunity. Pierce was employed as a landscaper at the Woodlake complex. He was 25 years old. While police were still on the scene. Pierce was taken by police to be viewed by the victim. Pierce was not the rapist. Two witnesses testified that he was elsewhere at the time of the rape. <p> In March of 1986. Pierce was arrested and taken into custody. The arrest warrant was supported by an affidavit filed by an OCPD officer stating that Ms. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/97-2197.htm">97-2197 -- U.S. V. DOMINGUEZ-CARMONA -- 01/04/1999<BR></A><BR> Defendants argue that the government's appeals are moot because they have served their sentences and been deported to Mexico. Concluding that the appeals are not moot and that the sentences the district court imposed are plainly contrary to the sentencing guidelines. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/00-4015.htm">00-4015 -- U.S. V. WILGUS -- 08/08/2001<BR></A><BR> The Secretary of the Interior to promulgate regulations which authorize takings or possession of these eagles when such possession is compatible with eagle preservation and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/99-1344.htm">99-1344 -- WEINMAN V. FIDELITY CAPITAL APPRECIATION FUND -- 08/21/2001<BR></A><BR> Any and all additional parties who either have joined or will join the said Committee. Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-8001.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Associates</SPAN> were on brief. LLP</SPAN> were on brief. This petition for leave to appeal from a class certification order requires us to plunge into that abyss.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="358"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/06/97-5004.htm">97-5004 -- ENGLISH V. CODY -- 06/30/1998<BR></A><BR> That they were being detained in violation of the Constitution because they had been denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. The district court judges in each case concluded Petitioners' claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel were not procedurally barred. <p> Respondents sought permission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="354"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/50F67AA133DE5D8088256D280073E440/$file/0056043.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are withdrawn and replaced by the amended opinion. The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. A majority of the nonrecused active judges failed to vote in favor of en banc rehearing.* The petition for rehearing en banc is denied. Judge Rawlinson was recused. 6460 SUZUKI MOTOR CORP. v. What makes CU's ratings particularly useful is the thorough explanation of the testing procedures employed. Is no exception. The explanation is not written for morons. It is geared to an intelligent. Yet the careful reader will not fail to understand the central facts that undergird Suzuki's claim in this lawsuit. This is the death of consumer ratings: It will be impossible to issue a meaningful consumer review that a band of determined lawyers can't pick apart in front of a SUZUKI MOTOR CORP. v. The ultimate losers will be American consumers denied access to independent information about the safety and usefulness of products they buy with their hard earned dollars. The majority's analysis is tainted throughout by its failure to articulate. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="354"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/02/00-3013.htm">00-3013 -- ROGERS V. U.S. -- 02/22/2002<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="354"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/09/01-1503.htm">01-1503 -- U.S. V. PATANE -- 09/17/2002<BR></A><BR> The district court based its suppression order on its conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to establish probable cause to arrest Patane. BACKGROUND</strong> <p> Patane was indicted for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="354"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/99-6311.htm">99-6311 -- CANNON V. GIBSON -- 08/07/2001<BR></A><BR> This court concludes that Cannon is not entitled to habeas relief. Factual Background</strong> <p> Cannon and his co defendant Loyd LaFevers were convicted in state court of murdering eighty four year old Addie Hawley. Who was driving the car. Although there was evidence presented at trial that indicated that Hawley was raped. They drove the car a short distance away and also set it on fire. <p> Rescue personnel were called to the scene soon after the fires were set. She was still alive. App. 1992) (noting that facts of Cannon's case were detailed in the OCCA's original opinion in <em>Lafevers</em>). Concluding they were not supported by sufficient evidence. To raise the following five claims on appeal: (1) statements Cannon made after his arrest were improperly admitted at trial because the statements were fruits of an illegal arrest and detention. (2) evidence seized during a warrantless search of Cannon's home was improperly admitted at trial. (3) trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective during the guilt phase of the trial. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="354"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/04/96-2251.htm">96-2251 -- U.S. V. CASTILLO -- 04/06/1998<BR></A><BR> Contending (1) that Rule 414 was not effective at the time of his trial. (3) that the Rule 414 evidence should have been excluded because of its great prejudicial value. We hold that Rule 414 was effective at the time of Mr. He and his wife have five children. The district court allowed N.C. to testify not only to the three acts of abuse against her with which the defendant was charged. Also to a fourth act of sexual abuse against her that was not charged in the indictment. We address whether Rule 414 was effective at the time of Mr. In pertinent part: <p> In a criminal case in which the defendant is accused of an offense of child molestation. Evidence of the defendant's commission of another offense or offenses of child molestation is admissible. May be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant. <p> Fed. We review de novo the district court's conclusion that Rule 414 is constitutional. <u>See</u> <u>United States v. Due Process</strong> <p> <strong> </strong>We first consider whether Federal Rule of Evidence 414 violates the due process rights of a criminal defendant under the Fifth Amendment.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="354"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200516964.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Such that we are bound to overrule Greenberg I. Which held that the digital compilation was not privileged. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="354"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/03-6014.htm">03-6014 -- POWERS V. HARRIS -- 08/23/2004<BR></A><BR> Who are members of the Oklahoma State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="354"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/06/97-6437.htm">97-6437 -- STAUTH V. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY -- 06/24/1999<BR></A><BR> <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="354"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/01-1248.htm">01-1248 -- MORRIS V. BURNETT -- 02/19/2003<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="354"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc2NDFfYW1vcG4ucGRm/03-7641_amopn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Third party payor organizations that provide medical benefits for their members which are used to purchase the drug. The plaintiffs assert that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint based on its conclusion that the settlement agreement was not a violation of antitrust law and that the plaintiffs did not suffer antitrust injury as a result of the alleged violation. Arising out of circumstances surrounding a lawsuit in which a drug manufacturer alleged that its patent for the drug tamoxifen citrate ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="354"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/97-6065.htm">97-6065 -- MOORE V. REYNOLDS -- 07/13/1998<BR></A><BR> We affirm. <p> <center>I.</center> <p> Moore was convicted of robbery in 1978 and served three and a half years in state confinement. Where Alex Fernandez was working the night shift. He was unsuccessful. Moore called Fernandez to ask if there were any rooms available. Moore told Caster she was to open the cash register while he tied and gagged Fernandez. <p> Moore and Caster drove to the Airline Motel and parked behind the motel. As Caster was attempting to wipe away her fingerprints. There was no answer and they drove to a cafe. Moore said </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="354"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/10/97-6367.htm">97-6367 -- HORSTKOETTER V. DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY -- 10/28/1998<BR></A><BR> Even if the signs were placed there by members' spouses. The Horstkoetter property is owned by L.D. and Paula Horstkoetter in joint tenancy. The Dean property is titled in the name of Jeff Dean only. <p> Several days after the wives placed the signs in the yards. To check the homes of other troopers to see whether any campaign signs were visible in members' yards. Members shall not display any partisan political sticker or sign on motor vehicles operated by them or under their control and <u>shall not publicly display any partisan political stickers or signs at their residences</u>. <p> Oklahoma Highway Patrol General Policy Order 78 52 2.16(d) (emphasis added). <p> After Grimes learned that there were signs at the Horstkoetter and Dean residences. Horstkoetter and Dean called their wives and explained that their jobs would be put in jeopardy if the signs were not removed. Horstkoetter was married to a patrolman. Certain restrictions were therefore placed on the residential property. As well as a declaration stating that the policy of the Oklahoma Highway Patrol is unconstitutional. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="354"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B3401662DC6DAE0F882572EB004D0A8A/$file/0555742.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> TURNER ENTERTAINMENT CO. she is owed from the profits of the motion picture. Because there are triable issues of fact. Inc. are integral to this case.1 On July 22. Which are herein referred to as `the Pictures.' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="354"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1357.html">KNORR-BREMSE SYSTEME FUER NUTZFAHRZEUGE GMBH V. DANA CORPORATION, ET AL.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff cross appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>With him on the brief were <u>Michael I. Cantor</u> and <u>Karen Canaan</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>Of counsel were <u>John C. Defendant appellant Dana Corporation.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>With him on the brief for Haldex were <u>Wesley W. Of counsel were <u>James P. Copyright Section.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>With him on the brief was <u>Lynn E. For amicus curiae New York Intellectual Property Law Association.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>With him on the brief was <u>F. Christopher Mizzo</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Melvin C. Inc.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>With him on the brief was <u>Emily A. Evans</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>Of counsel were <u>Michael A. For amicus curiae American Intellectual Property Law Association.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>With him on the brief was <u>Jeffrey I.D. New York.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>Also on the brief was <u>David G. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1206.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.L.L.C. were on brief. Plumb & Murray were on brief. Reasoning that the Union's claim failed to satisfy the Lanham Act's jurisdictional requirements because (1) the parties were not competing for the sale of commercial services. (2) Winship's admittedly unauthorized use of the mark was in connection with services offered by the markholder rather than services offered by the infringer. Is also a plaintiff. Two affiliates of Winship (Hillhaven Corp. and First Healthcare Corp.) are codefendants. The difference between the two types of marks is not relevant here. Thus we will apply case law involving either form. Is also postdated. Urges the reader to vote against unionization and warns that union membership will bring significant financial burdens. Accompanies this listing: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1994/94a0885p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a trade dress infringement action brought under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. That Travis is liable for manufacturing the molds for Joy's planter. Because Duraco's claim is predicated upon infringement of the trade dress of the product itself. Constitute inherently distinctive trade dress thus serving as a designator of origin that will protect the plaintiff's product design features against copying. Insofar as it is not a symbol according to which one can relate the signifier (the trademark. Along with the degree to which the mark describes the product is unsuited for application to the product itself. We also think that there is a proper set of circumstances for treating a product configuration as inherently distinctive. These circumstances are characterized by a high probability that a product configuration serves a virtually exclusively identifying function for consumers where the concerns over </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="350"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1361.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were William J. With her on the brief were James M. With him on the brief were Charles H. Of counsel was Ahmed J. With him on the brief were Marc G. Of counsel on the brief was J. With him on the brief was Matthew S. Of counsel on the brief was John D. Of counsel was Joseph B. Philips specified that the same royalty was due for each disc manufactured by the licensee using patents included in the package. Regardless of how many of the patents were used. Potential licensees who sought to license patents to the technology for manufacturing CD Rs or CD RWs were not allowed to license those patents individually and were not offered a lower royalty rate for licenses to fewer than all the patents in a package. Were violating section 337(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930. Were added through intervention. As a condition of licensing patents that were necessary to manufacture CD Rs or CD RWs. To take licenses to other patents that were not necessary to manufacture those products. The respondents argued that a number of the patents that Philips had included in the category of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="348"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/06/96-3018a.htm">96-3018A -- SMITH V. MIDLAND BRAKE INC. -- 06/14/1999<BR></A><BR> The plaintiff appellant should have been listed as follows: <p> GENEVA M. Deceased. <p> <p> A copy of the corrected slip opinion cover page is attached. <p> Sincerely. We are required to answer two questions concerning the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Whether an employee can be a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="348"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/03/96-8119.htm">96-8119 -- BROWN V. ROYAL MACCABEES LIFE INSURANCE CO. -- 03/03/1998<BR></A><BR> 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? <p> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="348"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1435.html">MIDWEST INDUSTRIES V. KARAVAN TRAILERS, INC.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were H. Of counsel was Curtis A. Of counsel on the brief was Don Cayen. Have joined Part II A of this opinion.<p> BRYSON. Holding that they are barred by federal patent law. We hold that we will apply Federal Circuit law in determining whether patent law conflicts with other federal statutes or preempts state law causes of action. Those decisions in which we have held that regional circuit law governs in resolving such issues. As is typically true of watercraft trailers. Midwest also alleged that Karavan's conduct violated Midwest's rights under the Iowa common law of trademarks.<p> Midwest is the exclusive licensee of U.S. Would interfere with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="348"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/01-1237.htm">01-1237 -- HALL V. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA -- 08/20/2002<BR></A><BR> UNUM's principal argument is that the district court improperly considered evidence outside of the administrative record relied upon by UNUM when it terminated Hall's benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="348"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan96/99-13515.man.html">BREWER-GIORGIO V. PRODUCERS VIDEO, INC. (7/3/2000, NO. 99-13515)<BR></A><BR> We affirm.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="348"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2000/99-13515.man.html">BREWER-GIORGIO V. PRODUCERS VIDEO (7/3/2000, NO. 99-13515)<BR></A><BR> We affirm.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="348"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan96/99-13515.man.html">BREWER-GIORGIO V. PRODUCERS VIDEO, INC. (7/3/2000, NO. 99-13515)<BR></A><BR> We affirm.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="348"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/98-4160.htm">98-4160 -- TILLMAN V. COOK -- 06/15/2000<BR></A><BR> Claiming his right to Due Process was violated. (3) the jury convicted him on the basis of elements for which there was insufficient evidence. (4) his indictment was insufficient. (5) his sentence of death was arbitrary. Because the distinction between first degree and second degree murder was entirely unclear to a jury. (6) his sentence of death was arbitrary and unconstitutional. Because three of five Justices of the Utah Supreme Court have. Tillman was convicted by a jury of first degree murder. Which was denied. <u>See</u> <u>Tillman v. Tillman's right to appeal is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Because his appeal was filed after its effective date. While the Court's clarification in <u>Slack</u> may have some effect on non constitutional claims. The standard remains the same for constitutional claims. <u>See</u> <u>id.</u> <p> Because the showing for a CPC is the same as that required for a COA. 2253(c) is straightforward: The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. . . . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="348"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2000/99-13515.man.html">BREWER-GIORGIO V. PRODUCERS VIDEO (7/3/2000, NO. 99-13515)<BR></A><BR> We affirm.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="348"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/06/96-3018.htm">96-3018 -- SMITH V. MIDLAND BRAKE INC. -- 06/14/1999<BR></A><BR> We are required to answer two questions concerning the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Whether an employee can be a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="344"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/02-2176.htm">02-2176 -- FOUGHT V. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA -- 02/06/2004<BR></A><BR> Alleging that she was entitled to disability benefits under the plan. Which was issued by UNUM with an effective date of June 1. Under a provision entitled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="344"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/08/01-6448.htm">01-6448 -- WORKMAN V. MULLIN -- 08/26/2003<BR></A><BR> Was convicted and sentenced to death by a jury in Oklahoma state court for felony first degree child abuse murder. As was the case here. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="344"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/10/96-4150.htm">96-4150 -- U.S. V. MURDOCK -- 10/20/1997<BR></A><BR> Chief Judge. <p> Perry Von Murdock was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="344"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/95-4084.htm">95-4084 -- BAUCHMAN V. WEST HIGH SCHOOL (SALT LAKE CITY) -- 12/18/1997<BR></A><BR> The Religion and Speech clauses of the Utah Constitution. <p> The constitutional issues raised in this appeal are issues of acute public interest issues which evoke diverse opinions and strong emotions. Bauchman's claims focus on religious neutrality in public schools only intensifies that interest and emotion.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="344"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19969249.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Honorable Stanley Marcus was a U.S. When this appeal was argued and taken under submission. Plc ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="344"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9D3706DE514AF63588256BBF007EB1DE/$file/0056192.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Background The Cavaliers created copyrighted works involving several characters who are featured in children's stories. A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="344"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2342.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLC</SPAN> were on brief. Miller</SPAN> were on brief. Alleging that it was a price fixing purchasing pool. </EM>OSF was tasked with designing and marketing a UNIX based operating system known as OSF/1 that would become an industry standard for UNIX users. Which essentially offered competing suppliers the opportunity to submit their products to be integrated into the OSF/1 operating system.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="344"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june98/96-9249.man.html">ELAN PHARM. RESEARCH CORP. V. EMPLOYERS INS. OF WAUSAU (6/26/1998, NO. 96-9249)<BR></A><BR> Plc ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="344"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-7044a.html">A. LASHAWN V. BARRY JR. MARION S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="344"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19969249.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The defendant cross appellant appeals the district court's decision to grant the insured's motion for summary judgment on the question of coverage under the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="344"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0313p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chirco is in the Detroit real estate business. Are allegedly substantially similar to. Chirco concedes that any decision by this court would have no impact on the instant case against Gateway Oaks. Chirco asks us to rule on the correctness of the district court's order canceling his lis pendens because the issue is capable of repetition. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="344"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/09/03-6206.htm">03-6206 -- JENNINGS V. CITY OF STILLWATER -- 09/14/2004<BR></A><BR> Four members of the OSU football team whom we will refer to. Plaintiff claims that she was raped. The football players maintain that the encounter was consensual. The football players were not charged with any crime as a result of these events. <p> In this suit brought under 42 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="344"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/04/98-4058.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> This appeal is taken from the district court's denial of attorney's fees to defendants appellants George Nelson. 524 n.11 (1994) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="344"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june98/96-9249.man.html">ELAN PHARM. RESEARCH CORP. V. EMPLOYERS INS. OF WAUSAU (6/26/1998, NO. 96-9249)<BR></A><BR> Plc ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="344"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/98-5061.htm">98-5061 -- CARDTOONS L.C. V. MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYERS ASSOCIATION -- 04/07/2000<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="344"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/02-6261.htm">02-6261 -- GIPSON V. JORDAN -- 08/02/2004<BR></A><BR> The sole issue on appeal is whether prosecutorial remarks before the sentencing jury which referenced Gipson's prior convictions impermissibly infringed upon his right to be free from double jeopardy. <strong>REVERSE</strong> the grant of habeas relief. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="344"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/11/01-6403.htm">01-6403 -- MOLLETT V. MULLIN -- 11/05/2003<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="344"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/10/96-4150a.htm">96-4150A -- U.S. V. MURDOCK -- 10/20/1997<BR></A><BR> Is incorrectly attributed. The correct citation for the quote is <u>Chapoose v. Utah 1985).<a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="344"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/11/02-3343.htm">02-3343 -- O'SHEA V. WELCH -- 11/25/2003<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="344"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/96-4150.htm">96-4150 -- U.S. V. MURDOCK -- 12/20/1997<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="344"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/11/02-4030.htm">02-4030 -- HEIDEMAN V. SOUTH SALTLAKE CITY -- 11/04/2003<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="344"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/98-2040.htm">98-2040 -- U.S. V. PRENTISS -- 07/12/2001<BR></A><BR> (2) whether the failure of an indictment to allege these elements deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction or instead is subject to harmless error review. <p> A majority of this court agrees with the panel opinion's conclusion that the Indian and non Indian statuses of the victim and the defendant are elements of the crime of arson in Indian country under 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="344"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1382.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Clapp</SPAN> were on brief for appellant. <P> <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/031566p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/sept97/96-1086.wpd.html">ROE V. CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN CONFERENCE RESORT, INC.<BR></A><BR> I Plaintiff appellant Jane Roe (a pseudonym used for purposes of privacy) is an accounts manager for the defendant appellee Cheyenne Mountain Conference Resort (hereinafter CMCR or simply defendant). Is used extensively by major corporations. Were given copies of the Policy and told that their (1) Honorable Joseph F. Sitting by designation. written consent to the Policy and their adherence to its requirements were mandatory for their continued employment. Drugs and illegal substances are the policy of CMCR. Adherence to these rules is a condition of employment: 1. Employees are strictly prohibited from possessing. Employees are strictly prohibited from possessing. Any prescribed or over the counter drug or medication that has been illegally obtained or is being used in an improper manner. 3. In CMCR vehicles or on CMCR property or to the property to which they have been assigned in the course of their employment. Prescribed drugs may be used only to the extent that they have been reported and approved by an employee supervisor and that they can be taken by the employee without risk of sensory impairment and/or injury to any person or employee. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="342"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/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-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2004/021770p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that the two year state limitations period does apply to KingVision's FCA claims because the Pennsylvania piracy statute is directly analogous to з 553 of the FCA and neither 1 the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTIwOTUtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2095-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs were not party to the software agreement. The CD ROM product was never marketed by McGraw. Was not restricted in any way. Plaintiffs are each entitled to 10% of the gross receipts from the transfer.2 The software agreement provided that Augusta would </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1996/96a1283p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that Orson failed to present evidence sufficient to show that Miramax engaged in an antitrust conspiracy or that the licenses were unreasonable restraints of trade. We will affirm the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment to Miramax on Orson's antitrust claims. We will. Was owned and operated by the Posel Corporation. Was owned and operated by the Raysid Corporation. Posel was the President of both corporations. There were six other theaters in Center City. Four theaters with a total of 20 screens were operated by United Artists and two theaters with two screens each were operated by American Multi Cinema. The license is exclusive. The film will not be licensed to other exhibitors in a prescribed area. Such licenses are called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkwNjItY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9062-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case asks us to decide whether the general knowledge test component of New York State's public school teacher certification program is racially discriminatory in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The plaintiffs are public Page 2 of 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 employees. The essence of their claim is that the New York State Education Department ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/02-3050.htm">02-3050 -- U.S. V. HATHAWAY -- 02/05/2003<BR></A><BR> Hathaway was convicted by a jury of a single count of forcibly assaulting a federal officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/01/01-5122.htm">01-5122 -- DUBUC V. JOHNSON -- 01/02/2003<BR></A><BR> Plaintiff's failure to pay the filing fee as directed will result in the dismissal of his appeal for failure to prosecute. <u>See</u> <u>Young v. The opinions of the panel in support of and in opposition to this Order are attached. <p> <strong>McKAY</strong>. Alleged defects occurring during trial proceedings. <p> Plaintiff is a prisoner bringing a civil appeal after having at least three prior actions or appeals dismissed on the grounds that they were frivolous. 1915(g) applies to prisoners who have filed at least three prior frivolous actions or appeals. Brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous. Unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. <p> <u>Id.</u> An action or appeal that has been dismissed as frivolous. Or for failure to state a claim is commonly referred to as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/12/97-1407.htm">97-1407 -- U.S. V. WHITESKUNK -- 12/16/1998<BR></A><BR> 1153 and 1112(a) and was sentenced to twenty four months imprisonment. Was driving a pickup truck at a rate of seventy eight miles per hour eastbound on Highway 172 within the boundaries of the Southern Ute Indian Reservation near Ignacio. Was riding a motorcycle westbound on Highway 172 traveling about fifty five miles per hour. This was not the first time Ms. The offense was not included in her criminal history because it occurred more than ten years earlier. <p> The district court found several other events on the day of the accident made the case unusual. Whiteskunk was sitting in her truck. She was approached by a Southern Ute police officer who. Took her keys and told her she was not going to drink and drive. Was refused service because she looked </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1261.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Of which she was the executive director. Arising out of activities No. 01 1261 3 that she was alleged to have committed as Discovery's director. Process or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of the [Bankruptcy Code]. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/06/97-4079.htm">97-4079 -- UNITED STATES TRUSTEE V. CF&I FABRICATORS OF UTAH INC. -- 06/30/1998<BR></A><BR> We are asked to determine the effect of Congress' amendment of 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="335"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1994/94a0801p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that the district court erred and will vacate its judgment and remand the cause for further proceedings.[fn2] I. Mainframes and Upgrades The facts underlying this nine year old dispute are minutely detailed and quite voluminous. We will present only a brief summary here. IBM is the world's largest manufacturer of large scale mainframe computers. These machines have the capacity to process millions of records at a time and manage a tremendous volume of information. Mainframes are physically large machines. They are quite expensive. Mainframes are available in a wide range of computing capacities. One common measure of capacity is computing speed. In what is known as a MIPS upgrade. Many IBM mainframes are not purchased outright from IBM by their end users. Are instead leased through third party leasing companies such as CMI and Comdisco.[fn3] A mainframe will typically be leased to several end users during its life cycle. Then when obsolete will be scrapped. The computer will need to be reconfigured to meet the needs of the next lessee. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="335"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/661116A4ECB1A7BE88256C8600544DCB/$file/0115098.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that there is no constitutional infirmity in the statute's provisions regarding active peace officers. We conclude that each of the three additional constitutional claims asserted by plaintiffs on appeal is without merit. The immediate cause of the AWCA's enactment was a random shooting earlier that year at the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton. Where three hundred pupils were enjoying their morning recess. Five children aged 6 to 9 were killed. One teacher and 29 children were wounded. Was the first legislative restriction on assault weapons in the nation. Was the model for a similar federal statute enacted in 1994. So that the weapon will continue to reload and fire continuously so long as the trigger is depressed. Only one bullet is fired when the user of a semi automatic weapon depresses the trigger. Another is automatically reloaded into the gun's chamber. 27 C.F.R. з 178.11 (defining semiautomatic weapons). LOCKYER restrictions on the use of weapons that are registered pursuant to its provisions. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="335"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2003/024046p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Daffy's is a chain of retail clothing stores specializing in selling popular brands of goods and apparel at discount prices. Inc. was recognized as a reputable supplier. The events leading to the purchase began when a representative of Sara's approached Daffy's regarding some Gucci handbags that were being diverted to the United States from a merchant in the Far East. Although Daffy's representatives were confident that the bags were genuine. A Daffy's employee presented one of the bags to the Gucci clerk and informed the clerk that she had received the bag as a gift 3 and was not certain of its authenticity. The employee asked the clerk to examine the bag and confirm that it was genuine. Informed the Daffy's employee that the bag was authentic. That conclusion was based on certain indicia of authenticity including the quality of fabric and leather. Daffy's also sent one of the bags it had purchased that was damaged to the Gucci repair center in New York for repair. Daffy's concluded that the bags it had purchased from Sara's were genuine Gucci bags. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="335"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CB340BA134E0B81688256CBB005A9417/$file/0115098.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is hereby amended as follows: 1 At Slip Op. at 7. We conclude that there is no constitutional infirmity in the statute's provisions regarding active peace officers. LOCKYER 1119 three additional constitutional claims asserted by plaintiffs on appeal is without merit. The immediate cause of the AWCA's enactment was a random shooting earlier that year at the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton. Where three hundred pupils were enjoying their morning recess. Five children aged 6 to 9 were killed. One teacher and 29 children were wounded. Was the first legislative restriction on assault weapons in the nation. Was the model for a similar federal statute enacted in 1994. So that the weapon will continue to reload and fire continuously so long as the trigger is depressed. Imposes significant restrictions on the use of weapons that are registered pursuant to its provisions. Id. з 12285(c).3 Approximately forty models of firearms are listed in the statute as subject to its restrictions. Only one bullet is fired when the user of a semi automatic weapon depresses the trigger. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="335"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1139.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PC were on brief for appellee Rey. Berry & Howard were on brief for appellants Lafferty. I I BACKGROUND BACKGROUND </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="335"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1283.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were William H. With him on the brief were Kara F. The total damages award was based on the jury's finding that Aero was entitled to recover $2.95 million as patent infringement damages. The aspect of the invention that is the focus of this appeal is the claimed valve assembly. It is by means of the valve assembly that the air mattress is inflated and remains inflated. The specification states that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="333"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/07/98-5115.htm">98-5115 -- SHEPHERD V. APFEL -- 07/15/1999<BR></A><BR> Applies in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="333"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200501/02-1244a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Karyn K. With them on the briefs was Mark J. With her on the briefs were Ronald A. With him on the brief were Peter D. The Librarian's decision was based on proceedings before a Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="333"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/11/99-3329.htm">99-3329 -- GSCHWIND V. CESSNA AIRCRAFT CO. -- 11/29/2000<BR></A><BR> An Ohio citizen.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="333"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/97-4074.htm">97-4074 -- STERLIN V. SYSTEMS -- 09/02/1998<BR></A><BR> Concluding that Plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations. BACKGROUND</strong> <p> Biomune is a biotech company which. Was developing a protein called Immuno C to be used in enhancing human immune systems. David Derrick was Biomune's President. Aaron Gold and Charles Quantz were directors of Biomune. Was a member of Biomune's Business Advisory Board. Whose beneficiaries are Solomon's family members. Genesis Trust was at one time Biomune's largest shareholder. Both Derrick and Gold were directors of Genesis. Was also a shareholder of Biomune. Who was subject to a consent decree for previous securities violations. NASDAQ notified Biomune that it was deferring consideration of its application pending a review by the NASDAQ Listing Qualifications Committee. NASDAQ was concerned with disciplinary actions taken against </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="333"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/06/02-1459.htm">02-1459 -- U.S. V. JONES -- 06/18/2003<BR></A><BR> Jones' blood alcohol level was .266. The district court concluded that Jones' conduct was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="333"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/05/96-6087.htm">96-6087 -- BEAIRD V. SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY, INC. -- 05/28/1998<BR></A><BR> More than 200 employees at Seagate's Oklahoma City facility were laid off. Some of the plaintiffs in this case had more than twenty years seniority when they were let go. They argue that it was reversible error to allow Seagate to submit a reply brief with additional materials after plaintiffs had responded to Seagate's original summary judgment motion. They contend that questions of material fact remain with respect to each plaintiff and that summary judgment was thus improper. <p> <center><strong>I</strong></center> <p> In 1993. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="333"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/07/99-1263.htm">99-1263 -- HERRING V. KEENAN -- 07/10/2000<BR></A><BR> The manager and acting director of the restaurant where he was employed as a waiter. Herring was serving a period of probation under Keenan's supervision. The district court rejected Keenan's contention that she was entitled to qualified immunity because she did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. We conclude that there is a constitutional right to privacy that protects an individual from the disclosure of information concerning a person's health. Because we hold that it was not clearly established. That a probationer had a constitutionally protected right to privacy regarding information concerning his or her medical condition. <p> <center>I</center> <p> Because we are reviewing the denial of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The following facts are alleged in the second amended complaint. <p> On or about September of 1993. At no time did he inform Keenan that the results of the HIV test were positive. Herring was employed as a waiter at the 50's Café. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="333"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/06/96-1512.htm">96-1512 -- U.S. V. ROWLAND -- 06/02/1998<BR></A><BR> Rowland argues the warrant was invalid for lack of probable cause because the supporting affidavit failed to establish a sufficient nexus between the items to be seized and Rowland's residence. Although we conclude the warrant was not supported by probable cause. Rowland gave his name and the address of a private post office box and indicated that he was interested in incest. Rowland was authorized to receive mail there. <p> On March 7. The search warrant allowed investigators to search Rowland's residence once the package containing the video tapes was brought into the residence. <p> On March 8. While Rowland was walking back to work with the package. Rowland was observed leaving his work at lunch time. He then returned to his car and the agents followed as he drove straight home. <p> Once Rowland was home. They were still unable to determine whether he had the video tapes. Rowland at first stated he didn't know what Carr was talking about. Rowland responded that the package was at work. Carr then asked him where the contents of the package were. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="333"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/12/98-1124.htm">98-1124 -- U.S. V. CARREON-ORTEGA -- 12/28/1998<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> On October 31. Carreon Ortega was sentenced to a term of 71 months imprisonment for his offense. The sole issue presented in this appeal is whether the district court erred by departing from the guideline range. We affirm the decision of the district court. <p> <center><strong>BACKGROUND</strong></center> <p> Carreon Ortega is a citizen of Mexico. He was convicted of disturbing the peace and shoplifting. He was fined and released (although the fines weren't paid until 1994. During the time the woman was gone. Was heard to state </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="333"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/12/98-6236.htm">98-6236 -- PAXTON V. WARD -- 12/29/1999<BR></A><BR> Chief Judge. <p> Petitioner Kenneth Wayne Paxton was convicted of first degree murder by a jury in Oklahoma state court and sentenced to death. Determined that the sentencing proceeding was constitutionally flawed by the exclusion of mitigating evidence. Paxton argues that he was improperly denied an instruction on a lesser included offense. That evidence of an invalid prior conviction was improperly admitted during the sentencing phase of his trial to support two of the three aggravating circumstances found by the jury.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="333"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/07/99-1263a.htm">99-1263A -- HERRING V. KEENAN -- 07/10/2000<BR></A><BR> The section should read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="333"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/05/00-6204.htm">00-6204 -- HAWKINS V. MULLIN -- 05/22/2002<BR></A><BR> Which is not a specifically enumerated felony supporting a first degree murder conviction under Oklahoma law. We hold that the Oklahoma appellate court's interpretation was not unforeseeable and therefore did not deprive Hawkins of due process. Were also in the car at the time. His original plan was to kidnap Thompson and hold her for ransom. Were staying with the couple at that time. <p> At the house. 2) Thompson's murder was especially heinous. Hawkins is a continuing threat to society. Hawkins will be entitled to habeas relief only if he can establish that the state courts' resolution of his claims was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="333"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/05/00-6135.htm">00-6135 -- HOLLANDER V. SANDOZ PHARMA CEUTICALS CORP. -- 05/10/2002<BR></A><BR> It rejected the Hollanders' arguments that it lacked jurisdiction over the remaining claims and that the defendants' removal petition was untimely. The federal district court ruled that the Hollanders' expert testimony regarding the causal connection between Parlodel and intracerebral hemorrhages lacked the necessary reliability and was therefore inadmissible. <u>See</u> <u>Hollander v. (3) the court abused its discretion in ruling that the testimony of their experts was not sufficiently reliable to be admissible. We further hold that the court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the Hollanders' expert testimony was not sufficiently reliable and that the court did not err in granting summary judgment to Sandoz. We agree with the Hollanders that the federal district court should have dismissed their claim against Sandoz. To be taken in two 2.5 mg doses per day. <p> Parlodel is manufactured by Sandoz. The drug's active ingredient is bromocriptine mesylate. Approximately 9 million women in the United States have taken it for that purpose. <u>See</u> <u>Siharath v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="333"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/10/01-2252.htm">01-2252 -- HACEESA V. U.S. -- 10/24/2002<BR></A><BR> Haceesa was sent home that night. He was dead. <p> Only after his death was Haceesa's disease diagnosed correctly: he died of hantavirus pulmonary syndrome. Haceesa was a Navajo Indian. The hospital where he was first seen on April 25 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="333"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041655p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="333"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/05/03-5040.htm">03-5040 -- U.S. V. DEGASSO -- 05/12/2004<BR></A><BR> Troopers recovered forty eight kilograms of cocaine from a cavity in the bed of the vehicle in which Defendants were traveling. Trooper Colby Cason was working I 44 on an overcast morning when he noticed a 2002 Chevrolet Avalanche apparently traveling with its fog lamps illuminated. Trooper Cason also observed that the truck's rear license plate was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="331"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1681p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court concluded that Integrated lacked standing to pursue the state law claims because its purchase of the claims from a trustee in bankruptcy was void ab initio under New Jersey law. We disagree and will affirm. 2 I. The debt was secured by separate security agreements in assets such as accounts. Certain individual defendants who were former Machine Technology employees entered Machine Technology's offices and took or copied various documents. Were unlawfully competing with Integrated. The district court denied Integrated's request for an injunction on the ground that Integrated was not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="331"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-7043a.html">EDDY JAMES PETER V. COLONIAL LIFE INS<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="331"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2059.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We 2 Nos. 02 2059 & 02 2182 consider the following two issues: (1) whether the district court's denial of a jury instruction on fair use was improper. (2) whether the district court's valuation of loss for Sentencing Guidelines purposes was clearly erroneous. I PWA was a group of Internet pirates organized in the 1990s with the goal of making vast amounts of copyrighted software freely and thus unlawfully available over the Internet. Each member was required to contribute valuable services in an assembly line like fashion. Defendant Slater was one such cracker. It was his job to download the coded computer software program and eliminate the internal copyright protection. Defendant Morley was a packager. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/04/00-3113.htm">00-3113 -- JOHNSON V. MCKUNE -- 04/15/2002<BR></A><BR> Noble Leroy Johnson was convicted in the district court of Butler County. The District Court found the <em>Sandstrom</em> issue not to have been defaulted or waived because <em>Sandstrom</em> was not decided until after Johnson's conviction was final and because he had raised the issue in his first motion and appealed its denial to the highest state court. <em>Johnson v. The court held that the ruling in <em>Sandstrom</em> was not retroactively applicable on collateral review under <em>Teague v. Thomas and Darlene Woodyard were murdered in El Dorado. The Woodyards were friends of Noble Leroy Johnson and his wife Linda. The bodies were discovered three days later when the Woodyards' landlady entered the house. Her husband told her he was going to go back and kill them. A witness said he had seen Noble Johnson crouching by the river behind the Woodyards' house the day before the bodies were discovered. Johnson said that because the doors were locked from the inside. Johnson said he was angry at this. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1468.html">UNIV OF COLORADO V. AMERICAN CYNAMID CO.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <U>Harold A. Of counsel on the brief were <U>Robert N. Colorado Of counsel was <U>Mark A. With him on the brief was <U>Thomas . Also on the brief were <U>Daniel J. Materna 1.60 (Materna) is a prenatal multivitamin/mineral supplement produced and sold by Lederle Laboratories. That lawsuit alleged (1) that the Doctors (who were medical researchers at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center) invented the reformulation of Materna covered by the 634 patent claims and communicated the invention to Dr. The University also sought equitable title to the 634 patent and sought to have the Doctors named as the inventors in the 634 patent under 35 U.S.C. з 256 (1994).</P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/07/942867P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Either because prison showings are not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkwOThfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9098_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1308.html">INTERGRAPH CORP V. INTEL CORP<BR></A><BR> Of counsel on the brief were <U>David Vance Lucas</U>. With him on the brief was <U>Joel M. Of counsel on the brief were <U>Peter . Intel is a manufacturer of high performance computer microprocessors. The microprocessors are sold to producers of various computer based devices. Who adapt and integrate the microprocessors into products that are designed and sold for particular uses. These producers are called original equipment manufacturers. Intergraph Corporation is an OEM. Sells computer workstations that are used in producing computer aided graphics. From 1987 to 1993 Intergraph's workstations were based on a high performance microprocessor developed by the Fairchild division of National Semiconductor. Embodying what is called the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/97-9024.htm">97-9024 -- GILMORE & WILSON CONSTRUCTION CO. AND SUBSIDIARY V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE -- 01/13/1999<BR></A><BR> These cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> These three appeals challenge the Tax Court's affirmance of the Commissioner's imposition of penalties and interest due to the taxpayers appellants' negligent underpayment of taxes owed for various tax years from 1979 to 1983. <em>See</em> <em>Estate of Hogard v. 1997 WL 160769 (1997).<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/07/01-5098.htm">01-5098 -- DUBBS V. HEAD START INC. -- 07/21/2003<BR></A><BR> Complain that their children were subjected to intrusive physical examinations. Including reconsideration of the assessment of costs against the parents. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/95-1535.htm">95-1535 -- DEMAREST V. PRICE -- 12/03/1997<BR></A><BR> Demarest's petition was filed before the AEDPA's effective date. <u>See</u> <u>Lindh v. Demarest can establish either that there was cause for the default and prejudice resulting from the violation of federal law. Hyams's head was wrapped in a bathrobe and there were puncture wounds around his neck and collarbone. Demarest was distraught and in shock. He was then transferred to the psychiatric ward of another hospital. Demarest was released from the psychiatric ward on February 11. Demarest was taken back to the hospital's psychiatric ward. Was a contrived reaction intended to divert suspicion. <p> At trial. Hyams was murdered by a tall. Hyams's fingernails could not have come from Mr. A blood expert testified that there was no evidence that blood had been transferred between Mr. Demarest hitting his hands on the gravel and would have remembered seeing it. She noticed that his right hand was swollen and there was a small amount of blood on his cuticles. Demarest's hands were already scratched from the struggle with Mr. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/02/99-2309.htm">99-2309 -- WARD V. WILLIAMS -- 02/26/2001<BR></A><BR> This is the second appeal we have heard regarding Ward's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/10/96-4040.htm">96-4040 -- HARTOG V. WASATCH ACADEMY -- 10/28/1997<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/98-3223.htm">98-3223 -- KOCH V. KOCH INDUSTRIES INC. -- 02/14/2000<BR></A><BR> Is the second largest privately held corporation in the United States. KII was founded by Fred C. Those members of the Simmons family involved in the instant suit are cousins to the four Koch brothers. <p> In 1966 and 1967. He was never a KII employee and did not place a representative on the board until March of 1981. <p> In 1980. Frederick and the Simmons Family either to buy back some or all of their stock or to take KII public and have the now dissident shareholders sell their stock on the public market. The SPA contained two relevant warranties by KII: The first provided that all KII financial statements disclosed to the selling shareholders had fairly presented KII's financial condition and were prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Would have increased the Plaintiffs' valuation of KII stock at the time of the SPA. The Defendants named in the action were KII. Which alleged the Defendants failed to disclose that certain expenses were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/10/96-4040a.htm">96-4040A -- HARTOG V. WASATCH ACADEMY -- 10/28/1997<BR></A><BR> The correct sentence should read: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/02/99-6310.htm">99-6310 -- ROMANO V. GIBSON -- 02/13/2001<BR></A><BR> What degree of mental torture or conscious serious physical abuse preceding death is necessary to satisfy Oklahoma's especially heinous. Is required to investigate and present psychiatric evidence and evidence of a defendant's early childhood during a capital sentencing proceeding. That the State does not need to appeal separately the district court's adverse procedural bar determination in order to reassert that defense on appeal. <p> <strong>I.</strong> <strong>FACTS</strong> <p> Romano and Woodruff were convicted of killing a jeweler. Romano was serving a prison sentence and was only free on weekends. A critical issue in the case was how long Sarfaty had been dead before a friend first discovered his body. The State's theory was that the murder occurred on Saturday. Romano and Woodruff do not have alibis for at least part of that time period. <p> Evidence supporting the State's theory included the fact that Sarfaty usually went to a bar. The last time he was seen there was when he left the club about 2:00 A.M. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/99-1178.htm">99-1178 -- DODGE V. COTTER CORP.-- 02/11/2000<BR></A><BR> After class certification was denied. Convinced a jury Cotter was negligent in operating the mill but failed to establish its negligence caused their exposure to hazardous materials which required future medical monitoring. <p> Now before us is a second group of fourteen plaintiffs who. Established Cotter's negligence caused their physical injuries and were awarded monetary damages. Is a mile and a half north of the Mill. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/09/00-6081.htm">00-6081 -- CITY OF PHILADELPHIA V. FLEMING CO. INC. -- 09/07/2001<BR></A><BR> 78u 4(b)(1)(2). <p> This court has not yet ruled on what is required to plead scienter in a securities fraud case that falls under the PSLRA. We find that they have not pled facts giving rise to a strong inference that Defendants intentionally or recklessly failed to disclose the pending litigation in a manner that would give rise to liability for securities fraud. Because we find that Plaintiffs have not sufficiently pled a primary violation of the securities laws. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/09/99-6083.htm">99-6083 -- HALE V. GIBSON -- 09/25/2000<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1399.html">HUNTER DOUGLAS V. HARMONIC DESIGN<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/03/99-3065.htm">99-3065 -- STATES OF ALABAMA, CALIFORNIA, CONNECTICUT, ET AL. V. U.S. DEPT. OF ENERGY -- 03/06/2000<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/10/96-4040d.htm">96-4040D -- HARTOG V. WASATCH ACADEMY -- 10/28/1997<BR></A><BR> Any such sharp dichotomy... </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/03/00-7096.htm">00-7096 -- BROWNING V. U.S. -- 03/01/2001<BR></A><BR> That was previously unavailable. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/09/98-6004.htm">98-6004 -- MOORE V. GIBSON -- 09/28/1999<BR></A><BR> Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and kidnaping for the abduction and murder of twelve year old Jenipher Gilbert. He is entitled to discovery and an evidentiary hearing on his allegations that police planted evidence against him. Atrocious or cruel </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/00-3292.htm">00-3292 -- U.S. V. JAMES -- 07/16/2001<BR></A><BR> Paul Edward Davis and Samuel Juan Green were separately convicted of possession with intent to distribute and/or distribution of cocaine base (crack) in violation of 21 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTYzMTQtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-6314-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellees are Clinton County and one of its officials. They We have jurisdiction claim that the district court failed to consider evidence of prevailing market rates and instead relied solely on the rate fixed in earlier caselaw. We agree with plaintiffs appellants that the district court н at least when presented with evidence of a divergence between the rate used in prior caselaw and the prevailing market rate н is 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 required to make findings of fact as to the prevailing rate and apply it in its award calculation. The events giving rise to that appeal are set forth in full in two opinions of the district court. Proceedings in the district court have been extensive and involved both a jury and a bench trial. Certain causes of action were dismissed by summary judgment. The claims of four plaintiffs were settled prior to trial. The jury also found in favor of two plaintiffs whose claims were presented at trial. Notice of the class action was given. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/02-5151.htm">02-5151 -- U.S. V. REITMEYER -- 02/04/2004<BR></A><BR> Claiming the geological conditions encountered during drilling </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/09/98-1147.htm">98-1147 -- FOSTER V. HILL -- 09/08/1999<BR></A><BR> Who was convicted of wire fraud and forced into involuntary bankruptcy. They challenge an order compelling Reinhart to give the trustee of Foster's bankruptcy estate all documents related to Foster's pre bankruptcy civil lawsuits.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTYzMTQtY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/04-6314-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellees are Clinton County and one of its officials. They We have jurisdiction claim that the district court failed to consider evidence of prevailing market rates and instead relied solely on the rate fixed in earlier caselaw. We agree with plaintiffs appellants that the district court н at least when presented with evidence of a divergence between the rate used in prior caselaw and the prevailing market rate н is 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 required to make findings of fact as to the prevailing rate and apply it in its award calculation. The events giving rise to that appeal are set forth in full in two opinions of the district court. Proceedings in the district court have been extensive and involved both a jury and a bench trial. Certain causes of action were dismissed by summary judgment. The claims of four plaintiffs were settled prior to trial. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 At trial in July 2002. The jury also found in favor of two plaintiffs whose claims were presented at trial. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1408.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLP were on brief for appellant. Epstein & Loscocco was on brief for appellees. This phrase appears on the Freedman t shirt and is surrounded by small drawings of a fish. A plaintiff must show ownership of a valid copyright not questioned here and the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/99-8003.htm">99-8003 -- DESPAIN V. UPHOFF -- 07/10/2001<BR></A><BR> DeSpain was housed. <p> The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation finding that Mr. DeSpain's claims for money damages against defendant prison officials in their official capacities were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The judge further concluded that injunctive and declaratory relief was improper because Mr. DeSpain had failed to show the events at issue were susceptible to repetition. The magistrate judge determined these defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that Mr. DeSpain challenges only the district court's ruling that defendants Ruettgers and Bustos are entitled to qualified immunity based on the court's conclusion that. 1983 unless their conduct violates 'clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/11/01-1389.htm">01-1389 -- VILLESCAS V. ABRAHAM -- 11/27/2002<BR></A><BR> 633a (ADEA). <p> The narrow dispositive question is whether 29 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/97-3178.htm">97-3178 -- U.S. V. SINGLETON -- 07/01/1998<BR></A><BR> Singleton was convicted of one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine. A detective of the Wichita Police Department contacted local Western Union agents to determine if drug dealers were using Western Union services to transfer drug money. The records led authorities to a group of people whom they believed were involved in a conspiracy to sell drugs. Further investigation indicated the drug business was begun by men who had moved from California to Wichita. Singleton was identified as one who transferred and received money for the conspiracy. She was the common law wife of Eric Johnson. She was listed as either the sender or recipient on eight wire transfers suspected to have been sent on behalf of the conspiracy. Handwriting experts confirmed that her handwriting was present on paperwork accompanying the eight wire transfers. <p> Ms. Singleton and others were charged in a superseding indictment with multiple counts of money laundering and conspiracy to distribute cocaine. The basis for her motion was that the government had impermissibly promised Mr. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1099.html">GENENTECH, INC. V. REGENTS OF THE UNIV.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/01/01-5189.htm">01-5189 -- U.S. V. BROWN -- 01/22/2003<BR></A><BR> The district court was informed of the alleged forgeries and held an investigative hearing. The district court concluded that the letters were forgeries. The district court also concluded that certain statements of support in the letters reflected the actual views of the people whose letters and signatures were falsified. The district court also stated </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=07-1962_017.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is scheduled to begin on June 19. Will place them in double jeopardy. Marcello's claim is based on a 1992 indictment charging him and eight others with conspiring to conduct the affairs of the Carlisi Street Crew by means of numerous illegal acts between 1979 and 1990 acts such as extortion. Efforts to collect unlawful gambling The opinions are being released in typescript because of the imminence of the trial that they concern. Nos. 07н1962. Are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=07-1962_021.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Will place them in double jeopardy. Marcello's claim is based on a 1992 indictment charging him and eight others with conspiring to conduct the affairs of the Carlisi Street Crew by means of numerous 2 Nos. 07 1962. Are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/12/03-2049.htm">03-2049 -- RIOS V. VILLAGE OF HATCH -- 12/15/2003<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Appellant Jose L. Et al. </em>Although the removal order was proper given the fact that Mr. Arrieta was disbarred by the New Mexico Supreme Court in 1987 (after being suspended in 1986). He was reinstated to probationary active status in May 2000. <em>See</em> Aplt. Arietta was prohibited from engaging in the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="325"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/04/00-3394.htm">00-3394 -- SPIELMAN V. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF KANSAS INC. -- 04/09/2002<BR></A><BR> Was terminated from her job as a nurse consultant at Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/99-3160a.htm">99-3160A -- KENDRICK V. PENSKE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC. -- 08/11/2000<BR></A><BR> 2000 is amended to include an additional citation on page 19 of the slip opinion. 451 (10th Cir. 1995) </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/99-2145.htm">99-2145 -- U.S. V. BENALLY -- 06/09/2000<BR></A><BR> When he was twenty four years old. Benally is more accountable and therefore potentially a better candidate for rehabilitation than is the typical sex offender. <p> The presentence report calculated Mr. Benally's criminal history category was I. The following findings are particularly relevant to the issue on appeal: <p> The Court finds the defendant's conduct in the instant offense was aberrant behavior based on the following: The defendant has no prior documented information of any sexual deviancy. The defendant has acknowledged his alcohol intoxication may have contributed to the instant offense and has abstained from alcohol consumption since the instant offense. <p> Further. For which probation is statutorily unavailable. Even if a departure for aberrant behavior is generally permissible for serious. The government argues the district court erred by relying on a combination of factors that are either disallowed or already taken into account by the guidelines. None of the factors the district court relied on is present to such an extraordinary degree as to remove Mr. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B952F4F1F178785B88256C4700553C4F/$file/0255030.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Federal courts are precluded from reviewing state court decisions. It is necessary for us to determine whether this court has jurisdiction to review this issue. It is obvious that the appeal from the district court's ruling is an appeal from an interlocutory order. The parties were ordered by the district court to continue discovery and pursue other preparation for trial on the three remaining issues. We must determine for ourselves whether we have jurisdiction. This court will not consider a question upon which a panel has ruled in the same case. This `law of the case' doctrine is `applicable to the question of our jurisdiction to consider an appeal.' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/00-6141.htm">00-6141 -- U.S. V. LOTT -- 07/30/2002<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/11/00-6333.htm">00-6333 -- LE V. MULLIN -- 11/26/2002<BR></A><BR> Arguing that (1) he was deprived of a fair trial because of the prosecutor's improper remarks. (2) he was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial. (3) he should have been granted an evidentiary hearing by the district court in relation to these first two issues. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199806/98-3032a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The watchdog group Common Cause was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/11/00-6141.htm">00-6141 -- U.S. V. LOTT -- 11/05/2002<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/98-4154.htm">98-4154 -- FEICHKO V. DENVER AND RIO GRANDE WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY -- 05/31/2000<BR></A><BR> The Southern Pacific Transportation Company (SP) for injuries he sustained while he was standing in a parked D&. RGW locomotive that was struck by a moving SP locomotive. Feichko moved to remand on the ground that the first two claims were not removable under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0421p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. The facts underlying this case are undisputed and uncomplicated. Mario Andretti was a successful and well known race car driver before he retired from automobile racing. Andretti is now a corporate spokesman for companies that contract with Andretti for the exclusive right to utilize his name. Borla's attorney attached his own declaration to the notice of removal stating that Andretti's pre suit demands to Borla were about $200. His claims were moot due to Borla's offer to enter a permanent injunction. The Judgment was in favor of Andretti and M.A. 500. The permanent injunction was worded identically to the preliminary injunction. The district court ruled that Andretti was a prevailing party and therefore that Borla was not entitled to costs or attorney fees as provided in Rule 54(d) and the Lanham Act. The court also determined that Borla was not entitled to attorney fees under the Copyright Act because. Even though Borla had argued that several of plaintiffs' claims were preempted by the Copyright Act. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/01/99-2011.htm">99-2011 -- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. PUEBLO OF SAN JUAN -- 01/11/2002<BR></A><BR> Judge <strong>BRISCOE</strong> is filing a concurring opinion. Judge <strong>LUCERO</strong> is filing a concurring opinion by which he joins Parts I. These actions were challenged by the instant declaratory judgment and injunction suit brought by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or the Board) and Local Union No. 1385 of the Western Council of Industrial Workers (the Union) as an intervenor. The Board and the intervening Union brought this appeal from the district court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of the Pueblo. <p> <center>I</center> <p> The relevant facts are undisputed. San Juan Pueblo is a federally recognized Indian tribe located in New Mexico. 200 members live on tribal lands that are held in trust by the United States for the Pueblo. The Pueblo is governed by a tribal council. Which is vested with legislative authority over tribal lands. Is described in the District Court's opinion. <em>NLRB v. The ordinance in substance is a so called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/01/03-1274.htm">03-1274 -- DOMINION VIDEO SATELLITE INC. V. ECHOSTAR SATELLITE CORP. -- 01/29/2004<BR></A><BR> Asserting EchoStar was violating its contract. Dominion moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent EchoStar from taking further action and to preserve the status quo while the merits of the case were being decided. EchoStar's DBS network is broadcast as the DISH Network. Dominion's network is called SkyAngel. Which is in part comprised of twenty television channels. The DISH Network broadcasts an extensive variety of programming which is not limited to any specific genre and offers over 150 channel options to subscribers. <p> EchoStar has a satellite from which it broadcasts its DISH Network programming. That satellite contains more transponders than EchoStar is permitted to use under its FCC license.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/10/95-1411.htm">95-1411 -- SPORTS RACING SERVICES, INC. V. SPORTS CAR CLUB OF AMERICA, INC. -- 10/28/1997<BR></A><BR> SCCA is a nonprofit organization that organizes and sanctions amateur sports car racing events for twenty three classes of sports cars. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/04/02-3187.htm">02-3187 -- U.S. V. BAILEY -- 04/25/2003<BR></A><BR> All the partners were family members and/or close friends of Bailey's. The Partnership consisted of Bailey and eleven partners. <p> The Partnership Agreement was year to year. The Managing Partner shall have no authority to invest in and shall be specifically prohibited from investing Partnership funds in real estate. None of these transactions were authorized by the Partnership Agreement or the other partners. Bailey also apparently used funds transferred from the Partnership accounts to his personal accounts to pay for a new home he built for his family. <p> Bailey was required by the Partnership Agreement to provide quarterly reports to the partners. They also failed to reveal that Bailey was investing in futures. The Partnership capital was something less than $2000. The suit sought termination of the Partnership and to have an accounting. The two suits were certified as class actions and were consolidated. <p> The civil suits resulted in a settlement. Bailey was indicted in a twenty two count indictment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/00-6024.htm">00-6024 -- NEILL V. GIBSON -- 08/27/2001<BR></A><BR> Were roommates involved in a homosexual relationship. They were having serious financial difficulties. One woman was seven months pregnant. Was out of ammunition. <p> Neill and Johnson then flew to San Francisco. The murders were especially heinous. Will not be entitled to habeas relief unless he can establish that the state court resolved his claims </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1055.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Peter D. BACKGROUND I This is the fifth time this case has come before this court.2 The previous decisions concerned two fixed price contracts executed by Richlin and the then Immigration and Naturalization Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/01/96-3034.htm">96-3034 -- LAW V. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION -- 01/23/1998<BR></A><BR> Background</strong> <p> The NCAA is a voluntary unincorporated association of approximately 1. The NCAA aims to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/05/01-3129.htm">01-3129 -- TUTTLE V. U.S. -- 05/29/2002<BR></A><BR> Interest that accrued between the date her petition was filed and the date her plan was confirmed. 519.17 was for a priority claim. Tuttle's Chapter 11 reorganization plan was confirmed by the bankruptcy court in December 1999. 000 that accrued on its priority tax claim between the time she filed her bankruptcy petition and the time her plan was confirmed.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/09/98-3208.htm">98-3208 -- THIESSEN V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL CORP. -- 09/28/2001<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/09/01-2240.htm">01-2240 -- CHAPMAN V. LEMASTER -- 09/04/2002<BR></A><BR> Chapman was convicted of felony murder and robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment. Factual Background</strong> <p> <strong> </strong>The relevant facts surrounding Chapman's crimes are undisputed. The decomposed body of Terry Sanders was found in a ravine near Farmington. Smith's wife Patricia were arrested in connection with Sanders' murder. Chapman was present when Humiston and Smith discussed stealing Sanders' van and money. Humiston testified that they planned to use some degree of force or violence to rob Sanders because Sanders was a large man. Steal the van when Sanders was away. <p> When the four men stopped to ostensibly rustle calves. Humiston was returning to Sanders' van when he heard a gunshot. Chapman was upset by the shooting. Chapman had made a pretrial statement to police in which he stated </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/05/97-9535.htm">97-9535 -- ARAMARK CORP. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD -- 05/28/1999<BR></A><BR> Argued that the Board was without jurisdiction in these matters because: (1) . The operations at issue are exempt from Board jurisdiction under the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/00-4143.htm">00-4143 -- UTAH ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES V. CLINTON -- 07/10/2001<BR></A><BR> Boulder Mountain Lodge sought leave to intervene in this action by the Utah Association of Counties to enjoin and have declared illegal the Presidential Proclamation establishing the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument. Was the last place in the continental United States to be mapped. The monument has a long and dignified human history: it is a place where one can see how nature shapes human endeavors in the American West. Where distance and aridity have been pitted against our dreams and courage. Alleging that the creation of the monument was an illegal attempt by the Secretary of the Interior to prevent a proposed underground coal mine at Smokey Hollow. The complaint sought to have the Presidential Proclamation set aside on the grounds that it violated the separation of powers doctrine. The two cases were consolidated later that month. <p> On March 21. Stating that <p> [t]his case is not about the environment. It is not about the intervenors' property rights or interests in the monument in question. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/11/96-2212.htm">96-2212 -- HOBBS V. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE CO. -- 11/09/1998<BR></A><BR> Perez held what was later determined to be a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/09/02-2184.htm">02-2184 -- MARSHALL V. COLUMBIA LEA REGIONAL HOSPITAL -- 09/29/2003<BR></A><BR> We are not in a position to judge the truth of those allegations at this early stage in the litigation. Marshall alleges that the traffic stop and arrest were made on account of his race and without probable cause. The defendants are Officer Porter. Plaintiff contends that Hobbs police chief Tony Knott and the City of Hobbs are liable for those actions under supervisory and municipal liability theories respectively. We will refer to these parties collectively as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/09/99-6276.htm">99-6276 -- U.S. V. SAFFO -- 09/18/2000<BR></A><BR> Saffo was convicted on all counts against her. She was sentenced to terms of imprisonment of 121 months and 120 months. Was having pseudoephedrine delivered to Las Vegas and then transported to California for the manufacture of methamphetamine. Which was being driven by David Verdi. DEA agents learned that David Verdi of Verdi Wholesale was ordering pseudoephedrine through Green Arrow. They also learned that Verdi was using two other companies. Which was also located in Oklahoma and was connected with Randa Saffo.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/05/00-2451.htm">00-2451 -- U.S. V. CITY OF LAS CRUCES -- 05/07/2002<BR></A><BR> INTRODUCTION</strong> <p> This is an appeal from the district court's order dismissing the United States' suit to quiet title to water rights in a portion of the Rio Grande River. The purpose of the Reclamation Act was to facilitate irrigation of arid and semi arid western territories and states by providing for the construction of large scale irrigation works. <em>See Henkel v. The Project is one that grew out of the Act. It is expansive. Just below Elephant Butte Reservoir is Caballo Reservoir. Water is released into the Rio Grande riverbed. The water is then diverted by one of six diversion dams into canals running on either side of the river. Riverwater is further diverted into channels and ditches running to farmland. The water is used to irrigate crops. The process is repeated several times over the length of the Project to irrigate land in both southeastern New Mexico and western Texas. <p> Irrigation in the United States is not the sole use of Project water. Project water is also used outside of the United States. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/misc%20dkt-765.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the petition for writ of mandamus was James A. Seeking to establish a right to indemnification in the event Videotek was held liable to TLC. Seeking a declaration that TLC's asserted patents were invalid. Alleging that Gennum was liable for direct and contributory infringement of the four asserted patents. The district court entered an order that had the effect of significantly reducing the amount of damages TLC would be able to recover from Gennum if infringement were found. Maintained that it was still entitled to a trial by jury. Noting that Gennum was seeking to invalidate the patents. TLC argued that a declaratory judgment action to invalidate a patent is an action to which the right of trial by jury attaches. This court held that there is no right to a jury trial when the only remedy sought by the plaintiff patentee is an injunction and the defendant has asserted patent invalidity as an affirmative defense. The court noted that Tegal was not directly on point because in that case the issue of invalidity was asserted only as an affirmative defense and not as an independent claim. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/04/01-4057.htm">01-4057 -- ROSKA V. PETERSON -- 04/29/2003<BR></A><BR> Chief Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/07/03-6057.htm">03-6057 -- GAMBLE V. CALBONE -- 07/13/2004<BR></A><BR> We also granted COA on the issue whether copy fees charged by a district court to obtain a criminal record and transcript to be used in preparing and filing an application for post conviction relief are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1029.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.L.L.C.</U> were on brief for appellant.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/06/00-3055.htm">00-3055 -- TOWNSEND V. LUMBERMEN'S MUTUAL CAUSALTY -- 06/24/2002<BR></A><BR> These motions were denied and the case was submitted to the jury. We also have before us an amicus curiae brief filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/12/00-6024.htm">00-6024 -- NEILL V. GIBSON -- 12/07/2001<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="319"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/99-3160.htm">99-3160 -- KENDRICK V. PENSKE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES INC. -- 08/08/2000<BR></A><BR> Kendrick ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1300.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were James C. With him on the brief were Russell L. I. BACKGROUND SanDisk is in the flash memory storage market and owns several patents related to flash memory storage products. The discussions of May and June that 05 1300 2 Thompson referred to were discussions among managers and vice presidents of SanDisk and ST at business meetings held on May 18. The business meetings were unrelated to any patents. Noting that it was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200415341.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that Almeida's right of publicity claim under з 540.08 and common law is preempted by the Communications Decency Act of 1996 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/03/00-2013.htm">00-2013 -- U.S. V. DUNCAN -- 03/09/2001<BR></A><BR> The grounds for its decision were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/04/02-4075.htm">02-4075 -- U.S. V. LANG -- 04/21/2004<BR></A><BR> Lang informed the associate that federal agents had bugged the cell phone and were preparing to place a tracking device on one of their cars. She claimed instead to have gone to bed closer to 6:00 p.m. <p> At trial. Lang's theft was aberrant behavior given her education and employment history. We must consider whether the factors the district court relied upon were authorized under section 3553(b) and justified by the facts of the case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/11/01-2096.htm">01-2096 -- COUNTY OF SANTA FE V. PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW MEXICO -- 11/26/2002<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/00-9529.htm">00-9529 -- ST. ANTHONY HOSPITAL V. U.S. DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICE -- 08/28/2002<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/05/01-5102.htm">01-5102 -- U.S. V. HUGHES -- 05/15/2002<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Defendants T. The application for a certificate of appealability (COA) is denied and this appeal is dismissed.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1012.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Hoag & Eliot LLP were on brief. Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP were on brief. The district court accepted the defendants' argument that they were not within its jurisdictional reach and thus were not amenable to suit. Are institutions organized under the law of Antigua and Barbuda ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/10/97-1381.htm">97-1381 -- DAVOLL V. WEBB -- 10/25/1999<BR></A><BR> The remaining ADA claims were tried to a jury. Escobedo are all former Denver police officers who were injured in the line of duty and forced to retire due to Denver's policy forbidding disabled police officers from transferring into other vacant positions in the city government. Most of these employees are enrolled in one of two personnel systems: the Classified Service. Which is composed of police officers and firefighters. 500 of which are for full time employment. The Career Service system was set up by a charter which the voters of Denver approved. Candidates that do so are then tested. If the request is granted. There is also a list for those Career Services employees who meet the qualifications and wish to be promoted to the vacant position. Classified Service employees are not permitted to transfer into the Career Service. Must have an oral interview. Police officers that are separated under honorable circumstances may be reemployed without competing with the general applicant pool. <p> According to the city. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/04/99-3379.htm">99-3379 -- U.S. V. TISDALE -- 04/16/2001<BR></A><BR> Wichita police officers were dispatched to the scene of an attempted burglary/robbery at 1645 North Hydraulic. Tisdale lying on the ground between the two residences located at 1645 North Hydraulic and 1651 North Hydraulic.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/97-6435.htm">97-6435 -- BRYSON V. WARD -- 08/06/1999<BR></A><BR> Fourteenth Amendments when it determined he was competent to stand trial. BACKGROUND <p> Bryson first met his co defendant Marilyn Plantz in late 1987 or early 1988 when he was sixteen and she was in her late twenties and married. McKimble was a teenager. McKimble knew that Bryson and Plantz were romantically involved. Plantz was abusive and that she wanted to kill him to obtain life insurance proceeds. Third suggestion was that Bryson and McKimble push Mr. None of these schemes was carried out. <p> On August 17. One of Marilyn Plantz's schemes was carried further but ultimately failed. They were unable to carry out the plan because Mr. Farris was arrested for unrelated reasons. <p> On August 25. McKimble were together. Plantz was beaten so badly. Plantz was insured for approximately $299. Plantz was alive. McKimble said that he had expected to be paid for the murder. <p> Bryson was interviewed by police detectives two times after the murder. PROCEDURAL HISTORY <p> Bryson was found guilty of first degree murder. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/98-3208.htm">98-3208 -- THIESSEN V. GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL CORP. -- 07/03/2001<BR></A><BR> Reverse and remand for further proceedings. <p> <center>I.</center> <p> GE is the parent company of General Electric Capital Services (GECS). Within GECC is the Retail Financial Services unit (RFS). It was renamed Montgomery Ward Credit Services. Who was born on March 7. Thiessen was placed on </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/03/98-5088.htm">98-5088 -- U.S. V. LE -- 03/31/1999<BR></A><BR> This warrant was executed in the evening hours of July 2. Federal agents seized the explosives and heavy weapons discovered earlier in the day. <p> At about the same time that the TPD officers were executing the state warrant. A combined force of TPD officers and ATF agents stopped Le as he was driving his truck through Tulsa. The purpose of this stop was to execute a search warrant. Le was arrested and taken into custody. The samples were taken. <p> Also during the day on July 2. Who came to the business and examined the weaponry to determine if the items were stolen military equipment. The Defense agent determined that many of the weapons were indeed stolen. No weaponry was seized at the business on July 2. <p> On August 4. Le was charged with the following offenses: (1) possession of a stolen firearm. The search was impermissible because the affidavit did not state the last time that contraband was observed at Le's residence. (3) the warrant itself was not sufficiently particular. It was not particular enough. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/04/00-1515.htm">00-1515 -- BRYCE V. EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN THE DIOCESE OF COLORADO -- 04/30/2002<BR></A><BR> Aidan's Church asserts that the First Amendment bars plaintiffs' sexual harassment claims because the remarks were made as part of ecclesiastical discussions on church policy towards homosexuals. Bryce was a Christian and had substantial experience in church leadership. Though she was neither an ordained minister nor a member of the Episcopal Church. Where Smith is an ordained minister. Smith is not associated with St. They informed her that she would be terminated as Youth Minister effective June 1999 because she was violating Episcopal doctrine. Aidan's. <p> Episcopal doctrine on homosexuality is articulated in the Lambeth Resolution. Which is the result of a conference of bishops from the worldwide Anglican communions held every ten years in Lambeth. Believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/01/98-8086.htm">98-8086 -- U.S. V. MEYERS -- 01/04/2000<BR></A><BR> This court concludes that Meyers' appeal is indeed moot. Meyers was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribution of marijuana. Meyers was released from prison on July 28. Probation Office. <p> Identity and detention hearings were then held in the district court for the District of New Mexico in early August of 1998. After Meyers was transported to Wyoming. Though appointed counsel was present. Asserting the following five grounds for reversal:<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/98-2040.htm">98-2040 -- U.S. V. PRENTISS -- 02/24/2000<BR></A><BR> (2) the indictment was insufficient because it failed to allege his Indian or non Indian status and the Indian or non Indian status of the victim. (3) there was insufficient evidence in this case to support his conviction because the government failed to prove the Indian or non Indian status of the defendant or victim. Prentiss's indictment was insufficient because it failed to allege the Indian or non Indian status of the defendant and victim. Because the conviction was based upon an indictment which failed to allege an essential element. Prentiss was home caring for his three young children and the two children of a family friend. The fire was extinguished. <p> Immediately upon extinguishing the fire. The outlet showed no sign of the sparking and arcing that one would have expected had the electrical socket itself failed. <u>See</u> <u>id.</u> at 274 75. <p> After the fire was extinguished. Prentiss told fire investigators that he was watching a boxing match on HBO immediately before the fire. <u>See</u> Rec. vol. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2003/003424p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As will be seen. We summarily will resolve the substantive issue before us which we find not to be difficult. Have sought indemnification from the approximately 50 appellees ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/09/02-2323.htm">02-2323 -- O CENTERO ESPRITA BENEFICIENTE UNIAO DO VEGETAL V. ASHCROFT -- 09/04/2003<BR></A><BR> The district court granted UDV's motion for a preliminary injunction in a unpublished Memorandum Opinion and Order.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/06/01-4028.htm">01-4028 -- JOHNSON V. RIDDLE -- 06/27/2002<BR></A><BR> The central question presented by this case is whether the defendants are liable under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The district court held that the defendants' actions were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/01/013906P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Four Seasons appeals the grant of the preliminary injunction against it on the grounds that the District Court made errors of law when it determined that the doctrine of scшnes р faire was inapplicable to this case. A company whose assets (including card designs) were later purchased by Taylor. It contends that its cards were not copied from any of appellee's designs. That proper application of the doctrine of scшnes р faire requires a holding that there was no copyright infringement. A District Court's decision to grant a preliminary injunction will not be overturned absent a clearly erroneous factual determination. Whether the equitable remedy of a preliminary injunction should issue depends on four factors: (1) the probability that the movant will succeed on the merits. (3) the balance between this harm and the harm that granting the injunction will cause to the other parties litigant. The scope of review of a grant of preliminary injunction on appeal is narrow. The general rule is that a showing of a prima facie case raises a presumption of irreparable harm. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/97-3063.htm">97-3063 -- GUDENKAUF V. STAUFFER COMMUNICATIONS INC. -- 09/29/1998<BR></A><BR> Alleging that she was terminated in violation of several federal statutes. Gudenkauf was motivated in part by her pregnancy. That she would have been terminated in any event. The district court held she was entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs. Gudenkauf alleged that her termination was the result of sex discrimination in violation of Title VII. Gudenkauf was not a prevailing party entitled to a fee because she had obtained no relief. Gudenkauf had failed to provide proof in support of her fee claims and that the amounts requested were grossly excessive. <p> The district court rejected Stauffer's argument that Ms. Gudenkauf was not a prevailing party and its argument that Ms. Gudenkauf is not entitled to a fee in any event because she obtained only a technical victory. Stauffer argues that the fee award was excessive in view of the fact the Ms. We first address Stauffer's claim that the district court should have followed the Supreme Court's analysis in <em>Farrar</em> and denied any award of attorney's fees based on Ms. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/11/01-4252.htm">01-4252 -- BELL V. FUR BREEDERS AGRICULURAL COOPERATIVE -- 11/07/2003<BR></A><BR> The Bells allege that while they were members of the cooperative. Insurance. <p> If a member whose ranch is located beyond the established feed route still requests delivery. One of the cooperative's written objectives is to ensure members do not subsidize one another. The discounted price was one penny less per pound than the delivered price. <p> Jack Bell became a Fur Breeders member in 1955 and continued as a member until 2000. Is more than seventy miles from both the Logan plant and the nearest point of the established delivery route. 049.51. <p> <center>PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND</center> <p> It is against this backdrop and the costs associated with hauling their own feed that the Bells brought their antitrust litigation against Fur Breeders. Determining their antitrust claims were sufficient to withstand such a motion. <em>Id. </em>at 1244 45. <p> Thereafter. A different district court judge was assigned to the case. Determining </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/01/00-2136.htm">00-2136 -- JOSEPH A. V. INGRAM -- 01/07/2002<BR></A><BR> <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec2000/00-15985.ma2.html">TOUCHSTON V. MCDERMOTT (12/6/2000, NO. 00-15985)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/9_opinions/91-1125.html">KING INSTRUMENTS V. PEREGO AND TAPEMATIC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/01/02-7016.htm">02-7016 -- TIMMONS V. WHITE -- 01/08/2003<BR></A><BR> He is entitled to seek de novo review of the remedy awarded without re litigating the merits of his discrimination claim. Timmons learned that McAAP officials had in fact extended the appointment of one of the employees whose appointment was to expire at the same time as his. Timmons was discriminated against based on disability when his temporary appointment was not extended. The same amount of time as the similarly situated employee whose appointment was extended </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/04/961552P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Porous Media Corporation (Porous) and Pall Corporation (Pall) are manufacturers of industrial filters. That Pall made false and disparaging statements about Porous's filters which were not supported by Pall's own testing data. Those findings are not directly challenged in this appeal. The district court also entered an injunction against Pall which was not appealed. 24 3 2 Pall filed post trial motions for judgment as a matter of law or in the alternative for a new trial. and Pall appeals. Because Porous failed to prove an element of the claim by failing to offer extrinsic evidence of customer confusion to show that Pall's statements were misleading. arguments. A. Jury instruction We reject both The trial court instructed the jury as to the elements of Porous's Lanham Act claim: The Lanham Act was substantially revised in 1988. Porous's claim for damages under the revised Lanham Act was dismissed by the district court before trial. This ruling is not appealed. The district court held that the amendments were not retroactive. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/07/97-7086.htm">97-7086 -- FOSTER V. WARD -- 07/07/1999<BR></A><BR> Charles Foster was tried in Oklahoma state court on an information alleging first degree murder as well as burglary and larceny. Wiley's last delivery was to the home of Charles and Eula May Foster. His body was discovered near an abandoned house in Muskogee ten days later. Foster was the State's key witness. Foster was hiding behind the front door with a baseball bat when Mr. He picked up the groceries she requested and then waited outside the store for awhile because it was raining. She told him she had borrowed the El Camino and they were going to visit her mother in Texas. Wiley's murder was especially heinous. The district court denied relief and was affirmed on appeal to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. <em>Foster v. Which was also denied and then affirmed on appeal. <em>Foster v. We conclude a certificate of appealability is not a jurisdictional requirement in this appeal since Mr. Foster's petition was filed before April 24. If we are in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/03/96-2285.htm">96-2285 -- U.S. V. ENJADY -- 03/25/1998<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/10/00-9013.htm">00-9013 -- MESSER V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE -- 10/11/2002<BR></A><BR> All of which were settled shortly before trial in the Tax Court. These decisions were final orders that disposed of all claims of all parties. As they might have done under Rules 161 and 162 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. <p> Fourteen of the seventeen decisions gave petitioners all the relief they had sought. We conclude that there is appellate jurisdiction to rule on these cases and we affirm the stipulated decisions entered by the tax court. <p> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/09/99-7150.htm">99-7150 -- U.S. V. HOLT -- 09/05/2001<BR></A><BR> (2) whether an officer conducting a traffic stop may ask the driver about the presence of weapons in the absence of reasonable suspicion that the driver is armed and dangerous. We hold that the officer's question about the existence of a loaded weapon in the vehicle was justified on the grounds of officer safety. An officer may ask the stopped motorist whether there is a loaded firearm in the car even in the absence of particularized suspicion of the existence of such a firearm. The objective safety risks to officers during routine traffic stops in general have led courts to approve reasonable steps to insure officer safety. The admitted impetus for establishing a checkpoint at this location was the officers' suspicion that the defendant. Was transporting illegal drugs along Treat Road.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/96-4104.htm">96-4104 -- WOODMAN V. RUNYON -- 12/24/1997<BR></A><BR> At issue in this appeal is Ms. Woodman's allegation that she is a qualified individual with a disability. Where she was responsible for separating incoming and outgoing mail. Her injury was subsequently diagnosed by her treating physician as thoracic outlet syndrome and Ms. Distribution clerks are governed by a collective bargaining agreement between the USPS and the American Postal Workers Union. Section 546 provides: <p> To the extent that there is adequate work available within the employee's work limitation tolerances. In the work facility to which the employee is regularly assigned. That work constitutes the limited duty to which the employee is assigned. <p> Aplt. Assignments to such preferred duty positions without competitive bidding would violate the terms of the collective bargaining agreement unless adequate work is not available within the assignee's craft. Woodman was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome in her left wrist and arm.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/09/01-4028.htm">01-4028 -- JOHNSON V. RIDDLE -- 09/05/2002<BR></A><BR> District Judge.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec2000/00-15985.ma2.html">TOUCHSTON V. MCDERMOTT (12/6/2000, NO. 00-15985)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/96-2278.htm">96-2278 -- K.L. V. VALDEZ -- 08/12/1999<BR></A><BR> Sixteen mentally or developmentally disabled children who are or were in the custody of the state of New Mexico. Brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief alleging that defendants have failed to provide protections and therapeutic services required by federal statutes and the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs sought to certify a class comprised of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="312"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/05/97-3220.htm">97-3220 -- FRANKLIN SAVINGS CORP. V. U.S. -- 05/04/1999<BR></A><BR> PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND <p> This is the third appeal to this court and the seventh published opinion involving disputes over the conservation and liquidation of the long gone but not forgotten Franklin Savings Association. <em>See</em> <em>Franklin Sav. This court has distilled the following summary of the litigation from <em>Franklin II</em>. <em>See </em>35 F.3d at 1468. <p> In 1990 the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS ) determined that FSA was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="304"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-1061.htm">98-1061 -- YAPP V. EXCEL CORP. -- 08/03/1999<BR></A><BR> After the first case was settled and an Order of Dismissal with Prejudice was entered. Yapp's appeal is primarily a challenge to that summary judgment. Colorado from 1987 until he was terminated in 1995. Excel removed the Wrongful Discharge Action to the same federal district court in which the Overtime Action was pending. Arguing that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="304"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/05/03-5124.htm">03-5124 -- MILLSAP V. MCDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP. -- 05/21/2004<BR></A><BR> Any other damages based upon backpay) are available as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="304"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0436p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Harper's employment was transferred from AutoAlliance to AAI Employee Services Co. The conditions and terms of his employment were governed by the collective bargaining agreement ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="304"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/11/00-3170.htm">00-3170 -- BIOCORE INC. V. KHOSROWSHAHI -- 11/04/2003<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="304"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/04/00-1385.htm">00-1385 -- PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS SERVICES CORPORATION V. OWENS -- 04/17/2002<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="304"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1549.html">GAF V. ELK CORPORATION<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="304"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/08/01-6258.htm">01-6258 -- SPEARS V. MULLIN -- 08/12/2003<BR></A><BR> Were cruising around Pauls Valley. They were joined at various times by Powell. Spears began driving the truck because Thompson was intoxicated. Daniels that he was going to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="304"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTI1MjctY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2527-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The District Court held that Cubatabaco's COHIBA mark was sufficiently famous in the United States by the time General Cigar. Began selling COHIBA cigars in the United States that the mark was entitled to protection. We hold that even were the famous marks doctrine to be recognized н an issue we do not decide here н Cubatabaco is barred by the United States' embargo in force against Cuba from acquiring property rights in United States trademarks via the famous marks doctrine. The Cuban COHIBA mark was sufficiently well known in the United States that it deserved protection under the so called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="304"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/09/03-5008.htm">03-5008 -- CANNON V. MULLIN -- 09/13/2004<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="304"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/96-1245.htm">96-1245 -- U.S. V. SMITH -- 12/31/1997<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <strong><hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="304"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/05/97-3334.htm">97-3334 -- U.S. V. DETERS -- 05/01/1998<BR></A><BR> Was indicted on various counts of mail and wire fraud. The commitment order is not a final order. Therefore we have no jurisdiction to review it at this time. We conclude that we do have jurisdiction over this appeal. We conclude that there is no constitutional violation. Jurisdiction</strong> <p> The threshold issue in this case is whether the commitment order is immediately appealable. Have jurisdiction only over appeals from </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="304"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/04/01-1228.htm">01-1228 -- QUIGLEY V. ROSENTHAL -- 04/22/2003<BR></A><BR> BACKGROUND</strong></center> <p> Plaintiffs William and Dorothy </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="304"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/03/01-6420.htm">01-6420 -- MEHDIPOUR V. JONES -- 03/13/2003<BR></A><BR> The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> <center><strong>Procedural Background</strong></center> <p> These five appeals arise out of three district court actions that are the latest in a series of suits Mr. He alleged that the judges had become an arm of the State of Oklahoma and were engaging in an unconstitutional pattern and practice of ruling against him in his federal suits against officers of the State. Mehdipour was incarcerated. Mehdipour was unable to prepare pleadings in his pending lawsuits without his legal materials. The court ruled that all the judicial defendants were entitled to absolute immunity and that the United States was entitled to sovereign immunity and. This notice was transmitted to this court. Where it was docketed as three appeals. <p> The district court later filed an order carrying the caption of all three cases that denied Mr. We have pending before us a total of five appeals arising from three district court actions. The record does not reflect that any circuit judge was served. <p> The circumstances presented here are similar to those in <em>Switzer v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="304"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/96-6203.htm">96-6203 -- WRIGHT-SIMMONS V. CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY -- 09/15/1998<BR></A><BR> The City was not liable for it. The City was not liable for their actions. <p> We take jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="304"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/04/02-2244.htm">02-2244 -- HOMANS V. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE -- 04/27/2004<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="304"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/07/98-8059.htm">98-8059 -- U.S. V. BULL -- 07/23/1999<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="304"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/97-2341.htm">97-2341 -- U.S. V. JONES -- 09/08/1998<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="304"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/03/99-7008.htm">99-7008 -- U.S. V. WOOD -- 03/29/2000<BR></A><BR> Douglas Wood is a physician who. Was indicted for the first degree murder of Virgil Dykes. The case was tried to a jury. A verdict was entered acquitting Dr. Wood was denied a fair trial because of cumulative error. Virgil Dykes was an 86 year old man. Because he was the attending physician that day. That level was below the lower limit of the range the hospital considered normal 3.3 to 5.5. <strong> </strong>At around 9 a.m. Which indicated he was not absorbing the KCl. Stated that he was drowning from pulmonary edema excess fluid in his lungs. Wood that the most rapid rate at which she could administer the KCl solution was over the course of an hour. Who was also present. Wood gave conflicting testimony regarding how much KCl was administered how quickly. <p> During the injection the heart monitor flat lined and patient Dykes stopped breathing. P. 29(a) because there was insufficient evidence of premeditation and malice aforethought to sustain the murder charges and the evidence of gross negligence is insufficient to support his conviction for involuntary manslaughter. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="304"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/03/99-7008a.htm">99-7008A -- U.S. V. WOOD -- 03/29/2000<BR></A><BR> Forney </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="304"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/09/02-4160.htm">02-4160 -- LAFLEUR V. TEEN HELP -- 09/03/2003<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <center><hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="304"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1305.html">DYNACORE HOLDINGS CORP., ET AL. V. U.S. PHILIPS CORP., ET AL.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>With him on the brief were <u>Peter T. Inc. and Quadmation Incorporated.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>With him on the brief was <u>Luann L. Inc.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>Of coun </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="304"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1002.html">MONSANTO COMPANY V. MYCOGEN PLANT SCIENCE,<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="304"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/10/02-1391.htm">02-1391 -- GOEBEL V. DENVER AND RIO GRADE WESTERN RAILROAD CO. -- 10/09/2003<BR></A><BR> He was injured on the job during a mishap in the Moffat Tunnel in Colorado which involved exposure to high elevations and diesel fumes. Details of the mishap as described in <u>Goebel I</u> are incorporated by reference. 215 F.3d at 1085 87. Goebel's injury was his exposure to a unique environment. One which is relatively simple to explain on the basis of the fundamental physiology. All of these pieces have been looked at in separate events. We will not disturb the district court's ruling unless it is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="304"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/07/00-6090.htm">00-6090 -- BRYAN V. MULLIN -- 07/21/2003<BR></A><BR> INTRODUCTION</strong></center> <p> Robert Leroy Bryan was convicted in Oklahoma state court of first degree malice murder and sentenced to death. <em>See Bryan v. (3) counsel was ineffective at both the guilt and penalty phases of his trial because counsel failed to present mental health evidence. (4) he was incompetent to stand trial. A panel of this court unanimously concluded that Bryan was not entitled to relief on his evidence sufficiency. Was almost entirely circumstantial. A potted plant was also found at Inabel's home. A pillowcase was duct taped over her head. There was a single set of vehicle tracks present at the scene. The tracks matched the tread pattern of the right rear tire on Bryan's rental car. <p> Authorities searched the property where Inabel's body was found because. Like that on the property where Inabel's body was discovered. Fibers lining the trunk were similar to those on Inabel's clothes and tape found on or near her body. <p> Police located additional evidence in Bryan's bedroom tying Bryan to the murder. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="304"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1949.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is corrected as follows: On page 16. P.C. was on brief. Were on brief. Because there is no other cognizable basis for federal jurisdiction. Lurie and O'Connor are named as defendants in the instant suit. EPA has not yet sued to compel payment of these expenses or otherwise to enforce its claimed rights. 2The officer removal statute provides in pertinent part: A civil action or criminal prosecution commenced in a State court against any of the following persons may be removed by them to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending: 4 On February 20. Was really a suit against EPA and that. We requested supplemental briefing on whether this action was properly removed to federal court. Both sides responded that removal was valid under 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1) because of Belaga's status as a federal officer. Because a federal court is under an unflagging duty to ensure that it has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the cases it proposes to adjudicate. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="304"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sep1999/987552.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The question is whether the advertising converts the theft into </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="304"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/04/01-3014.htm">01-3014 -- U.S. V. THOMPSON -- 04/16/2002<BR></A><BR> 3731.<strong></strong> <p> <strong> </strong>Because this court concludes that an indictment is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="304"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/05/01-6203.htm">01-6203 -- COFFMAN V. GLICKMAN -- 05/06/2003<BR></A><BR> Coffman alleged that he was terminated by the USDA based upon illegal discrimination related to age. Coffman was terminated from employment by the USDA for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="304"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/07/02-1367.htm">02-1367 -- U.S. V. VIGIL -- 07/08/2003<BR></A><BR> Vigil was convicted of sexually penetrating his natural child over a period of slightly less than two years.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="304"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/10/01-5133.htm">01-5133 -- U.S. V. BOTEFUHR -- 10/31/2002<BR></A><BR> The Appellants are precluded from litigating the value of the Hondo stock in the present action. 184 F.3d at 1179. <p> Less than two years after the sale and over four years before Davenport and Vestal were to commence paying their promissory notes. Her last will and testament were admitted to probate in Tulsa. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="304"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/11/97-3229.htm">97-3229 -- U.S. V. CHANTHADARA -- 11/01/2000<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="304"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0447p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that this action was improperly removed from the state court as federal subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. Palkow claimed that she was terminated from her probationary employment as a railroad conductor trainee at CSXT because of her sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That case ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="304"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AE0A858C82A2EA8F88256D4E007A736C/$file/0156380.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: There is no reason inherent in the technological features of cyberspace why First Amendment and defamation law should apply differently in cyberspace than in the brick and mortar world. Has chosen for policy reasons to immunize from liability for defamatory or obscene speech </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="304"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/03/96-1507.htm">96-1507 -- M.M. V. ZAVARAS -- 03/17/1998<BR></A><BR> Plaintiff used the pseudonym </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="304"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/05/01-1261.htm">01-1261 -- U.S. V. JOSE-GONZALEZ -- 05/28/2002<BR></A><BR> Even if there were adequate grounds. The extent of departure was unreasonable. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="304"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/99-1375.htm">99-1375 -- SMITH V. PLATI -- 07/30/2001<BR></A><BR> Hold that Smith's final allegation is moot.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="304"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/99-1166.htm">99-1166 -- U.S. V. SICKEN -- 08/15/2000<BR></A><BR> 1291. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F552D4DFDE50F88B8825732A007F4367/$file/0555627.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court's entry of summary judgment in Jada's favor as to those claims is reversed. The district court's entry of summary judgment as to those claims in favor of Jada is also reversed. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Jada Toys is a California corporation that specializes in the distribution and sale of miniature diecast toy cars. These vehicles are scale model replicas of actual vehicles. The trademark was issued by and registered with the U.S. Mattel is also a toy company. Among its many lines of toys is its familiar HOT WHEELS miniature vehicle brand. Were not related to its HOT RIGZ mark. Among the counterclaims were allegations that Jada's HOT RIGZ mark infringed on Mattel's HOT WHEELS mark.1 Mattel also counterclaimed for copyright infringement and dilution. STANDARD OF REVIEW The review of a grant of summary judgment as to an infringement claim is de novo. . . . there are any genuine issues of material fact. Summary judgment is generally disfavored in the trademark arena. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/01/00-6334.htm">00-6334 -- TORRES V. MULLIN -- 01/23/2003<BR></A><BR> He obtained a certificate of appealability on the following claims: (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. (6) that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Torres attempts to raise other claims on which a COA was not granted. The judge declared a mistrial after the jury was unable to reach a verdict. Were shot and killed in the bedroom of their Oklahoma City home. Who was 14 years old in the summer of 1993. May have been firing the gun. A light was on in the living room. One man was wearing a white t shirt and the other man was wearing a black t shirt. She did not know what it was. Who was eleven years old in the summer of 1993. Who were walking together a short distance from the homicide. The men were sweating and nervous. The gun was different from the gun used in the murders. The witness stated one of the men was Ochoa. This witness testified that Ochoa was the driver of the car. Although she was somewhat inconsistent in her identification. She stated the passenger was wearing a white t shirt. <p> <u>Torres</u>. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/07/99-8020.htm">99-8020 -- IN RE: CHAPTER 12 ESTATE OF HARRIS V. MCPHERSON TRUST -- 07/07/2000<BR></A><BR> Which are subject to a share agreement. Although the facts of this case are somewhat peculiar. Which have considered the seemingly common situation of creditors attempting to assert security interests in animals run. P. 4(a) and affirm. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/99-1258.htm">99-1258 -- JOSEPH V. WILES -- 08/04/2000<BR></A><BR> We are asked to determine whether a variety of threshold. Reverse and remand in part. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/02/97-5156.htm">97-5156 -- BURNETT V. HARGETT -- 02/26/1998<BR></A><BR> We conclude that the petitioner's claim involving the effectiveness of his court appointed counsel is not barred by the exhaustion doctrine because it would be futile to require him to submit this claim in the Oklahoma state courts. Burnett was charged with this crime in a criminal information alleging that this vandalism was committed against property that was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1173.html">NIKE, INC. V. WAL-MART<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/12/00-3335.htm">00-3335 -- U.S. V. KOVAC -- 12/03/2001<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Defendant Christopher Kovac entered a plea of guilty on charges of attempted manufacture of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/05/96-5113.htm">96-5113 -- DALRYMPLE V. GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY -- 05/28/1998<BR></A><BR> Individually and as representatives of a class consisting of all persons and entities located upstream of Pensacola Dam who have been injured by floods caused or increased by the Dam since September 1992. Is a conservation and reclamation district created pursuant to Oklahoma statute </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/05/97-1026.htm">97-1026 -- ADLER V. WAL-MART STORES, INC. -- 05/18/1998<BR></A><BR> She was assigned to a position in the battery room of the maintenance department. Much of the work in the Center was performed with forklifts. Plaintiff's duties in this position were to clean and change forklift batteries. She was promoted to forklift mechanic. <p> Shortly after Plaintiff was assigned to the maintenance department. Male and female employees who were not in maintenance. Various forklift drivers suggested that Plaintiff got the position because she is a woman. Must have performed sexual favors for the maintenance manager. Larson was her immediate supervisor. The drivers would have to get their managers to take the forklifts in for maintenance. Kirchmeier asked Plaintiff weekly whether she was having any problems and. Plaintiff told him everything was fine. <p> In December 1993 or January 1994. Larson considered more severe discipline inappropriate based on this incident because both employees were off the clock and in the parking lot. Or cannot recall specifically when or what she may have said to anyone about them. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/05/97-2048.htm">97-2048 -- MIERA V. DAIRYLAND INSURANCE CO. -- 05/07/1998<BR></A><BR> The Arbitration Panel found the total amount of damages was $17. Miera was a citizen of New Mexico and it was not. 028.51 were plaintiff to succeed on all of her claims. Graham's failure to cite the controlling case law was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/01-1122.htm">01-1122 -- HARTSEL SPRINGS RANCH OF COLORADO, INC. V. BLUEGREEN CORPORATION -- 07/16/2002<BR></A><BR> That it was an improper attempt to circumvent its orders in a separate pending suit between the same parties. Because the two lawsuits were brought on behalf of separate entities who do not share identical interests. <strong>REMAND</strong> for further proceedings. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></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-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/98-6487.htm">98-6487 -- U.S. V. JACKSON -- 06/02/2000<BR></A><BR> We determine none have merit. Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Elk City Police Department decided to set up video surveillance at two residences they suspected were at the center of a crack distribution system. Two VCRs and a transmitter that allowed officers to record and listen to conversations in and around the car as they were occurring. <p> During their investigation. The Elk City Police were holding Ms. Which was recorded. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/02/96-6089.htm">96-6089 -- FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORP. V. UMIC INC. -- 02/18/1998<BR></A><BR> We affirm in part and reverse in part. <p> I. <u>BACKGROUND</u> <p> Universal was a savings and loan located in Chickasha. 1821a(a) (requiring this transfer). <p> The conduct that is the basis for this action occurred several years earlier. Universal held a large quantity of Treasury bonds that were declining in value as a result of rising interest rates. Made a presentation to Universal's board of directors on the use of futures and options to hedge against the risk of further interest rate increases. <p> Employing a hedging strategy is not unlike buying an insurance policy. The investor pays a small fee to the person who agrees to accept the bond if it is offered at the fixed price. Universal signed a customer agreement specifying that the account was to be used only for hedging. Denney and UMIC were aware that Universal was subject to federal regulations limiting speculative trading by insured institutions. In order to work even more closely with Denney and UMIC. <p> While Universal's account was open. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/96-4094.htm">96-4094 -- WEST AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. V. AV&S, AM&S, LSK, AS&S AND AMBASSADOR PIZZA, INC. -- 07/14/1998<BR></A><BR> S is a corporation whose business is a franchisee of Ambassador Pizza. As if each Named Insured were the only Named Insured. Separately to each insured against whom claim is made or 'suit' is brought. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/00-1303.htm">00-1303 -- COLORADO CROSS DISABILITY COALITION V. WILLIAMS -- 08/29/2001<BR></A><BR> Williams is a Denver attorney who. Is paralyzed from the chest down and uses a power wheel chair for mobility. The door to the store is recessed from the storefront and adds another barrier to wheelchair access of one to three inches. <p> In 1996. Concluding that Plaintiff failed to establish that removal of architectural barriers at the four locations was readily achievable. Including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction or restraining order for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/97-4062.htm">97-4062 -- U.S. V. GALLARDO-MENDEZ -- 07/28/1998<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/11/01-1464.htm">01-1464 -- MAESTAS V. LUJAN -- 11/26/2003<BR></A><BR> Lujan was her supervisor prior to her August promotion. Was her formal supervisor after the promotion. Maestas he was in love with her and wrote her letters to that effect. (2) whether that right was clearly established (3) such that a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have known that his conduct violated that right. <em>Garramone v. She argues that even if it was not error to submit the qualified immunity issue to the jury. The instruction itself was substantively erroneous. 1983 instruction was substantively erroneous. <p> Mr. Qualified immunity is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/02/96-1549.htm">96-1549 -- LENON V. ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE CO. -- 02/18/1998<BR></A><BR> Plaintiffs' claims are based on a judgment in their favor in a separate action they brought against Wilkinson (the Wilkinson action or case) seeking fringe benefit contributions and other damages under collective bargaining agreements applicable to Wilkinson's work at the Denver International Airport. We conclude it is appropriate to resolve this appeal now rather than wait for proceedings to conclude in the Wilkinson action. <p> On the merits. Agree that the type of damages plaintiffs seek are not covered under the surety bond. Was required to use union labor on work it performed under subcontract at the Denver International Airport in Colorado. Plaintiffs are the same in both this case and the Wilkinson action. Plaintiff trustees are the named fiduciaries of four multiemployer welfare and pension benefit plans as defined by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/99-6349.htm">99-6349 -- JACKSON V. HARGETT -- 08/02/2000<BR></A><BR> The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> These appeals stem from petitioner's conviction in Oklahoma state court on several counts of unlawful distribution of cocaine and conspiracy to distribute cocaine. We will treat them together. Noting relevant differences only where necessary. <p> Petitioner was convicted of participating in drug transactions which turned out to be part of a year long sting operation run out of an electronics store by the police department of Lawton. The two episodes were charged separately but tried together in state court. Involving petitioner and his co defendant Roleita Nash. <p> Petitioner's convictions in No. 99 6375 were affirmed on direct appeal by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals in an unpublished summary opinion and post conviction relief was ultimately denied. The conviction in No. 99 6349 was affirmed except for one conspiracy conviction which was reversed on double jeopardy grounds. All claims raised here have been properly exhausted. <p> Petitioner's habeas petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/08/96-5212.htm">96-5212 -- LAMPKIN V. INTERNATIONAL UNION UNITED AUTOMOBILE -- 08/24/1998<BR></A><BR> Thus this was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/00-1040.htm">00-1040 -- WELLS V. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER -- 07/02/2001<BR></A><BR> The East Steps </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/99-1270.htm">99-1270 -- U.S. V. MARQUEZ-GALLEGOS -- 05/03/2000<BR></A><BR> His sentence for that offense was enhanced because he previously had been deported after an aggravated felony conviction. We have jurisdiction to review Marquez's sentence under 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/97-2088.htm">97-2088 -- U.S. V. TALK -- 09/11/1998<BR></A><BR> His motion is based on <u>Koon v. We would have upheld them thus. Based as it is on an erroneous reversal of all downward departures entertained by the sentencing court. Would have to be vacated. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/99-3139.htm">99-3139 -- PRINGLE V. U.S. -- 04/05/2000<BR></A><BR> Appellant was on active duty in the United States Army. He was seriously injured while on the premises of Club Troopers. Club Troopers is operated by the United States out of non allocated funds as part of its Morale. Civilians as well as military personnel are allowed on the premises. Club Troopers employs military personnel as bartenders and bouncers. <p> Appellant alleges that while he was in Club Troopers on September 17. He was severely beaten by the gang members. A court is required to convert a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss into a Rule 12(b)(6) motion or a Rule 56 summary judgment motion when resolution of the jurisdictional question is intertwined with the merits of the case. The jurisdictional question is intertwined with the merits of the case if subject matter jurisdiction is dependent on the same statute which provides the substantive claim in the case. <p> <u>Holt v. The district court determined that the jurisdictional question was not intertwined with the merits of the case. It was not intertwined with merits issues arising under the FTCA. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/10/96-3328.htm">96-3328 -- CASE V. UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. -- 10/13/1998<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/01/96-2285.htm">96-2285 -- U.S. V. ENJADY -- 01/20/1998<BR></A><BR> Rule 413 is unconstitutional. If the rule is constitutional. The district court should have excluded the evidence as unduly prejudicial under Fed. Defendant were both enrolled members of the Mescalero Apache Indian Tribe and the alleged rape occurred on the reservation. She reported the incident and medical personnel administered a rape kit. <p> Defendant was later arrested on other charges and interviewed by criminal investigator Mark Chino. Argued it was consensual. <p> The government sought the court's permission to introduce testimony from witness B that defendant had raped her approximately two years earlier. The district court ruled that the testimony of the prior rape was relevant and admissible under Rule 413. Defendant was indicted in May 1995 and tried in June 1996. The district court concluded that defendant's trial was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/98-5260.htm">98-5260 -- HUTCHINSON V. PFEIL -- 04/04/2000<BR></A><BR> Joining in his notice of appeal are Hope Cobb. Whose motion to intervene in district court was denied. Hutchinson's notice of appeal from the final judgment entered over eight months later. <p> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></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-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/12/02-1220.htm">02-1220 -- RUTTER & WILBANKS CORP. V. SHELL OIL COMPANY -- 12/24/2002<BR></A><BR> Appellants are eleven objectors ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/09/00-5042.htm">00-5042 -- U.S. V. LOVE -- 09/05/2001<BR></A><BR> We find that Love is not entitled to relief from his conviction or sentence based upon an alleged violation by the district court of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e)(1) because Love has not demonstrated that his substantial rights were affected by the district court's statements. Is unconstitutional in light of <u>United States v. Who was actually a confidential informant working with the FBI. Malone was later arrested and eventually charged for his role in the crime spree. He was convicted of seven of the charges contained in the indictment (Docs. 44 and 65). Judge Kern refused to accept the plea agreement. (<u>Id.</u>) Judge Kern noted that Love was apparently the ringleader of the group. Not for all of the crimes that were committed. Is 46 years. To allow the government and Love a chance to negotiate another plea agreement. <p> Love's counsel on appeal states that Love was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/96-6329a.htm">96-6329A -- DUVALL V. REYNOLDS -- 12/10/1997<BR></A><BR> 1997 <p> Please be advised of the following correction to the captioned decision: <p> Case number 97 6299 was inadvertently omitted from the caption of the opinion disposing of this appeal. Duvall was in trouble. He stated that she was angry with him because he arranged for her drug prescription to be canceled. He replied that their son was at his grandmother's home. Duvall was previously convicted of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person and (2) that the murder was especially heinous. Duvall was not entitled to relief on his remaining claims and dismissed his petition. Or cruel </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/05/03-3183.htm">03-3183 -- ESPOSITO V. U.S. -- 05/26/2004<BR></A><BR> Esposito alleges that his death was the result of negligence by United States government employees. Esposito is deceased and therefore lacks capacity to pursue an action for wrongful death. The mistake was not an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/05/03-3183a.htm">03-3183A -- ESPOSITO V. U.S. -- 05/26/2004<BR></A><BR> Esposito alleges that his death was the result of negligence by United States government employees. Esposito is deceased and therefore lacks capacity to pursue an action for wrongful death. The mistake was not an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962412.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 29 the cross reference is corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/11/97-1158.htm">97-1158 -- BRANSON SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-82 V. ROMER -- 11/20/1998<BR></A><BR> That first state constitution responded to the federal government's grant of lands for common schools by establishing a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5495555B0A4675E7882571C6007C1725/$file/0416174.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case centers on the trademarks of two well known automobile manufacturers Volkswagen and Audi.1 The question is whether the Lanham Act prevents a maker of automobile accessories from selling. The logos and marks of Volkswagen and Audi are aesthetic functional elements of the product that is. They are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/04/00-6044.htm">00-6044 -- U.S. V. MCGOWAN -- 04/04/2001<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. <p> <strong>I. Which were then passed using counterfeit identification cards. Arguing that it was both improper and excessive. DISCUSSION</strong> <p> We have held that <p> [t]he Sentencing Guidelines provide that each guideline carves out a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/06/01-1512a.htm">01-1512A -- FLEMING V. JEFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT R-1 -- 06/27/2002<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/12/01-5077a.htm">01-5077A -- TRAINOR V. APOLLO METAL SPECIALTIES INC. -- 12/13/2002<BR></A><BR> It is ordered that the petition for rehearing is denied. The motion for clarification is granted. <p> The court has determined that the opinion filed December 13. The <p> opinion is otherwise unchanged. A copy of the amended opinion is attached to this order. <p> Entered for the Court <p> PATRICK FISHER. Ruling that Apollo was not an employer covered by the ADA because it did not have fifteen or more employees in each of twenty calendar weeks during the relevant period as required by 42 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/12/01-5077.htm">01-5077 -- TRAINOR V. APOLLO METAL SPECIALTIES INC. -- 12/13/2002<BR></A><BR> Ruling that Apollo was not an employer covered by the ADA because it did not have fifteen or more employees in each of twenty calendar weeks during the relevant period as required by 42 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/06/01-1512.htm">01-1512 -- FLEMING V. JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT -- 06/27/2002<BR></A><BR> Holding that the District's guidelines governing a tile painting project at Columbine High School ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/12/97-8079.htm">97-8079 -- ORDINANCE 59 ASSOCIATION V. UNITED STATES DEPT.OF THE INTERIOR SECRETARY -- 12/01/1998<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/98-1333.htm">98-1333 -- DACHO V. GREENE -- 02/29/2000<BR></A><BR> Duy Dac Ho ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/00-8005.htm">00-8005 -- VEILE V. BRYANT -- 07/30/2001<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/05/99-1465.htm">99-1465 -- ALLISON V. BANK ONE - DENVER -- 05/15/2002<BR></A><BR> The district court dismissed the RICO and COCCA claims prior to trial and they are not the subject of these appeals. Before us are the parties' appeals and cross appeals arising from the district court's rulings. Including its post judgment decisions regarding costs.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/99-4210a.htm">99-4210A -- U.S. V. HARDMAN -- 08/08/2001<BR></A><BR> The panel opinions in these cases are vacated. It is anticipated that these cases will be reheard during the Court's November 2001 Term. <p> We request that the attorneys in each case brief and prepare to orally argue the issues listed below to the extent they are applicable to their case.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/11/96-2269.htm">96-2269 -- U.S. V. ARCHULETA -- 11/17/1997<BR></A><BR> The stated basis for the downward departure was that Archuleta was the sole support for two children. That no one else was able to care for them. Because we conclude that the family circumstances in question are within the heartland of the sentencing guidelines. The sentencing Court may impose a sentence outside the range established by the applicable guidelines if the Court finds that an aggravating or mitigating circumstance exists that was not adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission in formulating the guidelines. Which would result in a sentence different from what was described in the guidelines. <p> There appear to be mitigating circumstances concerning this case in that the defendant is a single parent of two minor children and also cares for his mother. Who is diabetic and takes daily insulin treatments. If a downward departure was granted to an offense level within Zone C. Provided that at least one half of the minimum term is satisfied by imprisonment. Archuleta's counsel argued that the court should depart downward into Zone C because Archuleta is the sole provider for his family. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/11/98-1312.htm">98-1312 -- DINH V. RENO -- 11/18/1999<BR></A><BR> Background Facts and Procedures</strong></center> <p> Plaintiff Tuong Huan Van Dinh<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/04/98-6063.htm">98-6063 -- WOODS V. KENAN -- 04/13/1999<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/10/96-8110.htm">96-8110 -- U.S. V. BLACKWELL -- 10/14/1997<BR></A><BR> Blackwell would have to be a witness in the prosecution of his supplier and co conspirator. Cecala's prosecution in Utah was entirely separate from Mr. Crank today and let me have a moment. I guess that deal is currently on the skids and we [<em>i.e.</em>. In which case he will be needed for testimony. <p> At this point I guess it's fair to tell Your Honor that it's all up in the air. <p> On June 14. His sentence was unfair. Blackwell presented five arguments asserting his sentence was invalid. The contentions the court addressed were: (1) the disparity between Mr. (2) the district court was misinformed at Mr. Blackwell] was sentenced ... you should have contacted Utah just to double check and find out what sentence [Ms. I certainly should have checked. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/10/98-1024.htm">98-1024 -- VEGA V. SUTHERS -- 10/26/1999<BR></A><BR> INTRODUCTION</strong></center> <p> Juan Cruz Vega was convicted in Colorado state court on charges of possessing more than twenty eight grams of cocaine with intent to distribute. <em>See</em> Colo. Although the presumptive sentencing range<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/06/02-6101.htm">02-6101 -- FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. KUYKENDALL -- 06/10/2004<BR></A><BR> We agree with the panel and the district court that the underlying proceedings were correctly classified as civil contempt proceedings. Before that appeal was heard the parties entered into a settlement that was eventually incorporated into a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/04/03-6005.htm">03-6005 -- U.S. V. WARD -- 04/29/2004<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/01/01-4017.htm">01-4017 -- ASHLEY CREEK PHOSPHATE COMPANY V. CHEVRON USA, INC. -- 01/02/2003<BR></A><BR> The tariffs announced by Chevron and SF for the use of the pipeline were reasonable. Because Utah conceded that its claims were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/07/02-6055.htm">02-6055 -- SMITH V. MULLIN -- 07/29/2004<BR></A><BR> Was sentenced to death for the 1993 murders of his wife and stepchildren. Smith] was married to Jennifer Smith. The rest of the house was searched. The bodies of three more children were found. The bodies were determined to be those of Jennifer Smith and her four children. They were determined to have been dead for at least two to three days and up to . . . two weeks or more. <p> The afternoon of that same day. He was turned over to the Oklahoma City Police and placed under arrest. A federal court is precluded from granting habeas relief on any claim adjudicated on the merits by the state court. Unless the state proceeding </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="296"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/11/99-3065.htm">99-3065 -- ALABAMA, ET AL. V. U.S. STATES DEPT. OF ENERGY -- 11/05/1999<BR></A><BR> Defendants Appellees have moved this court to dismiss these appeals for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Appellants have opposed these motions. 99 3066 are therefore GRANTED. <strong></strong> <p> <strong><center>BACKGROUND</strong></center> <p> Plaintiffs Appellants in cases 99 3065 and 99 3066 are the states of Alabama. Plaintiffs Appellants in case 99 3102 are the states of Delaware. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/06/98-2217.htm">98-2217 -- VICKERY DESIGN INC. V. ASPEN BAY CO. -- 06/01/1999<BR></A><BR> We affirm. <p> Vickery Design argues that the district court erred (1) in holding that a candle in the shape of a miniature ear of corn is not subject to copyright protection. (3) erred in holding that Aspen Bay's corn candle was not substantially similar to the Corndle. <p> We review the district court's dismissal for an abuse of discretion. We accept the district court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous and review application of legal principles de novo. <em>See Harolds Stores. The artistic expression of that idea is protected by copyright laws. The district court found that although the Corndle was substantially similar to Aspen Bay's miniature corn candles in shape. Both candle designs were produced from molds of real ears of corn. The district court further found that the actual artistic expression of the ears were not the same. Corndles have straight rows of kernels while Aspen Bay's rows have a twisted shape. We decline to disturb these factual findings. <p> Applying these facts to the established law of this circuit that a corn candle design is protectable but only to the extent </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/06/03-4086.htm">03-4086 -- LIFEWISE MASTER FUNDING V. TELEBANK -- 06/29/2004<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/03/01-1530.htm">01-1530 -- HULEN V. YATES -- 03/04/2003<BR></A><BR> Other co conspirators whose identities are presently unknown</a>. We have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal under the qualification of the final judgment rule of 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/97-2343.htm">97-2343 -- PERRY V. WOODWARD -- 08/27/1999<BR></A><BR> Alleging she was discriminated against on the basis of her race and retaliated against because she opposed employment practices made unlawful by state and federal laws. 1981 because she was an at will employee. The district court also held that Perry was required to present evidence of intentional discrimination to prevail under 42 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/02-1191.htm">02-1191 -- SENDER V. BRONZE GROUP -- 08/26/2004<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/01/01-3327.htm">01-3327 -- U.S. V. MCCLATCHEY -- 01/16/2003<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/03/01-3245.htm">01-3245 -- HARMS V. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE -- 03/04/2003<BR></A><BR> Alleging he was wrongfully suspended and terminated in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2001/98-4945.man.html">CBS V. PRIMETIME 24 JOINT VENTURE (3/26/2001, NO. 98-4945)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/08/97-4121.htm">97-4121 -- PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORP. V. CF&I FABRICATORS OF UTAH INC. -- 08/03/1998<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/12/97-2379.htm">97-2379 -- U.S. V. WITTGENSTEIN -- 12/16/1998<BR></A><BR> Wittgenstein should not be deported as an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/03/96-4044.htm">96-4044 -- STEINER CORP. V. JOHNSON & HIGGINS OF CALIFORNIA -- 03/09/1998<BR></A><BR> Section </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/99-1015.htm">99-1015 -- GARDNER V. CONTINENTAL WESTERN INSURANCE CO. -- 02/01/2000<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/06/02-2254.htm">02-2254 -- RIO GRANDE SILVERY MINNOW V. KEYS -- 06/12/2003<BR></A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/05/01-6224b.htm">01-6224 -- BEAVERS V. SAFFLE -- 05/16/2002<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/04/02-2049.htm">02-2049 -- U.S. V. AGUIRRE-TELLO -- 04/07/2003<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/49F73C863DE5878688256BE20074E049/$file/0056043.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> CU's motion for summary judgment was granted by the district court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. з 1291. I. BACKGROUND CU is a nonprofit corporation that engages in comparative testing and evaluation of consumer products and services. The results of which are published in the magazine Consumer Reports. Was introduced in the United States in 1985. The petition was denied. Although the NHTSA emphasized that the denial was not an endorsement of the safety performance of a vehicle. A double lane change avoidance maneuver test course that CU had used since 1973.2 The long course was designed to replicate an emergency situation in which a driver suddenly steers a vehicle left into the opposing lane. Several CU personnel were in attendance during the April 20 testing. CU driver Kevin Sheehan reported that the Samurai was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/99-8008.htm">99-8008 -- MILE HIGH INDUSTRIES V. COHEN -- 08/18/2000<BR></A><BR> The Promissory Note provided: <p> This note is executed subject to the terms of those certain agreements concerning the sale and lease of the real property pledged as security for this note. <em>In the event that the named payee of this note [Mile High] ... defaults under the terms of the lease agreement</em> ... <em>then no further payments are required to be made hereunder and any remaining balance due is. Cohen to Mile High provided: <p> This mortgage is executed subject to the terms of those certain agreements concerning the sale and lease of the real property herein described. <em>In the event the Mortgagee [Mile High] ... defaults under the terms of the lease agreement ... <em>then no further payments are required to be made under the terms of the note secured by this mortgage. Any remaining balance due is. No payments will be due to [Mile High] on said note. <p> The Lease Agreement required Mile High to pay $11. Cohen: <p> Jefferson Standard is not willing to release their Mortgage even though I escrow the money. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/98-7076.htm">98-7076 -- NORTH TEXAS PRODUCTION CREDIT ASSOCIATION V. MCCURTAIN COUNTY NATIONAL BANK -- 08/15/2000<BR></A><BR> 1994 loan was to enable the Clarks to purchase 1. When a financing statement is filed in McCurtain County. One copy is placed in an alphabetical index. Which is accessible to the public for purposes of conducting lien searches. One copy is placed in a numerical file located in the basement of the clerk's office. The alphabetical index copy in the public records is removed and returned to the secured party. The duplicate numerical copy in the basement is not. <p> NTPCA disputed MCNB's asserted priority in the remaining proceeds from the Clarks' sale of the cattle to Conley and brought the present action seeking: (1) a declaratory judgment that it held a lien superior to the lien of MCNB on certain livestock owned by the Clarks. 1995<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/99-6364.htm">99-6364 -- MITCHELL V. GIBSON -- 08/13/2001<BR></A><BR> Mitchell's conviction was not constitutionally infirm. Mitchell's conviction and sentence are set out in the opinion disposing of his direct criminal appeal. Will be recited in this opinion in detail when necessary to our consideration of the individual issues before us. Mitchell was adjudicated a juvenile offender for the rape of a twelve year old neighborhood girl and was incarcerated in a juvenile correctional facility for approximately three years prior to the events at issue here. He was released on December 23. Was a college student who worked and volunteered at the Pilot Recreation Community Center. The Center served disadvantaged youth and was located near Mr. Scott was working at the Center with its director. Ross was leaving. Mitchell was wearing a rust or reddish colored stocking cap. Scott's car was gone and that the Center was not locked properly. Mitchell was standing in the doorway. Biggs that the Center was closed because the bathrooms were being cleaned. There were no cars in the parking lot and the building was empty. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/06/02-5213.htm">02-5213 -- U.S. V. RAY -- 06/07/2004<BR></A><BR> The central player in the conspiracy was Darrell Bellamy of Phoenix. Ray was a key member in the conspiracy's Tulsa branch. <p> A federal grand jury indicted Mr. Claiming that the joint trial could have caused the jury to attribute to Mr. To present summary testimony and exhibits regarding the activities of the alleged conspiracy and the amounts of drugs for which each defendant was responsible. Ray argues that verdict forms were defective. Hardridge's counsel's objection.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/12/98-3124.htm">98-3124 -- HOLMAN V. BOOKER -- 12/14/1998<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Eric U. He was arrested in Michigan and was charged with various drug and weapons related crimes. Holman was sentenced to a term of 101 months imprisonment. His sentence was summarily affirmed on direct appeal. <u>United States v. Was denied. He was a prisoner of the State of Michigan at some point. Although the record is unclear as to dates and times of transfer. This suit was dismissed by the district court. The nature of which is unclear from the record. Which was dismissed by the federal district court. These Kansas cases have been dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. <u>See</u> R. Holman also stated that he was maintaining at least two other federal lawsuits. Which apparently were filed in district courts within the Eleventh and Third Circuits. The only clues contained in the record which point to the substance of Holman's allegations are a document from the Leavenworth warden denying various claims Holman had made. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/96-3412.htm">96-3412 -- MCCUE V. STATE OF KANSAS -- 01/07/1999<BR></A><BR> Plaintiff Caryn McCue was allegedly sexually harassed by her immediate supervisor. Nearly three years later she was discharged. Is a former employee of the Kansas Department of Human Resources. Ybarra allegedly said he was going to fire Ms. The State argues it can only have intent as outlined in statutes or pursuant to state policy. Such a decision is reviewed de novo when </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/99-7150.htm">99-7150 -- U.S. V. HOLT -- 08/24/2000<BR></A><BR> Although we agree with the district court that Holt's Fourth Amendment rights were violated when he was questioned about the presence of weapons in his vehicle. We reverse with directions to the district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Holt's consent to search his vehicle was nevertheless voluntary. <p> <center>I.</center> <p> On the evening of September 15. The impetus for establishing the checkpoint was the officers' suspicion that Holt. Was transporting illegal drugs along Treat Road.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19942157.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> One course taught in the 1989 fall semester. 1 U.S.C. 1125(a).2 U.F. alternatively argues that a new trial is required because the great weight of the evidence is against the jury's verdict as to the copyright claims and/or because the jury's verdict was tainted by counsel's misconduct during trial. Motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict are subject to de novo review. If the facts and inferences are so strong and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the court believes that reasonable persons could not arrive at a contrary verdict. The grant of a directed verdict is proper. Substantial evidence is presented opposed to the motion. This evidence is of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions. Denial of a motion for a new trial is reviewed for clear abuse of At the outset. We do </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/09/98-2160.htm">98-2160 -- U.S. V. GOMEZ -- 09/03/1999<BR></A><BR> Gomez stated they were not traveling with anyone else. <p> During that time. Yanez Torres admitted he was involved with the drugs. Was not. The tank was found to contain approximately 130.5 pounds of marijuana worth. Gomez was charged along with codefendants Mr. Gomez was arrested on September 25 and arraigned on October 20. Gomez was tried separately in December. Who were unavailable to testify as they remained fugitives at the time of trial. Gomez argues that the government violated her right to a fair trial by its destruction of the marijuana upon which her conviction was based. Both allow discovery of tangible objects </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/11/96-4191a.htm">96-4191A -- SUMMUM V. CALLAGHAN -- 11/28/1997<BR></A><BR> In the first line of the slip opinion there is a typographical error. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/01/99-1547.htm">99-1547 -- WEINMAN V. FIDELITY CAPITAL APPRECIATION FUND -- 01/14/2004<BR></A><BR> P. 23(b)(1)(A) class was improper. (4) the settlement was not fairly negotiated. Is unfair. (6) the bankruptcy court erred in denying a dispositive motion seeking to dismiss this action on any of four separate grounds set forth in the motion (more specifically described below). <p> These issues are substantially identical to the ones raised in <u>Integra I</u>. The appellants here further assert that they and the <u>Integra I</u> appellants have </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2002/01-90036.opn.html">CHRYSLER FIN. CORP. V. POWE (11/19/2002, NO. 01-90036)<BR></A><BR> PNC Mortgage Corporation of America are separately defendants in adversarial proceedings before a bankruptcy judge in which plaintiffs allege that petitioners violated the bankruptcy code by claiming and collecting attorneys' fees from them and other debtors. This is an issue of first impression. </SPAN></P> <UL> <LI><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/11/96-4191.htm">96-4191 -- SUMMUM V. CALLAGHAN -- 11/28/1997<BR></A><BR> We reverse and remand for further proceedings. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2001/98-4945.man.html">CBS V. PRIMETIME 24 JOINT VENTURE (3/26/2001, NO. 98-4945)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/05/01-6224a.htm">01-6224A -- BEAVERS V. SAFFLE -- 05/16/2002<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/04/03-6058.htm">03-6058 -- BEAVER V. CLINGMAN -- 04/06/2004<BR></A><BR> It concluded that the burden of the statute on the LPO was not a severe one and accordingly analyzed whether any of Oklahoma's proffered interests were sufficiently important to justify the burden. 69) was sufficiently important for the state to prevail. <strong>II</strong> <p> We review the district court's findings of fact for clear error. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1087.html">U. S. TEST, INC. V. N D E ENVIRONMENTAL CORP.<BR></A><BR> That the patents were invalid and unenforceable. <U>See</U> <U>id.</U> at ╢╢ . Test was liable for contributory infringement of the '453 patent. <U>See</U> Am. UCIC was obligated to defend U.S. We will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/01-4080.htm">01-4080 -- COANDO V. COASTAL OIL AND GAS CORPORATION -- 08/15/2002<BR></A><BR> The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff Appellant Patrick Dean Coando appeals adverse judgments by the district court in each of the three above captioned cases. We have consolidated each of Plaintiff's appeals and now dispose of them in this order and judgment. <p> <center><strong>I. Standard of Review</strong></center> <p> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/03/00-6128.htm">00-6128 -- EARLS V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TECUMSEH PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT -- 03/21/2001<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/12/97-9003.htm">97-9003 -- TWENTY MILE JOINT VENTURE, PND, LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE - - 12/27/1999<BR></A><BR> The primary individuals in the group of investors were Mr. Which is one of the Appellants in these matters. Is the Appellant in No. 97 9003. As was the case with Parker Properties. These details are unimportant to the issues presented in these appeals. We have ignored these intermediate entities and have referred to the investors as if they individually were partners of Parker Properties and Twenty Mile. <p> The parent company of Empire. Commercial was also influenced by the fact that the real estate market was on the decline. Commercial's goal was to receive as much cash as possible and to be indemnified from all continuing liabilities associated with the joint venture partnerships. It was willing to accept less than the outstanding balance of the loans in order to liquidate its interests and to avoid future liabilities associated with the projects. <p> In early 1988. 910.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/01/01-3004.htm">01-3004 -- HOLMES V. MCKUNE -- 01/31/2003<BR></A><BR> Was convicted by a Kansas trial court in 1979 of rape. Which were denied. Both denials were appealed to the Kansas Court of Appeals. Again arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective. <p> Holmes's federal habeas petition was dismissed by the district court. The district court granted a certificate of appealability ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2002/01-90036.opn.html">CHRYSLER FIN. CORP. V. POWE (11/19/2002, NO. 01-90036)<BR></A><BR> PNC Mortgage Corporation of America are separately defendants in adversarial proceedings before a bankruptcy judge in which plaintiffs allege that petitioners violated the bankruptcy code by claiming and collecting attorneys' fees from them and other debtors. This is an issue of first impression. </SPAN></P> <UL> <LI><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/12/01-4046.htm">01-4046 -- SNYDER V. CITY OF MOAB -- 12/29/2003<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/01/03-3018a.htm">03-3018A -- U.S. V. SWANSON -- 01/26/2004<BR></A><BR> 2004 is granted. A copy of the published opinion is attached. <p> Entered for the Court <p> PATRICK FISHER. Swanson was convicted of one count of bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/99-2313.htm">99-2313 -- U.S. V. ALVAREZ-PINEDA -- 08/03/2001<BR></A><BR> 5K2.0 on the ground that Alvarez's conduct was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/00-8039.htm">00-8039 -- NELSON V. GERINGER -- 07/03/2002<BR></A><BR> Who were dismissed from their positions as Assistant Adjutant Generals of the Wyoming National Guard. The underlying facts and claims brought by plaintiffs are substantially the same for both cases. The state of Wyoming appeals and we affirm. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/05/01-6224.htm">01-6224 -- BEAVERS V. SAFFLE -- 05/16/2002<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Gary Zane Beavers appeals from the judgment of the district court denying his petition for habeas corpus brought under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/07/01-3202.htm">01-3202 -- U.S. V. AMR CORPORATION -- 07/03/2003<BR></A><BR> Because we agree that the record is void of evidence that rises to the level of a material conflict. Affirm. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/01/03-3018.htm">03-3018 -- U.S. V. SWANSON -- 01/26/2004<BR></A><BR> Swanson was convicted of one count of bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/02-2176.htm">02-2176 -- FOUGHT V. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA -- 08/13/2004<BR></A><BR> <strong> </strong>Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/99-6127.htm">99-6127 -- BARKER V. CITY OF DEL CITY -- 06/15/2000<BR></A><BR> There was a contentious municipal election in which two members of the City Council. Were defeated. Four of the five City Council seats were filled by newcomers. Barker was Mr. 1998. <p> The city manager is the highest non elected position in the city and is responsible for implementing the City Council's policies. The city manager's administrative assistant is the manager's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/05/02-6105.htm">02-6105 -- SCARBERRY V. EXXON MOBIL OIL CORP. -- 05/02/2003<BR></A><BR> Was also reasonably calculated to demonstrate to all employees that its policy against sexual harassment would be enforced. <u>See</u> <u>Adler v. We conclude that summary judgement in favor of ExxonMobil was proper. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/98260AFB01FBD52888256CB60050B330/$file/0135412.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the parties have engaged in manipulation to manufacture appellate jurisdiction after the district court's grant of partial summary judgment. I. BACKGROUND Dastar was sued by Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. Avoids multiplicity of litigation and minimizes delay by </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/02/00-1053.htm">00-1053 -- BRISTOL V. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COUNTY OF CLEAR CREEK -- 02/26/2002<BR></A><BR> We hold that a position is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/03/98-6066.htm">98-6066 -- ROBERTS V. WARD -- 03/25/1999<BR></A><BR> Roberts was convicted in state court of murdering an elderly woman during an attempted burglary by stabbing her in the head and slitting her throat. The defense theory during trial was that Mr. (7) the state's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/02/00-1423.htm">00-1423 -- SAVE PALISADE FRUITLANDS V. TODD -- 02/07/2002<BR></A><BR> The United States District Court for the District of Colorado concluded that there was no denial of equal protection. Subsection 1(2) of the Colorado Constitution provides in part that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2002/01-15497.opn.html">HYMAN V. NATIONWIDE MUT. FIRE INS. CO. (9/6/2002, NO. 01-15497)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTU1NjMtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5563-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The dispute was sparked by 24/7's production of a cover version of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/02/99-5159.htm">99-5159 -- WALKER V. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC. -- 02/27/2001<BR></A><BR> 2601 2654) and various tort claims under Oklahoma common law.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/02/00-5206.htm">00-5206 -- U.S. V. THOMPSON -- 02/14/2002<BR></A><BR> The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in sentencing by applying a two level enhancement for possession of ten or more </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/97-9535.htm">97-9535 -- ARAMARK CORP. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD -- 09/22/1998<BR></A><BR> The Unions have intervened to support the Board's application for enforcement. <p> Aramark argues the Board is without jurisdiction to order Aramark to engage in collective bargaining because Aramark's operations fall within the political subdivision exemption of the Act. Aramark also argues the Board is without jurisdiction because under its government contracts. This court rejects Aramark's claim the Board erred in concluding it was not an exempt political subdivision. BACKGROUND</center> </strong> <p> Aramark is a Delaware corporation providing food services nationwide. These employees accordingly retained civil service status and the employees were in a public sector collective bargaining unit represented by Council 79. 1990 were Aramark employees and were not represented in the public sector collective bargaining unit. <p> The original contract was renewed yearly until June 30. Aramark was awarded a one year contract. This contract was renewable for additional one year periods. <p> In December 1996. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/10/00-2121.htm">00-2121 -- NIETO V. KAPOOR -- 10/31/2001<BR></A><BR> Kapoor settled with plaintiffs and were dismissed from the case. Kapoor was the Medical Director of the Radiation Oncology Department at ENMMC in Roswell. Plaintiffs were employees of the ENMMC in Dr. The ENMMC was owned by Chaves County. ENMMC was regulated by and operated pursuant to the New Mexico Open Meetings Act. The members of the ENMMC Board of Trustees were appointed by the Chaves County Board of Commissioners. <p> Dr. Kapoor was not an employee of ENMMC. He was responsible for making decisions concerning diagnosis and treatment therapy. Although he did not have actual authority to hire. Kapoor's actions and statements of a racially and sexually harassing nature are too many to detail in this opinion. A summary will suffice to give a sense of his conduct. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/00-1400.htm">00-1400 -- SWITZER V. COAN -- 08/16/2001<BR></A><BR> Plaintiff alleged he </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/00-3216.htm">00-3216 -- GIRARD V. TRADE PROFESSIONALS INC. -- 07/13/2001<BR></A><BR> Inc. based on injuries Girard sustained in a car accident involving a Trade Professionals employee who had finished work for the day and was driving </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/10/01-1263.htm">01-1263 -- CONNOLLY V. HARRIS TRUST CO. OF CALIFORNIA -- 10/31/2002<BR></A><BR> Connolly was appointed Chapter 7 trustee. <p> At the time Connolly assumed his duties as trustee. The MiniScribe estate was insolvent. This action was eventually settled on terms highly favorable to the bankruptcy estate and its creditors. He sought additional compensation that would have resulted in a total fee of $3. This was the maximum fee permitted at that time under the percentage fee scheme (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/10/01-2378.htm">01-2378 -- U.S. V. DIAS-RAMOS -- 10/06/2004<BR></A><BR> His total offense level was 27 after reductions for acceptance of responsibility. Dias Ramos's case was not outside the heartland of those cases the guidelines were intended to cover. He contended that because he was merely a courier with no knowledge of the amount or type of contraband he was transporting. His case was one that fell outside the sentencing heartland and therefore a departure was warranted.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/03-2055.htm">03-2055 -- SIPP V. UNUM PROVIDENT CORP. -- 08/20/2004<BR></A><BR> Sipp's application for benefits was initially approved. UNUM informed him that his benefits would be terminated because he was no longer considered disabled. His last position was that of Senior Pastor in a New Jersey congregation and Chaplain for the Union County Sheriff's Office. This type of policy is known as an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/02-6171.htm">02-6171 -- ROBERTS V. CALLAHAN -- 02/24/2003<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/05/00-6054.htm">00-6054 -- CAMFIELD V. CITY OF OKLAHOMA -- 05/04/2001<BR></A><BR> Whose rented copy of the movie was obtained from him at his apartment by three OCPD officers. Was unsuccessful on his section 1983 claims and his attempt to have Oklahoma's child pornography statute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/04/97-2301.htm">97-2301 -- U.S. V. WISEMAN -- 04/05/1999<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> This is a direct appeal from convictions and a sentence in a criminal case. Our jurisdiction is conferred by 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/03/98-4180.htm">98-4180 -- PEAY V. BELLSOUTH MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PLAN -- 03/06/2000<BR></A><BR> BST is headquartered in Atlanta. Was McCluskey's treating physician. They assert that when a court's jurisdiction is invoked based on ERISA's nationwide service of process provision. Minimum contacts with the forum are unnecessary. A federal district court can exercise jurisdiction over defendants as long as defendants have minimum contacts with the United States. Plaintiffs claim that defendants have the requisite minimum contacts because defendants are large corporations carrying on day to day business throughout this country.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/11/96-6399.htm">96-6399 -- ROBINSON V. CITY OF EDMOND -- 11/06/1998<BR></A><BR> Because the reasons offered by the district court in support of its reduction of the fee request are clearly erroneous. We must reiterate much of the procedural history of the case even though the facts of the substantive dispute are fully recounted in our 1995 decision. <u>See</u> <u>Robinson v. Finding that the plaintiffs' Establishment Clause claim and the related Oklahoma Constitution claim were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2002/01-15497.opn.html">HYMAN V. NATIONWIDE MUT. FIRE INS. CO. (9/6/2002, NO. 01-15497)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/04/97-2370.htm">97-2370 -- GUARDIANS V. BABBITT -- 04/22/1999<BR></A><BR> The petition for rehearing is denied by the panel that rendered the decision. The Court will. As follows: <p> The first sentence of the first full paragraph in column two at 164 F.3d 1269 of the West's Federal Reporter advance sheets (first sentence of first full paragraph on page 20 of our slip opinion) is amended to read: Even in mandamus cases. We have often spoken in strong. Language with regard to the court's duty to enforce agency action mandated by Congress. <p> The first sentence of the first full paragraph in column two at 164 F.3d at 1274 of the West's Federal Reporter advance sheets (first sentence of first full paragraph on page 34 of the slip opinion) is amended to read: While we hold that the Secretary must be ordered to comply with his statutory duty to publish a final regulation regarding designation of the critical habitat for the silvery minnow without regard to his preferred priorities. Any order now to impose a new deadline for compliance must consider what work is necessary to publish the final rule and how quickly that can be accomplished. <p> The last paragraph of the opinion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/03/98-3222.htm">98-3222 -- UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD. V. MIDLAND FUMIGANT INC. -- 03/06/2000<BR></A><BR> Which is used to fumigate grains. Which was granted in September of the same year. <p> On April 19. The case was settled in late October 1991. (5) not sell any further product labeled Quick Phos unless the product was manufactured by United. The cases were consolidated for trial. Fox was liable for fraud in the breach of the settlement agreement. Improper Jury Instructions <p> Midland's first assigned error is somewhat confused. Midland states </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/07/99-1298a.htm">99-1298A -- U.S. V. CALDWELL -- 07/18/2000<BR></A><BR> The sentence originally read: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/96-6329.htm">96-6329 -- DUVALL V. REYNOLDS -- 12/10/1997<BR></A><BR> Duvall was in trouble. He stated that she was angry with him because he arranged for her drug prescription to be canceled. He replied that their son was at his grandmother's home. Duvall was previously convicted of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person and (2) that the murder was especially heinous. Duvall was not entitled to relief on his remaining claims and dismissed his petition. Or cruel </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/09/00-2337.htm">00-2337 -- U.S. V. RODRIGUEZ-AGUIRRE -- 09/05/2001<BR></A><BR> The property in question was allegedly seized in 1992 pursuant to several warrants executed on homes and business properties owned by Appellants. While many of the seized items were forfeited by the United States in valid civil forfeiture actions. Appellants allege that approximately 127 of the seized items were never properly forfeited and thus should be returned to Appellants. Appellants' objections to the magistrate's recommendations were rejected by the district court when dismissing Appellants' motion. <p> Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/98-2060.htm">98-2060 -- HERRERA V. LEMASTER -- 08/23/2002<BR></A><BR> 2254 claiming that his constitutional rights were violated by the admission at trial of illegally obtained evidence. Holding that the state court's determination of harmless error was entitled to a presumption of correctness and. That the error was harmless under <em>Brecht v. We directed the district court on remand to assess whether the constitutional error was harmless under <em>Brecht </em>after an independent review of the state court record. We hold that the standard set out in <em>Brecht </em>is the appropriate one to use in these circumstances. <em></em> <p> <em><center></em><strong>I</strong></center> <p> Mr. Herrera was convicted in New Mexico state court of first degree murder and aggravated assault with a firearm. He was sentenced to life in prison for the murder. Herrera argued that his residence was searched and evidence found there was seized under an invalid warrant. Although the New Mexico Supreme Court held that the warrant was constitutionally deficient. It concluded the admission of the illegally seized items was harmless error under <em>State v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/99-1581.htm">99-1581 -- VOIROL V. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS -- 07/26/2002<BR></A><BR> On behalf of the other American Federation members who have not seceded from International Co Masonry. The parties' various claims were tried to the district court without a jury during the week of April 14. All requests for attorney's fees were denied. <p> Plaintiffs appealed. Haydn was a Freemason. As was Mozart. Benjamin Franklin was an enthusiastic Freemason. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/01/96-4044.htm">96-4044 -- STEINER CORPORATION V. JOHNSON & HIGGINS OF CALIFORNIA -- 01/13/1998<BR></A><BR> H) is the actuarial firm which handled aspects of plaintiff's employee retirement plan. Defendants Reeves and Bertoldo were the individual members of Johnson &. Judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff on its claim that defendant negligently redrafted a section of plaintiff's plan. Plaintiff's primary claim for professional malpractice was rejected. Be considered on remand because the district court's opinion before us then was silent as to these issues and they involved factual determinations that we were unwilling or unable to make. <em>Id.</em> at 941. <p> On remand. Has not appealed the judgment in favor of defendants on the counterclaim. <p> <center><strong>I</strong></center> <p> Plaintiff's appeal from the district court's judgment focuses on the court's holding that plaintiff could not recover on its actuarial malpractice claim against the defendants under Utah's comparative negligence statute because plaintiff's negligence was comparatively greater than that of defendants. The following summary is primarily based on the district court's detailed findings of fact. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/11/96-6399a.htm">96-6399A -- ROBINSON V. CITY OF EDMOND -- 11/06/1998<BR></A><BR> Including <em>civil rights</em> defense. <p> A corrected copy of page four of the concurrence/dissent is attached. <p> Sincerely. Because the reasons offered by the district court in support of its reduction of the fee request are clearly erroneous. We must reiterate much of the procedural history of the case even though the facts of the substantive dispute are fully recounted in our 1995 decision. <u>See</u> <u>Robinson v. Finding that the plaintiffs' Establishment Clause claim and the related Oklahoma Constitution claim were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/00-5015.htm">00-5015 -- BARBER V. T.D. WILLIAMSON, INC. -- 07/02/2001<BR></A><BR> Who is half African American and half Native American. The case was tried before a jury but on the Title VII claims only. Because the focus of this appeal is the hostile work environment claim. Barber was fired on June 2. His termination was discriminatory because a white employee. Barber also asserted that his discharge was retaliatory because. There was testimony at trial that co workers referred to him as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-2120.htm">98-2120 -- U.S. V. DIAZ -- 08/27/1999<BR></A><BR> He argues that: (1) his due process rights were violated by the procedures of the District of New Mexico that resulted in five judges hearing various portions of his case. (2) the district court should have dismissed his charges based upon </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-2120a.htm">98-2120A -- U.S. V. DIAZ -- 08/27/1999<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug98/97-8737.man.html">COHEN V. UNITED STATES (8/26/1998, NO. 97-8737)<BR></A><BR> Plaintiff William Cohen was injured when he was attacked by another prisoner. Cohen was sentenced to eighteen months in prison for copyright violations. Cohen was watching television in a common area of the prison. Cohen is unable to walk normally. </EM> alleging that the government's negligence was responsible for his injuries. Its factual finding that the BOP was negligent. Whether the United States is entitled to application of the discretionary function exception to the FTCA is a question of law we review <EM>de novo. DISCUSSION</STRONG></CENTER> </P> <P> Cohen's theory of liability is that the BOP was negligent in classifying Garcia as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-6000.htm">98-6000 -- JANTZEN V. HAWKINS -- 08/31/1999<BR></A><BR> Defendant Appellee Lewis Hawkins was the incumbent Sheriff of Canadian County. Hawkins' Sheriff Office was comprised of thirty four appointees. Who were Deputy Sheriffs. Or was in any way disloyal to him would be fired. Jantzen was active in Haugland's campaign. Moulton were fired. <p> All four Appellants sued Hawkins and the Canadian County Board of Commissioners under 42 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-6381a.htm">98-6381A -- BERGET V. GIBSON -- 08/05/1999<BR></A><BR> The correct citation is <strong><em>Foster v. The matter of sentencing was determined at a bench trial resulting in a death penalty on the murder count. We affirm the judgment of the district court. <p> <center><strong>BACKGROUND</center> </strong> <p> <strong> </strong>Petitioner Roger James Berget and co defendant Mikell Smith are accused of carjacking and then murdering Rick Patterson. The facts of the murder are recounted in the opinion of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals: <p> During the late night hours of October 19. Fearing that Patterson was still alive and could crawl away. Another shot was fired. <p> <strong><em>Berget v. The trial court held a sentencing hearing during which evidence was presented as to aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The state trial court found four aggravating circumstances: (1) the crime was committed for the purpose of avoiding lawful arrest and prosecution. (4) the murder was especially heinous. The district court granted a certificate of appealability on all claims raised in the petition. <p> <center><strong>STANDARDS OF REVIEW</strong></center> <p> The first issue presented in this case is whether the more stringent standards of review of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) apply. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/04/01-9530a.htm">01-9530A -- DESTA V. ASHCROFT -- 04/11/2003<BR></A><BR> 2003 is granted. A copy of the opinion is attached. <p> Entered for the Court <p> PATRICK FISHER. Petitioners contend on appeal that they are entitled to asylum. Even if they were properly denied asylum. When asylum is denied but deportation to one country is withheld. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/04/01-9530.htm">01-9530 -- DESTA V. ASHCROFT -- 04/11/2003<BR></A><BR> Petitioners contend on appeal that they are entitled to asylum. Even if they were properly denied asylum. When asylum is denied but deportation to one country is withheld. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/04/01-4170.htm">01-4170 -- U.S. V. WELCH -- 04/22/2003<BR></A><BR> Johnson were the President and . SLBC's primary purpose was to secure. Utah.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/04/01-4147.htm">01-4147 -- U.S. V. DUNNE -- 04/01/2003<BR></A><BR> 2(b) is implicit in every charge. The charged offense is barred by the statute of limitations. 1001 is not a continuing violation for statute of limitations purposes. <p> <strong>II. BACKGROUND</strong> <p> Dunne was engaged by PanWorld Minerals International. Counts I through III of the indictment involved only Weeks and Hesterman and are not relevant to this appeal. DUNNE signed an audit opinion for the 1993 financial statements stating his audit of PanWorld was done in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards (GAAS) and the financial statements were presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Knew that the financial statements were not presented in accordance with GAAP. DUNNE took no steps to satisfy the requirements of generally accepted auditing standards to determine if the Washington Gulch interest was properly included in the PanWorld financial statements. 1993 were presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Such was not the case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19978737.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiff William Cohen was injured when he was attacked by another prisoner. Cohen was sentenced to eighteen months in prison for copyright violations. Cohen was watching television in a common area of the prison. Cohen is unable to walk normally. Alleging that the government's negligence was responsible for his injuries. Its factual finding that the BOP was negligent. Whether the United States is entitled to application of the discretionary function exception to the FTCA is a question of law we review de novo. DISCUSSION 2 Cohen's theory of liability is that the BOP was negligent in classifying Garcia as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/03/03-5038a.htm">03-5038A -- HAIN V. MULLIN -- 03/26/2003<BR></A><BR> At issue is whether </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/087B09197EEEEB2D88256D9B0059A7F5/$file/0135887.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> When the party seeking attorneys' fees under the rule is not a prevailing party within the meaning of that statute. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19978737.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiff William Cohen was injured when he was attacked by another prisoner. Cohen was sentenced to eighteen months in prison for copyright violations. Cohen was watching television in a common area of the prison. Cohen is unable to walk normally. Alleging that the government's negligence was responsible for his injuries. Its factual finding that the BOP was negligent. Whether the United States is entitled to application of the discretionary function exception to the FTCA is a question of law we review de novo. DISCUSSION Cohen's theory of liability is that the BOP was negligent in classifying Garcia as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/11/98-4106.htm">98-4106 -- KIMBER V. THIOKOL CORP. -- 11/10/1999<BR></A><BR> The Plan is managed and self funded by Thiokol and is subject to the requirements of ERISA. John Hancock Managed Care Group ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/12/97-1328.htm">97-1328 -- U.S. V. STATE OF COLORADO -- 12/21/1999<BR></A><BR> 10<sup> 5</sup> cancer risk level was arbitrary and capricious. (2) the district court erred when it ruled that the EPA's failure to amend the Record of Decision for Operable Unit I when it encountered the unexpected rock content in the sludge was arbitrary and capricious. (3) even if the actions regarding the Record of Decision for Operable Unit I were arbitrary and capricious. The district court erred in not requiring BN to prove that the cost would not have been incurred in any event. <p> BN cross appeals. We conclude that the EPA's remediation decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record and. Is not arbitrary and capricious. Performance or cost of the remedial plan was involved. The EPA was not required to amend the remediation plan in order to use the settling tank or to amend the plan. We agree with the district court that the EPA actions were arbitrary and capricious for failing to amend the plan. <p> Third. We hold that the district court erred in refusing to require BN to demonstrate that the EPA's errors resulted in expenditures in excess of those that would have occurred in the absence of the errors. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19984945.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This copyright infringement action was brought against PrimeTime 24 Joint Venture ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19984945.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. * This copyright infringement action was brought against PrimeTime 24 Joint Venture ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/01/97-9556.htm">97-9556 -- HRI, INC. V. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY -- 01/06/2000<BR></A><BR> The effect of state adjudications against a tribe on EPA's authority to assess whether lands are Indian country. Dismissing in part and remanding in part. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/01/97-9556a.htm">97-9556A -- HRI, INC. V. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY -- 01/06/2000<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/03/02-2108.htm">02-2108 -- J A V. TUCUMCARI MUNICIPAL SCHOOLS -- 03/11/2003<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200115854.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court concluded that both Rule 7 and its inherent power are legitimate sources of authority for including attorneys' fees within an appellate cost bond. That it was appropriate to rely on both of these bases in holding appellant jointly and severally liable for posting a $180. We conclude that although the district court correctly determined that there are cases in which anticipated attorneys' fees may be included in an appellate cost bond. It erred in holding that this is such a case. I. The factual and procedural history of this large class action is straightforward but complex. Pedraza is the representative of a class of borrowers who obtained mortgage insurance from defendants United Guaranty Corporation and United Guaranty Residential Insurance Company (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200116265.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Several other defendants who were originally parties to the suit were dismissed pursuant to settlement agreements. 2 1 * pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Inc. have and recover of Defendants Choctawhatchee Electric Cooperative. It is further ORDERED. Inc. and that said claims are hereby dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff's motion for an award of attorneys' fees is hereby DENIED. The interpretation of Rule 68 is a legal question that we decide de novo. DISCUSSION The question presented in this appeal is simply whether. If within 10 days after the service of the offer the adverse party serves written notice that the offer is accepted. An offer not accepted shall be deemed withdrawn and evidence thereof is not admissible except in a proceeding to determine costs. If the judgment finally obtained by the offeree is not more favorable than the offer. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/02-8087.htm">02-8087 -- GREATER YELLOWSTONE COALITION V. FLOWERS -- 02/20/2003<BR></A><BR> 4321 et seq.<strong> </strong>Plaintiffs claim that the project will cause irreparable harm to three bald eagle nesting territories. Finding no irreparable harm and concluding that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits. The purpose of building the golf course was to provide additional income so that the remainder of the Ranch could remain viable as a ranching operation. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/98-9025.htm">98-9025 -- DRAKE OIL TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE -- 04/14/2000<BR></A><BR> This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument is not necessary. <em>See</em> Fed. The cases are therefore ordered submitted on the current record. <p> In these appeals. Which were then heard at oral argument in September. The remainder were abated.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/99-4097.htm">99-4097 -- U.S. V. RAMIREZ-SOBERANES -- 04/11/2000<BR></A><BR> Were violated by the prosecutor's use of a peremptory challenge to remove an African American from the jury panel. Based on information that a suspect named Carlos was selling cocaine out of the unit. Officers then asked the men if any firearms were in the apartment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/99-8001.htm">99-8001 -- U.S. V. HUMPHREY -- 04/04/2000<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/02-4149.htm">02-4149 -- SKULL VALLEY BAND OF GOSHUTE INDIANS V. NIELSON -- 08/04/2004<BR></A><BR> Appeal the district court's ruling that the state's statutes regulating the storage and transportation of spent nuclear fuel are preempted by federal law. <u>See</u> <u>Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians v. The Utah officials argue that the district court should not have reached the merits of this dispute because (1) the plaintiffs who challenge the statutes </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/00-2247.htm">00-2247 -- LOPEZ V. WILLIAMS -- 02/19/2003<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/01/02-7024.htm">02-7024 -- U.S. V. WYCHE -- 01/23/2003<BR></A><BR> Appellant Lou Jean Wyche was acquitted of conspiracy to posses with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/98-3341.htm">98-3341 -- STATE OF KANSAS V. U.S. DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES -- 06/01/2000<BR></A><BR> The new program consists of federal block grants that are distributed to states. They are required to work toward program goals. These databases are regularly matched against one another and against a Federal Case Registry and National Directory of New Hires. States are not required to participate in the IV D program. (3)(B).<em> </em> <p> <em><center><strong></em>II<em></strong></center> </em> <p> <em> </em>Kansas argues that the amended IV D program requirements are too onerous and expensive. Kansas contends it is being coerced into implementing the program requirements in violation of two provisions of the United States Constitution. 8 and the Tenth Amendment.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/98-4125.htm">98-4125 -- MORGANROTH & MORGANROTH V. DELOREAN -- 06/05/2000<BR></A><BR> The only one which is relevant to this appeal is the theory that the transfer of the property should be set aside under Utah Code Ann. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/07/98-2328.htm">98-2328 -- EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPOTUNITY COMMISSION V. HORIZON/CMS HEALTHCARE CORP. -- 07/31/2000<BR></A><BR> The summary judgment was premised on the Commission's twofold failure to establish a prima facie case of intentional discrimination: (1) the Charging Parties' lack of qualification for modified duty because they were not injured on the job. (2) the absence of evidence the Charging Parties were treated less favorably than non pregnant but otherwise similarly situated employees. <p> The matter is before this court only on the Commission's appeal of the grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant on the disparate treatment claim. Facts</strong> <p> The following facts are undisputed or. Because the Commission is the party opposing summary judgment. The Charging Parties are former employees of Defendant. The Charging Parties were placed under work restrictions by their respective physicians. The work restrictions included various limitations on the amount each Charging Party was allowed to lift. Each Charging Party could have performed all of her job duties with the exception of the heavy lifting. <p> Defendant had instituted and maintained a policy pursuant to which it allowed employees to work modified duty positions consistent with any work restrictions imposed by the employee's physician (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july96/94-2157.opa.html">UNIVERSITY OF FLA. V. KPB, INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>University of Fla. v. 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2002/01-16265.opn.html">UTIL. AUTOMATION 2000, INC. V. CHOCTAWHATCHEE ELEC. COOP., INC. (7/24/2002, NO. 01-16265)<BR></A><BR> Inc. have and recover of Defendants Choctawhatchee Electric Cooperative. 2000.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/07/03-9006.htm">03-9006 -- HOOK V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE -- 07/13/2004<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1618.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Matthew W. With him on the brief were John M. With him on the brief were James M. Of counsel were Rodney G. The central questions before the Commission were whether: (1) the cameras were first sold abroad (making their refurbishment infringing regardless of whether they were repaired or reconstructed). Fuji challenges the order on the ground that the Commission erred in finding that certain of Jazz's lensfitted film packages ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/12/01-6145.htm">01-6145 -- ENGINEERING V. CITY OF UNION -- 12/17/2002<BR></A><BR> Who are joined herein for purposes of relief by way of damages as may be appropriate. We AFFIRM. <ol> <li> Background</u></li> </ol> <p> Plaintiffs appellants in this action are: (1) Kenmen Engineering. Miles is the principal. Defendant appellee is the City of Union City. The order is found to not be necessary and if there are any costs [plaintiffs] may want to come back against the City of Union City for the payment of costs and moving and storage . . . . Menz were both present at the March 12. There is no indication that the Oklahoma state court conducted a hearing at this time. Miles<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/10/99-5106.htm">99-5106 -- KEY ENERGY RESOURCES INC. V. MERRILL -- 10/25/2000<BR></A><BR> The parties have submitted briefs on this issue and. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 . We dismiss the appeal because we conclude Key Energy has waived appellate review by its failure to object to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation within the required time period. <p> The facts surrounding appellant's failure to file timely objections are not disputed.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/12/00-1053.htm">00-1053 -- BRISTOL V. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF CLEAR CREEK -- 12/12/2002<BR></A><BR> Our prior panel opinion is vacated in part. Bristol was treated for a heart condition that. Bristol was temporarily reassigned to light duty in the jail. Suggesting he might be given a hiring preference if he was qualified for a County job opening. <p> At the time of Bristol's PRB hearing. There were at least two job openings in offices of Clear Creek County officials: equipment operator in the road and bridge department. Bristol alleged that both the Board and the Sheriff were his employers for ADA purposes and illegally discriminated against him by refusing to offer him a job that did not exceed his physical limitations. Arguing that only the Sheriff was Bristol's employer. The district court ruled that <u>both</u> the Sheriff and the Board of County Commissioners were Bristol's employers as a matter of law. That the district court should have allowed the jury to determine whether </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/07/03-5176.htm">03-5176 -- U.S. V. AL-TAWEEL -- 07/29/2004<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Appellant Tarig Al Taweel. Consecutively to concurrent state convictions he is presently serving.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/11/99-2308.htm">99-2308 -- CITY OF HOBBS V. NUTMEG INSURANCE CO. -- 11/30/2000<BR></A><BR> The district court granted Nutmeg's motion for judgment as a matter of law on the ground that there was insufficient evidence of bad faith. That earlier ruling was law of the case and precluded a claim for punitive damages on remand. On the theory that this case is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/07/96-4109.htm">96-4109 -- U.S. V. VICTOR -- 07/11/1997<BR></A><BR> The first sentence should read: <p> Sections 523(a)(1) and 507(a)(7) clearly instruct that tax debts are nondischargeable only if characterized as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug98/97-8737.man.html">COHEN V. UNITED STATES (8/26/1998, NO. 97-8737)<BR></A><BR> Plaintiff William Cohen was injured when he was attacked by another prisoner. Cohen was sentenced to eighteen months in prison for copyright violations. Cohen was watching television in a common area of the prison. Cohen is unable to walk normally. </EM> alleging that the government's negligence was responsible for his injuries. Its factual finding that the BOP was negligent. Whether the United States is entitled to application of the discretionary function exception to the FTCA is a question of law we review <EM>de novo. DISCUSSION</STRONG></CENTER> </P> <P> Cohen's theory of liability is that the BOP was negligent in classifying Garcia as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/11/01-3186.htm">01-3186 -- PLAZA SPEEDWAY INC. V. U.S. -- 11/27/2002<BR></A><BR> The suit was based upon activities at the airfield which the Government admitted resulted in the discharge of contaminants. The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in finding Speedway timely filed its administrative claim under the FTCA's two year statute of limitations. <strong> </strong>Concluding the district court misapplied the statute. Although the Speedway racetrack is located on a large parcel of open land adjacent to Marshall Airfield. It is uncontested that the fire pit was not visible from Speedway's property because a sizable berm concealed the pit from view. <p> When the current owners of the track. Water from the nearby Kansas River was used at the racetrack for personal consumption. Although the Thompsons and others nearby believed there was no health risk from drinking the water. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/01/99-2255.htm">99-2255 -- GARLEY V. SANDIA CORPORATION -- 01/03/2001<BR></A><BR> The judge denied Garley's motion to remand and conditionally granted Sandia's motion to dismiss on the ground that Garley's state law claims were preempted by </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/10/96-1310.htm">96-1310 -- U.S. V. KUNZMAN -- 10/01/1997<BR></A><BR> Because none are meritorious we affirm. <p> Defendant and her husband ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051816np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. We will only briefly summarize the underlying facts and procedural history of this dispute. None was pursuant to any rider. The new trophy was to be known as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/11/96-5254.htm">96-5254 -- NGUYEN V. REYNOLDS -- 11/07/1997<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july96/94-2157.opa.html">UNIVERSITY OF FLA. V. KPB, INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>University of Fla. v. 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0025n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> They were sufficiently original to merit copyright protection. That the defendants were not licensed to use these drawings. That the defendants' use of the drawings was not permitted by the fair use doctrine. That the individual defendants are subject to vicarious liability for the infringement. The district court held that the drawings were not sufficiently original to be protected by copyright and that. The defendants were entitled to their use under the terms of the plaintiff's contract with a third party. Because we conclude that the district court correctly determined that the defendants' use was permitted by contract. Grusenmeyer was selected for the project. Jeffrey Grusenmeyer testified that these drawings and files were created </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/09/01-4057.htm">01-4057 -- ROSKA V. PETERSON -- 09/05/2002<BR></A><BR> The district court found that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and dismissed the suit. He was wearing a parka even though it was 70 degrees outside. Was sweating. Roska apparently stated that Rusty was suffering from kidney failure. Who allegedly informed the nurse that he did not have kidney failure.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/96-2221.htm">96-2221 -- ARCHULETA V. LACUESTA -- 12/03/1997<BR></A><BR> Should be remanded because removal was not authorized by 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2002/01-16265.opn.html">UTIL. AUTOMATION 2000, INC. V. CHOCTAWHATCHEE ELEC. COOP., INC. (7/24/2002, NO. 01-16265)<BR></A><BR> Inc. have and recover of Defendants Choctawhatchee Electric Cooperative. 2000.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981934.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 332 at 34 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982313.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> In areas where local television network affiliates were able to provide service. Because this license is in derogation of the networks' copyrights. The license extends only to transmissions to private households that are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/10/00-2018.htm">00-2018 -- U.S. V. COMBS -- 10/12/2001<BR></A><BR> Omar Combs and Bruce Paul Williams were convicted of conspiracy to distribute marijuana and possession with intent to distribute of more than 100 pounds of marijuana. We have consolidated them for the purpose of this disposition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/02/96-4130.htm">96-4130 -- U.S. V. NAFKHA -- 02/05/1998<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/02/97-2053.htm">97-2053 -- U.S. V. GUARDIA -- 02/02/1998<BR></A><BR> 3731 and affirm. <p> <center><strong>BACKGROUND</strong></center> <p> The indictment is based upon the complaints of two alleged victims who contend that Dr. Chaperons were present during the examination of two of the four Rule 413 witnesses. Requirements of Rule 413</strong> <p> <strong> </strong>Rule 413 provides in pertinent part: <p> In a criminal case in which the defendant is accused of an offense of sexual assault. Evidence of the defendant's commission of another offense or offenses of sexual assault is admissible. May be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant. <p> Fed. A district court must first determine that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/01/03-1162.htm">03-1162 -- SOSKIN V. REINERTSON -- 01/12/2004<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/01/02-1254.htm">02-1254 -- COLORADO ENVIRONMENTAL CAOLITION V. WENKER -- 01/07/2004<BR></A><BR> The RACs are designed to be representative of major groups with interests in federal lands. The district court concluded both that the FACA and the regulations were too vague to provide a meaningful legal standard to adjudicate the plaintiffs' claims. We conclude that the individual plaintiffs Peters and Houdek do have standing to bring this action. The Secretary of the Interior is instructed by the statute toestablish advisory councils of not less than ten and not more than fifteen members appointed by him from among persons who are representative of the various major citizens' interests concerning the problems relating to land use planning or the management of the public lands located within the area for which an advisory council is established. <p> 43 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/12/00-1507.htm">00-1507 -- KENNEDY V. LUBAR -- 12/17/2001<BR></A><BR> Kennedy was employed as a part time pharmacist in Store 100 of the King Soopers chain of grocery stores. Lubar was her pharmacy manager. Malicious and willful misconduct which allegedly caused her termination from Store 100 and her inability to obtain subsequent employment at other King Soopers stores. <p> Lubar removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado based on her assertion that Kennedy's state law claims were pre empted by </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/05/97-3125.htm">97-3125 -- O'TOOLE V. OLATHE DISTRICT SCHOOLS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 233 -- 05/19/1998<BR></A><BR> We affirm. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/12/02-6249.htm">02-6249 -- U.S. V. BOLDEN -- 12/24/2003<BR></A><BR> Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is appropriate. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/05/97-9559.htm">97-9559 -- BROYLES V. DIRECTOR OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS -- 05/07/1998<BR></A><BR> After her claim was administratively denied. We agree and accordingly transfer this case to the Seventh Circuit.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/12/02-1492.htm">02-1492 -- STEELE V. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS -- 12/29/2003<BR></A><BR> Steele was taken from his cell and placed in the special housing unit at the United States Penitentiary in Florence. Steele's belongings were missing. He asserted that the grievance procedure is generally inaccessible to inmates because the mandatory first step requires cooperation of a staff member. The administrative review by correction officials is intended </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/94-1579.htm">94-1579 -- SOUTHERN UTE INDIAN TRIBE V. AMOCO PRODUCTION CO. -- 07/20/1998<BR></A><BR> ) <p> for lands located within the exterior boundaries of the ) <p> Southern Ute Indian Reservation and which class ) <p> members have not obtained tribal consent to and ) <p> federal approval of said interests of rights. Which entities ) <p> have not obtained tribal consent to and federal ) <p> approval of said exploration. 2) a declaratory judgment that Tribal consent is required for CBM extraction. Sought injunctive relief to prevent the federal defendants from issuing permits to explore for and extract CBM under oil and gas leases or from otherwise acquiescing in the derogation of the Tribe's alleged ownership interest in CBM. <p> Two issues were identified as fundamental to the resolution of all claims against the Amoco defendants: 1) the determination of CBM ownership. Amoco was designated as representative of the class and. The Tribe brought a cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of CBM ownership. <p> The district court held that CBM ownership was vested unambiguously in the Amoco defendants. <u>Southern Ute Indian Tribe v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/04/00-2172.htm">00-2172 -- SANTILLANES V. LEMASTER -- 04/23/2001<BR></A><BR> A petitioner meets this standard if he shows that his issues </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/06/01-6415.htm">01-6415 -- GONZALES V. JORDAN -- 06/05/2002<BR></A><BR> We deny Gonzales's application for a certificate of appealability. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/10/02-9577.htm">02-9577 -- TSEGAY V. ASHCROFT -- 10/26/2004<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/00-2300.htm">00-2300 -- U.S. V. TAN -- 07/02/2001<BR></A><BR> The government contends that the district court erred as a matter of law in finding that Tan's prior drunk driving record was not offered for a proper purpose under Fed. That it was more prejudicial than probative under Fed. Defendant was driving his pickup truck within the borders of the Navajo Indian Reservation when a collision occurred between his truck and two motorcycles driven by William F. William was killed instantly and Sean was seriously injured. An intoxilyzer test given to Defendant several hours after the accident indicated that his blood alcohol level was .29. <p> Through investigation. Four of the convictions were in Navajo tribal court and three were in New Mexico state court.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/10/02-3403.htm">02-3403 -- U.S. V. ZABALZA -- 10/17/2003<BR></A><BR> Kansas Highway Patrol Sergeant Terry Kummer was traveling eastbound on Interstate 70 when he came upon a late model blue Mercury Marquis. The Marquis was in the right hand lane. Sergeant Kummer observed it twice cross over the center line of the lane in which it was traveling. The weather on this particular day was overcast with some wind. The weather would not have made it impracticable for a driver to maintain a single lane of travel. Sergeant Kummer told Zabalza that he was just making sure that Zabalza was not sleepy and asked to see Zabalza's license. Sergeant Kummer testified at the suppression hearing that when he began talking to Zabalza he detected a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/97-6310.htm">97-6310 -- U.S. V. ANDERSON -- 09/15/1998<BR></A><BR> 3731 and affirm. <p> <center>I.</center> <p> Anderson was arrested after a successful FBI sting operation. The goal of the sting operation was to identify and prosecute members of the Internet chat room known as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/01/99-6361.htm">99-6361 -- SALLAHDIN V. GIBSON -- 01/04/2002<BR></A><BR> Raising the following issues: (1) four challenges concerning the jury and whether Sallahdin was deprived of due process of law and a fair and impartial jury. (2) whether the information was constitutionally adequate. (3) whether the trial court's failure to define life without parole for the jury was constitutional error. (5) whether the two aggravators applied to his sentencing are supported by sufficient evidence. (6) whether the continuing threat aggravator is unconstitutional because it is vague and applied in a standardless manner. (7) whether the jury instructions failed to inform the jury that it did not have to be unanimous to find and apply mitigating circumstances to his sentence. (8) whether Sallahdin was deprived of admissible mitigation evidence concerning steroid induced psychosis. 1291. <p> Sallahdin's most troubling challenge concerns whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present mitigating evidence of the effects of Sallahdin's steroid use on his behavior at the time of the crime. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/10/96-2121.htm">96-2121 -- BUCHWALD V. UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO SCHOOL OF MEDICINE -- 10/20/1998<BR></A><BR> It will favor long term residents over short term residents in its admissions process. Were not entitled to qualified immunity. The questions before us on appeal are: (1) does Ms. Buchwald have standing to seek the injunction entered by the district court in its second order. (2) did the district court err in finding that no defendants are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. (3) did the district court err in finding that Klepper and Atencio are not entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacities? We reverse in part and affirm in part. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/10/96-3402.htm">96-3402 -- TONKOVICH V. KANSAS BOARD OF REGENTS -- 10/26/1998<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/09/02-2147.htm">02-2147 -- U.S. V. REYES-RODRIGUEZ -- 09/19/2003<BR></A><BR> Reyes Rodriguez's offense level was originally calculated to be 21. Concluding the departure was warranted by Mr. The remaining paychecks were used to support himself. Reyes Rodriguez's parents live is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2003/021243p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We must determine to what extent a District Court is bound by a ruling by this Court on a prior appeal that had reversed the District Court's grant of a preliminary injunction. We determined that Southco had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits because Southco's product numbers were mechanically dictated by its numbering system. The District Court held that it was bound by the prior panel's decision. We will reverse the judgment 3 of the District Court and remand this case to it for consideration of the Bisbing declaration. The product numbers are used not only in the ordering process but also in the manufacturing process to insure the precisely correct identification of each product and its components. Captive screws are used to fasten panels together. The screw is mounted in one panel by means of the ferrule and the other panel contains an internally threaded insert that receives the screw. 149 and fn 1 (3d Cir. 2001) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/12/96-1478.htm">96-1478 -- KARNES V. SCI COLORADO FUNERAL SERVICES INC. -- 12/17/1998<BR></A><BR> 2000e17.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/03/01-1136.htm">01-1136 -- HOANG V. COMFORT -- 03/05/2002<BR></A><BR> (INA) is unconstitutional as violative of both substantive and procedural due process. An alien convicted either of a crime involving moral turpitude if the crime was committed within five years of entry into the United States or a crime violating drug or firearm laws was subject to deportation. Detention of such aliens pending removal proceedings was mandatory. Congress amended the mandatory detention statute in 1990 and 1991 to permit the release of aggravated felons who were lawfully admitted to the United States and who could demonstrate they were not a threat to the community and were likely to appear for their hearings. <em>Id.</em><u></u> <p> <u> </u>In 1996. The AEDPA's amendment was almost immediately replaced with the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). Is a mandatory pre removal detention provision directed at criminal aliens. That: <p> The Attorney General shall take into custody an alien who <p> (A) is inadmissible by reason of having committed any offense covered in section 1182(a)(2) of this title. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></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-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/09/01-8065.htm">01-8065 -- U.S. V. PROFFIT -- 09/09/2002<BR></A><BR> Was diagnosed with non Hodgkin's malignant lymphoma in August 1998. He did not know if the cancer was aggressive or non aggressive. Cook was likely to pass away within a matter of months. Cook revealed that he was selling the ranch because of his medical diagnosis. Defendant claimed that he was undergoing surgery and produced </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/03/99-6433.htm">99-6433 -- FISHER V. GIBSON -- 03/12/2002<BR></A><BR> Fisher was convicted of first degree murder in Oklahoma County District Court and sentenced to death in September 1983. The appeal of the state regarding reversal of the death sentence is moot. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/97-4138.htm">97-4138 -- U.S. V. RITH -- 01/19/1999<BR></A><BR> (2) all incriminating statements should have been suppressed because they were involuntary. He was in custody for purposes of <em>Miranda</em>. (3) his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation was violated by the admission of a certificate showing nonregistration in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. (4) the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction. Background</strong> <p> Officer Mikkel Roe of the West Valley Police Department was dispatched to a residence in West Valley City. Officer Roe was informed en route that Sam Rith and his wife were concerned about firearms they had seen their son carry into their home. The address to which Officer Roe was dispatched was the residence of friends of the Riths. Fearful of guns and afraid that their son was involved in a gang. The Riths requested that Officer Roe check the home and ascertain if the guns were stolen. He gave the officers a house key so that no damage would be done to the house in the event they were not otherwise allowed entry. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/06/00-1524.htm">00-1524 -- FARMINGTON CASUALTY CO. V. UNITED EDUCATORS INSURANCE RISK RETENTION GROUP INC. -- 06/11/2002<BR></A><BR> We will have the right and duty to defend any suit seeking those damages. . . . If there is another primary insurer. The obligation will be shared equally. Was excess rather than primary insurance. Such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. <p> . . . . <p> If other valid and collectable insurance with any other insurer . . . is available to the Insureds covering a Loss covered by this Policy. Other than insurance which is expressly and specifically in excess of this Policy. After Deitz II was filed. The magistrate judge stated that the new claims could have. Probably should have. Noting that its policy was excess to other available insurance. <p> On February 2. Was not entitled to contribution or subrogation from UE for defense costs related to Deitz I. That Farmington was entitled to reimbursement of defense costs attributable only to Deitz II. <p> In the course of discovery. Which will eliminate [Farmington] from the case. Not clear why they are still offering up to $50k to settle . . . . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/01-1097.htm">01-1097 -- U.S. V. BOVIE -- 07/31/2001<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. <p> Kirk A. Bovie was convicted by a jury of nine counts of drug related charges stemming from his participation in a cocaine distribution organization. He was sentenced to 156 months of imprisonment on each count. Bovie's conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. <p> On December 4. Determined the remaining claims were procedurally barred. We have held that a petitioner may not circumvent the restrictions on filing second or successive petitions by filing a post judgment motion pursuant to Rule 60(b). <u>See</u> <u>Lopez v. 975 76 (10th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (holding that petitioner's Rule 60(b)(6) motion was an implied application under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/04/98-5084.htm">98-5084 -- GOSSETT V. STATE OF OKLAHOMA -- 04/10/2001<BR></A><BR> Gossett alleged that his involuntary withdrawal from the University's nursing program was caused by gender discrimination that violated his right to equal protection. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/03/97-2226.htm">97-2226 -- WOODWORKER'S SUPPLY INC. V. PRINCIPAL MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. -- 03/10/1999<BR></A><BR> 3) the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's findings of fraud. 4) Principal Mutual is entitled to contract damages resulting from Woodworker's failure to pay certain premiums. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/09/03-1080.htm">03-1080 -- COMBS V. PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS -- 09/08/2004<BR></A><BR> BACKGROUND</strong></center> <p> AIS is a close corporation organized under Colorado law. PriceWaterhouse Coopers is not before us on appeal. Which was granted. Because AIS is a close corporation. Summary judgment is appropriate </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/07/01-1470.htm">01-1470 -- HARTNETT V. O'ROURKE -- 07/23/2003<BR></A><BR> Was vicariously liable for his negligence and that other medical personnel at Penrose Hospital had acted negligently during Dawn Hartnett's surgery and post operative care.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/04/01-6016.htm">01-6016 -- MOORE V. SCHOEMAN -- 04/29/2002<BR></A><BR> Now reverse and remand.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/06/02-6352.htm">02-6352 -- GILCHRIST V. CITTY -- 06/25/2003<BR></A><BR> The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> In these companioned cases. 1983 wrongful discharge suit on the grounds that they are protected by absolute and qualified immunity. We have jurisdiction over these interlocutory appeals: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/05/01-7097.htm">01-7097 -- U.S. V. SPARKS -- 05/24/2002<BR></A><BR> The bag was on the edge of the road beside a tinhorn and was in plain view as he approached. The decision was made to prepare a decoy bag. Sparks' truck was impounded and inventoried by law enforcement officials. From the location where the bag was found and Sparks was arrested. It was common for drug dealers to maintain in their residences paraphernalia and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/06/02-2250.htm">02-2250 -- U.S. V. ESPINOZA -- 06/13/2003<BR></A><BR> Although Espinoza's conviction was for a crime involving less than five grams of cocaine. The district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that an additional 278 grams of cocaine discovered at the residence where he was arrested should be attributed to him for sentencing purposes pursuant to U.S.S.G. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/05/98-3243.htm">98-3243 -- U.S. V. GREEN -- 05/28/1999<BR></A><BR> Green was convicted by a jury of two counts of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute and one count of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Discovered incriminating evidence were acting outside their jurisdiction. Officers of the Wichita Police Department (WPD) received information from a confidential informant that Green was engaged in narcotics distribution at his residence. Which was already under surveillance by several WPD officers. Who was conducting surveillance. The contents of the small package were determined to be methamphetamine. <p> Bannister then set about obtaining a search warrant for Green's Butler County residence. The warrant was addressed to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/05/98-6358.htm">98-6358 -- P&P INDUSTRIES INC. V. SUTTER CORP. -- 05/28/1999<BR></A><BR> We must determine whether <u>any</u> federal district court could have jurisdiction to confirm the arbitration award in this case. Authorizes confirmation only where the parties have agreed that a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/06/98-5061.htm">98-5061 -- CARDTOONS L.C. V. MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYER ASSOCIATION -- 06/29/1999<BR></A><BR> Is the assignee of the publicity rights of current players and handles licensing agreements authorizing the use of their identities. <p> In a letter to Cardtoons dated June 18. Cardtoons was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/06/98-6302.htm">98-6302 -- LAFEVERS V. GIBSON -- 06/16/1999<BR></A><BR> LaFevers raises a number of discrete issues which we have considered in full. BACKGROUND</strong> <p> <strong> </strong>Petitioner and his co defendant were convicted in state court of kidnapping and murdering eighty four year old Addie Hawley. Who was driving the car. Although there was evidence presented at trial that indicated that Hawley was raped. They drove the car a short distance away and also set it on fire. <p> Rescue personnel were called to the scene soon after the fires were set. She was still alive. Cannon were tried jointly in March of 1986. LaFevers was retried soon thereafter. The jury found the existence of three aggravating circumstances: (1) the murder was especially heinous. (2) there was a probability that Mr. (3) the murder was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest or prosecution. The court reasoned: <p> This Court is in receipt of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Order dated June 4. In pertinent part: <p> [t]his is a death penalty state habeas case with numerous claims of perceived error rising to constitutional dimension. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="277"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/98-6457.htm">98-6457 -- WALKER V. CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY -- 02/07/2000<BR></A><BR> Kansas was the proper suspect. The young woman was upset. State that she is 5'1 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/01/95-2263.htm">95-2263 -- LUCERO V. KERBY -- 01/08/1998<BR></A><BR> Sequestered voir dire after it was learned that one of the jury venire was the brother of one of the victims of the charged offenses. (2) he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses when the trial court denied his motion for a continuance to secure a witness essential to his misidentification defense. (3) he was denied his constitutional right to a full and fair hearing on the issue of the voluntariness of his inculpatory statements. (4) the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient to support his convictions. (7) he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel due to his trial attorney's deficient performance. Petitioner was charged with four counts of aggravated burglary. She was removing clothes from the clothesline when she was grabbed from behind. He held something against her neck which she was unable to identify. Schneider was able to describe him from brief glimpses as dark haired. As she was laying down. He pushed her down so that she was face down on the floor. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/06/97-4005.htm">97-4005 -- HASSAN V. ALLEN -- 06/24/1998<BR></A><BR> Whose true name is not known. Whose true name is not known. Was given permission to proceed in forma pauperis ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="265"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/96-3266a.htm">96-3266A -- NEUSTROM V. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. -- 09/21/1998<BR></A><BR> Kansas for Appellee Union Pacific Railroad