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 corporations returned 2722 results.

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

OPINION/ORDER
Have intervened as plaintiffs in this action. Arch Street predicated its piercing the veil argument on the contention that the corporations were Blatstein's

SELDOVIA V. U.S.

OPINION/ORDER
Even though the only possible basis for federal jurisdiction was diversity of citizenship. They have done so. The supplemental briefs reveal that Hoagland is a citizen of Illinois. It is his citizenship rather than Midwest's that is germane to diversity. Because there is no suggestion that he was appointed receiver in order to create diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1359. That while the Sandberg firm is a professional corporation incorporated and having its principal place of business in Missouri. Three of the twenty two members of the firm (the shareholders in the professional corporation) are citizens of Illinois. If the citizenship of the members is what counts for purposes of determining diversity. As would be the case if the law firm were a partnership. A number of subsequent cases are in accord. There are no contrary decisions. Made clear that Coté stands for a rule that

OPINION/ORDER
Plaintiffs have frequently sought damages from affiliated corporations. Plaintiffs with claims arising from non WARN Act sources of law against debt laden or bankrupt corporations have occasionally attempted to sue the corporations' major secured lenders. On the theory that the lenders have exercised such control over the corporations that veil piercing is appr opriate. The question before us is whether the for mer employees of Component Technology (CompTech). Have set forth sufficient evidence to cr eate a genuine issue of material fact as to whether . Requires us to consider not only the prerequisites for parent/subsidiary liability in the WARN Act context (as will be shown. That 2 jurisprudence is apposite here). Courts have been extr emely reluctant to hold lenders liable for their borrowers' actions. Some version of the

BAY VIEW, INC V. U.S.

Argued for defendant appellee.

OPINION/ORDER
Opinion filed 1/25/02 is vacated PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444447 CHRISTINE BEAUMONT. We further hold that the prohibition on independent expenditures is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest. That the proscription on contributions is not closely drawn to match a sufficiently important interest. Because the provisions at issue are constitutional in the overwhelming majority of applications. Stacy Thompson and Barbara Holt are challenging 2 U.S.C. § 441b(a) of the Federal Election Campaign Act (

DOYON, LIMITED V. U.S.

With him on the brief were Christopher M. With him on the brief were Loretta C. Limited (

OPINION/ORDER
Argued for defendant appellee.

OPINION/ORDER
Bader were on brief. Pierce Atwood were on brief. The Maine Committee is a nonprofit membership corporation. Among its activities thus funded is the publication of voter guides describing the position of congressional candidates on

OPINION/ORDER
Article XXVIII of the Colorado Constitution is a citizen passed campaign finance reform amendment designed to limit the influence of certain types of corporations' general funds on state elections. Colorado Secretary of State Mike Coffman is automatically substituted for former Colorado Secretary of State Gigi Dennis as the Defendant Appellant/Cross Appellee in this case.

part to CRLC and in part to the Secretary. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm. We hold that the challenged sections of Article XXVIII regulating corporate expenditures and electioneering communications are unconstitutional as applied to CRLC because CRLC meets Supreme Court approved exemption requirements for a voluntary ideological corporation that seeks to engage in political speech. We conclude that Article XXVIII's definition of a political committee is unconstitutional as applied to CRLC because it fails to incorporate Buckley v. That political contributions from corporate treasuries are not an indication of popular support for the corporation's political ideas and can unfairly influence theoutcome of Colorado's elections.

OPINION/ORDER
LLP were on brief for appellant.

UNITED STATES V. GOLDIN INDUS. (7/27/2000, NO. 97-6163)

The Goldin Corporations also appeal from the final judgment of forfeiture and order mandating restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 1963(a)(1) and (a)(3) of all proceeds obtained from the racketeering activity.

OPINION/ORDER
All three Goldin corporations are in the scrap metal business. Goldin Mississippi was initially started by Rubin Goldin as a cow hide and scrap business in Biloxi. Steven was in charge of the non ferrous division. Which was Throughout the indictment and in proceedings in the district court. Inc. is referred to as Goldin Mississippi. Which was incorporated as Goldin Louisiana. Steve Goldin were all charged with violations of § 1962(c) in connection with their schemes to: (1) defraud their large volume (

OPINION/ORDER
All three Goldin corporations are in the scrap metal business. Goldin Mississippi was initially started by Rubin Goldin as a cow hide and scrap business in Biloxi. Steven was in charge of the non ferrous division. Inc. is referred to as Goldin Mississippi. Which was incorporated as Goldin Alabama. Which was incorporated as Goldin Louisiana. Steve Goldin were all charged with violations of § 1962(c) in connection with their schemes to: (1) defraud their large volume (

BONE V. COMMISSIONER (3/21/2003, NO. 02-10716)

The Tax Court concluded that the deductions were impermissible because the expenses benefitted the C corporations. Once the contracts were transferred. BACKGROUND

OPINION/ORDER
The Tax Court concluded that the deductions were impermissible because the expenses benefitted the C corporations. Once the contracts were transferred. I. BACKGROUND AJCS is an S corporation that was incorporated in 1987. AJCS was originally in the construction business. The income of a C corporation is subject to corporate tax and any distributions it makes to its shareholders will be subject to a second. Certain C corporations are permitted to elect to be S corporations. This corporate income is passed through to the S shareholders and taxed to them at their individual rates. AJCS was a calendar year taxpayer (i.e. The total income from a contract is recognized. The total costs of performance are deducted. In the taxable year in which the contract is completed.

OPINION/ORDER
Factual Background HOK Sport is a subsidiary of Hellmuth. Krause is the president and chief executive officer of Kum & Go. The Menace is a minor league soccer club located in Urbandale. The City of Urbandale would have owned the stadium and received a nominal rent payment. Would have operated the stadium as a for profit business. Would have paid rent to Calcio. TSF was to

FEC V. NRA

Argued the cause for appellee.

OPINION/ORDER
On which Maloof was a co obligor and guarantor. The S corporations

OPINION/ORDER
This proceeding is before us pursuant to 2 U.S.C.S 437h. The present challenge was filed in the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania by Renato P. By making campaign contributions to a number of candidates for federal office through enlisting company employees and others to forward contributions to the candidates that were thereafter reimbursed by one of the companies. Individuals who have reached their federal direct contribution limits. Soft money is sometimes used to fund so called

OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Lawrence M. The NRA argues that because it is a not for profit organization formed to promote the political views of its members. Because the corporate contributions the NRA received in 1980 were de minimis. Which are not involved in this case) from making

STERLING V. STEWART (10/28/1998, NO. 95-8944)

BACKGROUND

Digital TranService Corporation (

STERLING V. STEWART (10/28/1998, NO. 95-8944)

BACKGROUND

Digital TranService Corporation (

OPINION/ORDER
BACKGROUND Digital TranService Corporation (

OPINION/ORDER
On the brief was Donald Schapiro. Of counsel on the brief was Alan I. Of counsel was William C. With him on the brief were Eileen J. Because there did not remain after the merger one or more chains of includible corporations connected through stock ownership with a common parent that was a member of the group prior to the date the former parent ceased to exist. The group was organized as follows: TMC Holdings Corporation (

OPINION/ORDER
Which were allegedly operated as a

OPINION/ORDER
BACKGROUND Digital TranService Corporation (

OPINION/ORDER
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The parties are now litigating over the remaining money in the instant appeal. 3 judge's decision:2 (1) the magistrate judge erred in refusing to allow Floyd to reduce the amount paid to Powell by the amount of money he would owe in capital gains taxes if he had otherwise disposed of the stock. Powell was to receive $15. Its name is spelled

OPINION/ORDER
These new restrictions have been hotly contested in both state and federal courts. Although the term

OPINION/ORDER
The precedential effect of this decision is limited to the case and parties pursuant to 6th Cir. The proofs of claim were based upon a judgment rendered in favor of Normali against three corporations. The Debtors have a relationship with each of these entities as officers. Each of the O'Donnell Corporations is a debtor in a chapter 7 bankruptcy case. Normali seeks to recover assets of the O'Donnell Corporations alleged to have been fraudulently transferred to the Debtors. He filed suit in state court to recover these assets before the bankruptcy cases for the O'Donnell Corporations were filed. Normali asserts that the conclusion of the bankruptcy court was error. ISSUES ON APPEAL The issues raised on appeal are these: (1) Whether a judgment creditor with a claim against a debtor corporation has standing to file a proof of claim in the bankruptcy case of an individual debtor who is alleged to be a transferee of fraudulent transfers from the debtor corporation. (2) Whether standing may be considered by the Panel when it is raised for the first time on appeal. (3) Whether the Debtors have standing to object to proofs of claim in their individual bankruptcy cases.

MAIZ V. VIRANI (6/8/2001, NO. 99-14962)

Who are Mexican citizens. Defendants do not argue that there was insufficient evidence to support the liability verdict as a whole. Plaintiffs are 53 residents of Monterrey. Most of them are members of fourteen family groups. Also plaintiffs in this case (although not participants in this appeal) are six corporations to which the individual Plaintiffs eventually transferred their interests.

OPINION/ORDER
Appellant John Cocivera and six corporations that he established were convicted by a jury of various crimes arising out of a scheme to defraud Medicare. I. Cocivera was the chief executive officer and fifty percent owner of six Pennsylvania corporations that were created in August 1989 to provide medical equipment to Medicare beneficiaries through a national telemarketing operation. Cocivera and the corporations were indicted in September 1994 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on one hundred forty four (144) counts of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341. Were found guilty of all 205 counts by a jury in May 1995. Each of the other corporations was convicted. Cocivera was sentenced to a 78 month prison term. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

OPINION/ORDER
Fife and Krahn were sentenced to forty six and twenty four months respectively. Fife was responsible for consulting on matters pertaining to finance. Was afforded broad discretion in performing his duties for the city. Miksich's home address was used as the registered office for two of the corporations. The other two were simply registered to post office boxes. 06 2038 & 06 2175 3 did not have physical offices. The sole client of these four corporations was the city of East Chicago and its related entities. The corporations were merely shells. Used to conceal the large fees Fife was reaping from his dealings with the city. Was the only employee of KLK and there is no evidence that the corporation ever incurred any legitimate business expenses nor did KLK file tax returns. Fife's corporations entered into contracts with the city for services identical to those which Fife was personally providing to the city. Fife was paid twice for these services. Became involved when bribes were paid to Fife and KLK in exchange for a sludge removal contract with the city.

OPINION/ORDER
Was added to the South Dakota Constitution as the result of a 1998 referendum. I. Amendment E was codified as four sections of Article XVII of the South Dakota Constitution. Five of which are relevant to the issues raised on appeal. 6 The first of these relevant exemptions is for a

OPINION/ORDER
P.C. were on brief. Were on brief. BACKGROUND

OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief for appellants.

OPINION/ORDER
Nachman with whom Joan Schlump Peters was on brief for Merit Builders. Palou & Miranda were on brief for Taber Partners I. Gonzalez & Rodriguez were on brief for appellees. A New York general partnership whose sole partners are two New York corporations. S.E. (hereinafter referred to collectively as

OPINION/ORDER
An employer that withdraws from a multiemployer pension plan will be liable to the plan for

OPINION/ORDER
McGinn and

OPINION/ORDER
Marks & Upham LLP were on brief. Dresser & White were on brief. These computers were subject to existing

OPINION/ORDER
The primary issue in this case is whether. All of the lands listed in Appendix A must be transferred before any of the lands in Appendix C will be made available. Even though the villages have selected some Appendix C lands in preference to Appendix A lands to fulfill their statutory entitlement. Because the Appendix A lands are sufficient to satisfy the villages' acreage entitlements. The villages will be required to accept some tracts of Appendix A lands in place of Appendix C lands that they selected as being more desirable. It is necessary to recite some of the developments leading up to its adoption. (collectively

OPINION/ORDER
United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 31 amendment based on Initiative 300 is unconstitutional because it violates the dormant commerce clause. Which is not a Nebraska family farm corporation ... ?

OPINION/ORDER
Through separate corporations of which he was the sole shareholder. Terminated the franchises in 2002 after the two corporations' bankruptcy proceedings were converted from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7. No suit was ever filed by the corporations themselves. Whether he is a

OPINION/ORDER
An individual's nonbusiness bad debts are only recognized when they become totally worthless. They are treated as short term capital losses. A debt is a business debt if it is proximately related to a trade or business of the taxpayer. Claiming the loans were partially worthless business debts. BEI's business strategy was to acquire and rehabilitate financially distressed companies. Bell's separate appeal has been severed and is being held in abeyance while the Commissioner considers her request for relief under the recently enacted

OPINION/ORDER
(2) excluding the debtors' answers to in (1) holding that certain presumptions were insufficient to rebut the interrogatories. The debtors are farmers. under Chapter 12. They had filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy One of their major creditors was the Farmers Home According to the debtors. In January 1993 the debtors filed a second Chapter 12 petition. petition is at issue in the present case. 305.07 in liabilities. creditor was the FmHA. The debtors stated that they had filed their tax returns as ordered The government filed an objection and argued that its and that the tax returns showed that they did not owe any federal income taxes at that time. proof of claim was entitled to a presumption of validity and that the debtors had

OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Howard A. Brenner and Katherine Connor Linton were on the brief of amici curiae Members of Congress. Lorence was on the brief of amici curiae Evangelical Association of Pastors & Layman. With him on the brief were Christopher J. I

OPINION/ORDER
Three of the issues are of first impression to this Court. The first issue is whether worldwide service of process authorized under Section 12 of the Clayton Act. Upon foreign corporations is independent of the specific venue provision contained in that statute. The second issue is whether a federal court's personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation in antitrust litigation may be predicated on the foreign corporation's contacts with the United States as a whole (national contacts analysis). The final issue is whether jurisdictional discovery from foreign nationals may proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without first resorting to the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (Hague Convention or Convention). 23 U.S.T. 2555. Those actions were transferred to. Are: PPG Industries. Have stipulated to certification of a national class consisting of all direct purchasers of automotive refinishes from the defendants. The appellants submitted affidavits stating that they did not have presence in the state of Pennsylvania and never sold any automotive refinish paint to any customers in Pennsylvania.

OPINION/ORDER
The Government persuaded the jury that Ross and Adams conspired to obtain money for their personal use and benefit from two financially troubled insurance companies by falsely representing that the loans were to be used solely for business purposes. Ross and Adams contend that the evidence presented to the jury is insufficient to sustain a conviction. They assert that the district court miscalculated their sentence and applied a sentencing guideline that is unconstitutional. We affirm the judgment of conviction because we conclude the evidence is sufficient to persuade a rational trier of fact of the guilt of the accused of each crime. We hold that the court's rulings on the admissibility of evidence and its decision to reject defense instructions were free from error. We vacate the sentence imposed on each defendant and remand for resentencing because the district court failed to make an independent finding that it was persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that Ross and Adams conspired to commit the offense of money laundering.

OPINION/ORDER
(2) in finding that Murphy's claim under §§ 1024(b)(1) and (b)(2) of ERISA was not properly raised in her complaint. Defendant is incorrectly identified in the complaint. The company's correct name is the Glidden Company d/b/a ICI Paints. 1 1 No. 03 4343 Minadeo v. That report and recommendation was issued on March 1. Murphy was one of several Canadians courted by Glidden. She then held the position of Director of Operations and Administration for another division until it was eliminated in September 1998 as part of a corporate reorganization. Significant changes were made to Glidden's' internal structure. Murphy was directly supervised by Pete Appell (

UNITED STATES V. ROSS (12/19/1997, NO. 96-3556)

The Government persuaded the jury that Ross and Adams conspired to obtain money for their personal use and benefit from two financially troubled insurance companies by falsely representing that the loans were to be used solely for business purposes. Ross and Adams and their co conspirators created shell corporations and contrived deceptive paper transactions that had no economic substance.

Ross and Adams contend that the evidence presented to the jury is insufficient to sustain a conviction. They assert that the district court miscalculated their sentence and applied a sentencing guideline that is unconstitutional. Under separate headings.

We affirm the judgment of conviction because we conclude the evidence is sufficient to persuade a rational trier of fact of the guilt of the accused of each crime. We hold that the court's rulings on the admissibility of evidence and its decision to reject defense instructions were free from error.

We vacate the sentence imposed on each defendant and remand for resentencing because the district court failed to make an independent finding that it was persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that Ross and Adams conspired to commit the offense of money laundering.

SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

OPINION/ORDER
With them on the briefs were Joshua B. With them on the briefs were Albert S. With her on the brief were R. With him on the brief were Christopher J. Weber were on the brief of Shipper Intervenors in support of respondent with respect to arguments of SFPP. This case is the latest chapter in a long running dispute over SFPP's tariffs. The shipper petitioners are BP West Coast Products. (3) the Commission erroneously held that certain shippers were not entitled to reparations for rates charged on SFPP's East Line after August 1. SFPP and the Association of Oil Pipe Lines have intervened on behalf of the Commission with respect to these issues. 4 SFPP and the Association of Oil Pipe Lines have also crosspetitioned for review of the three challenged orders. The shippers have intervened on behalf of the Commission regarding these issues. We hold that the Commission's income tax allowance policy was not arbitrary or capricious or contrary to law. We also hold that FERC's interpretation of the Energy Policy Act was reasonable.

SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

OPINION/ORDER
Profession or trade

OPINION/ORDER
OSA is an unincorporated association consisting of a group of volunteers who oppose abortion. Benham is OSA's Director. George Tiller's abortion clinic is located.(1) Lippoldt requested an additional parade permit for a parade in the downtown area. Tiller is an abortion provider.

OPINION/ORDER
Into Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Program (VEBA) plans in excess of the cost of term life insurance were taxable constructive dividends to the physicians owning the corporations and their spouses rather than employer deductible expenses. The consequences of the decisions were substantial for the taxpayers inasmuch as the professional medical corporations were denied deductions they had taken for the contributions and the individuals were charged with significant additional taxable dividend income. The court held further that the individual taxpayers were liable for accuracy related negligence penalties under I.R.C. Our examination of the record convinces us that the contributions at the heart of this dispute were so far in 4 excess of the cost of annual life insurance protection that they could not plausibly qualify as ordinary and necessary business expenses in accordance with I.R.C. These contributions were taxable disguised dividends and not deductible expenses. We will affirm the decisions of the Tax Court.

OPINION/ORDER
Jr. was on brief for appellants.

OPINION/ORDER
Proper calculation of a corporation's

SLEIMAN V. COMMISSIONER (9/10/1999, NO. 98-2872)

The lease agreement provided that if the property was environmentally contaminated. Was environmentally contaminated and required substantial cleanup. The second loan was secured by a mortgage on the property and REE's interest in the Blockbuster lease and by Eli's personal guarantee. The Roosevelt property was an environmentally contaminated former gas station that had been accepted into Florida's EDI program.

OPINION/ORDER
Such employees are defined. The FTCA allows the United States to substitute itself for the government employee as the defendant

OPINION/ORDER
Alleging that the defendants were in 2 No. 02 3926 part responsible for losses resulting to Heartland and JMS. Holding that the doctrine of in pari delicto bars Heartland and JMS from pursuing losses for which they themselves were largely culpable. I. Because this case was dismissed under Fed. Which was founded in 1997. Working with Payne in this business were Daniel Danker. Their operation was a classic Ponzi scheme. Investors were promised extraordinarily high rates of return. Which in the beginning were realized. No. 02 3926 3 Payne and Danker were. Which were registered under Section 15 of the Securities and Exchange Act and with the National Association of Securities Dealers. The Complaint also alleges that Payne and Danker were employees and agents of these companies. That they were able to perpetrate the Ponzi scheme in part because they were able to hold themselves out as licensed registered securities representatives of the broker dealers. Knauer's mandate is

SCARFO V. GINSBERG (5/14/1999, NO. 97-5244)

Scarfo was a secretary and receptionist for DBG 95. Scarfo contends that Ginsberg and various part time personnel were employees pursuant to Title VII jurisdiction. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).

II. The appellees filed a motion to continue the trial on the ground that the determination of whether they were employers under Title VII was a subject matter jurisdiction issue that a court should decide rather than a jury. That Galaxy Frame should be excluded in the single employer framework because its

OPINION/ORDER
Associates was on brief for appellant.

GALVAN GILBERT V. FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES

Jr. argued the cause and was on the

briefs for appellant.

Sally M. With her on the brief were Wilma A. He alleged that it had falsely certified that the

communication cables and weapons parts that it produced for

the Department of Defense had been adequately tested and

met the requisite quality standards.

FPI is no ordinary employer. It is a

OPINION/ORDER
Whether the Debtors Are Entitled to Documents Generated in the Course of a BCE/Teleglobe Joint Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 1. Whether BCE's Concession in the Bankruptcy Court Prevents it from Arguing that the Debtors are not Entitled to the Disputed Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 5 V. Circuit Judge This is a twist on a classic corporate divorce story. They are attracted to each other and after a brief courtship. Company B is steeped in debt. The wrinkle is that they were produced by and in communication with attorneys who represented the entire corporate family back when they all got along. Is whether Company A may assert the Righteous Brothers. The debtors (

OPINION/ORDER
Jr. argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellant. With her on the brief were Wilma A. FPI is no ordinary employer. It is a

OPINION/ORDER
Oren (

OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs Appellants in these consolidated cases allege that they were forced to work as slave laborers for German and Japanese corporations during the Second World War. Defendants Appellees are corporations (or successors or affiliates of those corporations) that allegedly committed these atrocities. These claims are not time barred if commenced on or before December 31. All raise section 354.6 as the primary basis for bringing their suits so many years after the alleged wrongs were committed. We hold that section 354.6 is invalid under the United States Constitution and that in its absence Appellants' remaining claims are time barred. The slave workers were often underfed. Many were murdered. Among these slave laborers were. A phenomenon that is still thriving in all too many parts of the world today.2 Although the statute distinguishes between

OPINION/ORDER
2003 is hereby amended as follows: 1. 2. After

02-6101 -- FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. KUYKENDALL -- 06/10/2004

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

01-5077A -- TRAINOR V. APOLLO METAL SPECIALTIES INC. -- 12/13/2002

It is ordered that the petition for rehearing is denied. The motion for clarification is granted.

The court has determined that the opinion filed December 13. The

opinion is otherwise unchanged. A copy of the amended opinion is attached to this order.

Entered for the Court

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.

OPINION/ORDER
The decision also affirmed a deficiency assessed for the 1986 tax year that was not challenged by appellants. 1 1 * Affirmed in part and remanded in part. Merrill Group contends that a series of transactions that it undertook in order to rid itself of a subsidiary increased its basis in the subsidiary and allowed it to take a large capital loss that was used to reduce capital gains in the 1987 and 1988 tax years. We affirm the conclusions of the tax court on the issues it reached and remand for the court to consider an interpretation of one section of the Internal Revenue Code (

02-6101 -- FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. KUYKENDALL -- 12/11/2002

(d) the award of $39 million for consumer redress is contrary to undisputed record evidence.

In addition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

OPINION/ORDER
National Voting Rights Institute were on brief. Were on brief. Suit was brought in anticipation of the debates to be staged by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) before the November 2000 Presidential Election. That we have Article III jurisdiction and. Concluding that Nader and the Green Party had standing to challenge the FEC's debate regulations

OPINION/ORDER
Whether those loans were effectively discharged. III (

OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Plato once said that

OPINION/ORDER
ORDER The request to publish the unpublished Memorandum disposition is GRANTED. Is redesignated as an authored Opinion by Judge T.G. I. Appellants are forty three independent dealers who operate Shell or Texaco gasoline stations in southern California. Holding that Shell and Texaco's contribution of the gas stations to Equilon was not a sale. Appellants appeal that decision.3 We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 7 after which the California statute is patterned.8 Therefore. Common sense meaning.10 If the words of the statute are clear and unambiguous. There is no need to resort to other indicia of legislative intent.11 Only if the meaning is not clear will we turn to legislative history to help resolve the ambiguity. [1] California Business & Professions Code § 20999.25 indisputably governs the parties' relationship. The question here is whether Shell and Texaco's contribution of assets to Equilon falls under Section 20999.25(a). We must determine whether: (1) Equilon is

A I TRD FIN INC V. PETRA INTL BNKG CORP

OPINION/ORDER
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. I. Charles and Valerie Amante are residents of Florida and the sole shareholders. The business was conducted so that East End imported the boats from the boatyard which manufactured them in Taiwan and then 3 transferred the boats to Eastern Yachts for marketing and sale. These boats were called Vista Yachts. After Vista Yacht Company was formed. The boats were imported by East End. Importation of the boats was taken over entirely by Vista Yacht Company. The vessel Crystal Sea was imported into the United States by Vista Yacht Company and transferred to Palm Yacht Sales. Notice of a defect in the hull was given to Amante around August. The complaint also alleged that those defendant corporations which were owned by the Amantes were sham corporations and the alter egos of Charles and Valerie Amante. Vista Yacht Company is inactive and its total assets are approximately $3. 1993 that Palm Yacht Sales was no longer active. The first scheduling order was filed on February 25.

OPINION/ORDER
Davis and McGovern & Associates were on brief for appellant. Crisafulli were on brief for appellees Fleet National Bank and Fleet Credit Corp. With whom McGair & McGair was on brief for appellees C & J Jewelry Co. The facts are related in the light most favorable to appellant Peters. At 6 (

OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict in a personal injury action. Kuntz was severely injured when a metal rod he was removing from a billboard came in contact with an electric transmission line operated by defendant Kootenai Electric Cooperative. Because some of its members are citizens of Washington. As is Kuntz. The Cooperative claims that complete diversity of citizenship is lacking. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm the judgment of the district court in all respects. Kuntz was an independent contractor in the business of removing and replacing advertising placards on billboards. This billboard had a vinyl sign that was secured by 14 metal rods. The Cooperative is a cooperative marketing association organized to generate and distribute electric power to its members. The Cooperative is incorporated in the State of Idaho and has its principal place of business there. After the reconstruction project was completed. The conductor nearest to the billboard was eight feet from the billboard.1 The Cooperative did not warn Lamar or Kuntz that a conductor was closer to the billboard than before the reconAnother.

01-5077 -- TRAINOR V. APOLLO METAL SPECIALTIES INC. -- 12/13/2002

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.

CONSOL. DEV. CORP. V. SHERRITT, INC. (7/5/2000, NO. 97-5726)

Are United States corporations whose Cuban subsidiaries formerly held oil concessions and leases to drill for oil in the Republic of Cuba. These concessions were expropriated by the Cuban government in 1959.

UNITED STATES V. ADKINSON (10/26/1998, NO. 92-2872)

Defendants were convicted of various offenses. That there was insufficient evidence on all of these counts to support their convictions. Was transported interstate. The conviction must sustain.

There was. There were repeated references to certain record volumes at

WALKER V. MORTHAM (10/28/1998, NO. 95-2898)

The case was certified as a class action. Remanding the case to the district court with directions.

This case was brought in 1979 as a class action in the District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Such tests are not an issue in this case.

OPINION/ORDER
They contend that the District Court of the Virgin Islands did not have subject matter jurisdiction over this foreclosure action because Land Holdings collusively manufactured diversity. They contend that Land Holdings should have been precluded from filing this foreclosure action in the Virgin Islands because they had not complied with the registration requirements of the Virgin Islands' Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (

OPINION/ORDER
No evidence was presented that there was a corresponding increase in Owner hours. The fee allocated to it was higher than 1990. There is no claim that K K required special attention in 1992. Its fee was higher in 1992 than in 1991. Perrysburg was charged $29. The third issue we address is whether Petitioners are liable.

98-9009 -- GITLITZ V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE -- 07/06/1999

A was a partner in Parker Properties Joint Venture. A's pro rata share was $2. A was insolvent to the extent of $2. 748 and thus was excluded from tax liability for the discharged debt income. See 26 U.S.C.

OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge Luis Flores was convicted by a jury of one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956. Factual and Procedural Background Flores is an attorney who. He was visited in his office by German Osvaldo Altamirano Lean (

WALKER V. MORTHAM (10/28/1998, NO. 95-2898)

The case was certified as a class action. Remanding the case to the district court with directions.

This case was brought in 1979 as a class action in the District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Such tests are not an issue in this case.

There was. There were repeated references to certain record volumes at

OPINION/ORDER
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.

OPINION/ORDER
The Parties No. 02 2618 The plaintiffs in this case are Alliant Energy Corporation (

SEC V. KNOWLES

The previously filed opinion is withdrawn and the accompanying opinion substituted. The question presented is whether the appellant has the requisite minimum contacts to justify the district court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over him. These subpoenas were issued in connection with the Formal Order of Investigation in the nonpublic investigation conducted by the SEC out of its Denver. Knowles is presently a Bahamian citizen and resident and has been so since 1951. He is an independent investment consultant and. At the times the subpoenas were served on him. Was also the president of two Bahamian companies. The SEC sought to determine whether bank accounts in the names of these two companies were used to bribe brokers in the United States to sell certain stock of American companies in violation of federal securities laws. The SEC applied to the district court in the judicial district where it is conducting the investigation. Knowles responded to the Order to Show Cause and moved the district court to (1) The Formal Order of Investigation is not a part of the record in this case.

OPINION/ORDER
District Judge: This is an appeal from a decision of the United States Tax Court upholding a tax deficiency determination of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (

OPINION/ORDER
The case was certified as a class action. The plaintiffs' original complaint was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (1994). I. This case was brought in 1979 as a class action in the District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The district court's task was to examine the evidence the plaintiff adduced at trial and determine whether the plaintiff had presented credible evidence in support of the four elements of a prima facie case established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973): 1) she is a member of a protected class under Title VII. 2) she was qualified for the employment position in question. 3) she applied for the employment position in question and was rejected. 4) the employment position remained open or was filled by a person outside the protected class to which the plaintiff belongs. We are equally suited to undertake the same task on appeal. Can determine whether the evidence supporting the prima facie case is credible. The full name of the organization was Increase Minority Participation by Affirmative Change Today of Northwest Florida.

OPINION/ORDER
The case was certified as a class action. Finding that none of the plaintiffs had carried The plaintiffs' original complaint was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (1994). The district court's task was to examine the evidence the plaintiff adduced at trial and determine whether the plaintiff had presented credible evidence in support of the four elements of a prima facie case established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973): 1) she is a member of a protected class under Title VII. 2) she was qualified for the employment position in question. 3) she applied for the employment position in question and was rejected. 4) the employment position remained open or was filled by a person outside the protected class to which the plaintiff belongs. We are equally suited to undertake the same task on appeal. Can determine whether the evidence supporting the prima facie case is credible. 2 2 This case was brought in 1979 as a class action in the District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The plaintiffs filed an

UNITED STATES V. NEDER (12/10/1999, NO. 92-2929)

Circuit Judge:

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court. Was harmless error.

OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Robert J. With her on the brief were Michael D. Exxon argues that the district court should have granted the motion to dismiss because the plaintiffs' claims are non justiciable political questions. We need not reach the merits of Exxon's arguments because we do not have jurisdiction over this appeal. We deny this petition because Exxon has not established a

OPINION/ORDER
Claiming

OPINION/ORDER
The Massey Plaintiffs maintain that their assignments of liability are unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's decision in Eastern Enterprises v. We conclude that these contentions are without merit. The Combined Fund is financed by annual premiums assessed against current and former coal operators. Among those assignments were several made to the Massey Plaintiffs. Was unable to agree upon the rationale for its ruling: a four justice plurality voted to invalidate the assignments on one constitutional theory. The events leading to the enactment of the Coal Act have been well chronicled by this and several other courts. These benefit trusts were financed by coal production royalties and by payroll deductions. The coal mines were returned to private control. Which was modeled on the Krug Lewis benefit trusts. The 1947 Fund was financed exclusively by royalties from coal production. Although the 1950 NBCWA was amended several times. The 1950 Benefit Plan covered coal miners who were already retired. The 1974 NBCWA constituted a significant break from the past in that it was the first agreement between the UMWA and the BCOA to provide lifetime health benefits for retirees and their widows (unless a widow remarried).

OPINION/ORDER
Trust was incorporated for the sole purpose of acquiring its two notes from their prior holder. Trust and Atlantic Funding are related entities in that C.F. To

OPINION/ORDER
Will &. Alvarez LLP were on brief for appellee.

537 OPINION/ORDER
Was not directly liable for its debts. Is personally liable under the relevant agreements for signing them as the president of a dissolved corporation. Among their corporations and their assumed business names are T & P Enterprises. See JA 77 (admitting that Delstar Resources (Kentucky) was administratively dissolved on November 3. That Bluegrass Drilling Corporation was dissolved on November 1. Others have never existed at all as independent entities. See JA 78 (admitting that The Viking Group

537 UNITED STATES V. NEDER (12/10/1999, NO. 92-2929)

Circuit Judge:

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court. Was harmless error.

537 OPINION/ORDER
In which Judge Ervin and Judge Luttig joined. *Judge Ervin participated in the consideration of this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). The defendants were employers under the FMLA. Judgment was entered in favor of Hukill in the amount of $17. McGillicuddy is president of ACI. His office is at ACI. Which is located in Arlington. McGillicuddy is also a director of these corporations. Edmonds is the other director of these corporations. Is a director of MAI. Is the secretary treasurer of ACI. Although he is not a director of or shareholder in any of these corporations. McGillicuddy hires a manager who is responsible for managing the automobile service station or tire center's day to day operations.3 Each manager is responsible for hiring employees and negotiating the salary of the new employee using the guidelines established by McGillicuddy. Does have to approve large expenditures. There is no evidence that MAI has any control over the labor relations of KPAC.

518 OPINION/ORDER
Is hereby amended as follows: At page 3512. The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. No additional petitions for rehearing will be accepted in this case. We conclude that the inherent equitable power of a district court allows it to freeze the assets of a nonparty when that nonparty is dominated and controlled by a defendant against whom relief has been obtained in a securities fraud enforcement action. 9028 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMM. v. The trail continues to lengthen as Hickey is currently awaiting trial on a related federal criminal indictment. The material misrepresentations included false statements about their net worth (which was supposed to secure the investments) and the status of title to the California property. On the day the complaint was filed. The default was vacated when Hickey and the SEC entered into a consent decree. Hickey to demonstrate why he was unable to comply with the order.

518 OPINION/ORDER
Plaintiffs' claims are based on common law fraud and on federal and state securities statutes. We have jurisdiction and we affirm. According to MoseThe BKBJ Partnership is an entity formed by defendants Robert D. Van Leer informed them that there was a

518 COGGIN AUTOMOTIVE CORP. V. COMMISSIONER (6/6/2002, NO. 01-10478)

Received two notices of deficiency from the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service (Commissioner) alleging additional tax due.

518 BROWN V. UNIROYAL, INC.

Betty Brown was employed by Uniroyal. Betty Brown was injured on the job by a tire making machine at the plant. The Browns apparently believed that the two Canadian corporations had designed and manufactured the machine which injured Betty Brown.(1) Jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C. 1332 (a)(2). (1) In their brief. The Browns state that their decision to bring suit against the two Canadian corporations was based upon information which Roger Brown. Who was a plant maintenance employee at Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. The Browns alleged that discovery had revealed that the subject machine which injured Betty Brown was

518 OPINION/ORDER
Dismissal of the suit was premised upon the Estate's execution of a document entitled

518 OPINION/ORDER
You filed an application for a credit card and you are now eligible to receive your MasterCard.

518 FOGADE, FONDO DE GARANTIA DE DEPOSITOS Y PROTECCION BANCARIA V. ENB REVOCABLE TRUST (8/28/2001, NO. 99-12527)

Circuit Judge:

518 OPINION/ORDER
AKRTL was informed by the Alaska Public Offices Commission that if it wished to engage in

518 OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND The FDIC insures deposits in financial institutions and is authorized by statute to act as receiver for insured institutions that fail and are closed by their chartering authority. 12 U.S.C. 1811. When the FDIC is appointed receiver for a failed institution. The FDIC is authorized to collect all obligations and moneys owed to failed institutions for the benefit of the institution's creditors and shareholders. The FDIC is empowered to avoid fraudulent transfers. Parks was a director of Olympic International Bank and Trust Company (

518 COGGIN AUTOMOTIVE CORP. V. COMMISSIONER (6/6/2002, NO. 01-10478)

Received two notices of deficiency from the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service (Commissioner) alleging additional tax due.

518 JOVE ENGINEERING V. IRS

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Jove Engineering v. We have resolved several issues which required clarification in this circuit. We remand to the district court to assess attorney fees consistent with 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19946372.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> 171 B.R. 387 IRS cross appeals the district court's award of We have resolved several issues which attorney fees under § 105. required clarification in this circuit. All citations are to the 1994 United States Code. Initially we conclude we have jurisdiction to review the district court's order as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/10/963610P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The case was tried to a magistrate judge pursuant to the consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 2 1 Eastern District of Missouri granting summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security. Claimants argue (1) the Commissioner did not have the authority to reallocate undistributed corporate profits as wages to John Johnson. The following statement of facts is taken in large part from the order and memorandum of the magistrate judge. That he had received benefits greater than those to which he was entitled because of excess earnings. The excess earnings were wages and self employment income attributable to him in 1990 and 1991 from two family farming corporations. Was president of Cowhill Farms until January 1989. Was self employed with respect to J & J Hog Farms and had received profits of $6. 400 was a reasonable salary for Joann Johnson. Sr.'s work was worth twice that of his wife. Thus determined that his salary was $16. 1993) (noting 1991 corporate profits were $11. 102 and expenses were down $13. </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2001/99-12527.opn.html">FOGADE, FONDO DE GARANTIA DE DEPOSITOS Y PROTECCION BANCARIA V. ENB REVOCABLE TRUST (8/28/2001, NO. 99-12527) </A> Circuit Judge: </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-2721_011.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Failing to notify U.S. consumers that it is illegal to buy and sell foreign lottery tickets. It is difficult if not impossible to separate the actions of the various corporations. There were multiple variations on the offers extended. Telemarketers promised would be buyers that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981636.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> I. NCRL is a nonprofit corporation operating in the State of North Carolina. NCRL is not associated with any political candidate. Nor is one of NCRL's major purposes to nominate. Does have as a primary purpose supporting or opposing specific candidates and political parties. Holt is also a registered lobbyist in the State of North Carolina. NCRL worried that it might be considered a </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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0295p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The appeal was consolidated with a National Labor Relations Board ( </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1268.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Manion III was on brief. Banis were on brief. I. There is little dispute about the facts which emerged from the trial. While it is unclear whether Chesterton is asserting that the district court's factual conclusions are not supported by the evidence. We state the facts as the court could have found them. Is currently owned and operated by the descendants of the Company's founder. Is currently the Company's largest shareholder. Which are distributed throughout the world. The Board perceived Subchapter S status as advantageous to the Company because it allows shareholders in a small business corporation to avoid the double taxation of income to which shareholders in a 3 3 Subchapter C corporation are subject. The income of a Subchapter C corporation is taxed first at the corporate level when the company earns income. Is not taxed at the corporate level. A corporation must be a domestic corporation which does not: (1) have more than seventy five shareholders. (2) have a corporation or other non individual as a shareholder. </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-5130.html">FLUOR CORP. V. THE UNITED STATES </A> </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug96/94-6372.opa.html">JOVE ENGINEERING V. IRS </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Jove Engineering v. We have resolved several issues which required clarification in this circuit. We remand to the district court to assess attorney fees consistent with 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199912527.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: The plaintiffs in this lawsuit are the Venezuelan agency. Zamora were former shareholders and controlling board members of Corpofin. Inc. are business entities that are directly or indirectly controlled by the individual defendants. Several Venezuelan banks were forced to seek 3 financial assistance from FOGADE. Was one such bank. The individual defendants were minority shareholders and controlling board members of Bancor. Was owned by Corpofin. The individual defendants were also minority shareholders and controlling board members of Corpofin. Upon a finding that Corpofin was related to Bancor and that Corpofin had very large unguaranteed debts with Bancor. Who is responsible for marshaling the corporation's assets for the benefit of creditors. Those documents were dated May 9. The corporate structure was as follows: Corpofin. There is evidence that the May 9. 1994 transactions did not actually occur on that date but that the documents were instead backdated. Whether they were backdated or not does not enter into our decision. </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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E951F23996CE5CE488256CE1007F1895/$file/0117027.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> We conclude that the inherent equitable power of a district court allows it to freeze the assets of a nonparty when that nonparty is dominated and controlled by a defendant against whom relief has been obtained in a securities fraud enforcement action. The trail continues to lengthen as Hickey is currently awaiting trial on a related federal criminal indictment. The material misrepresentations included false statements about their net worth (which was supposed to secure the investments) and the status of title to the California property. 3512 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMM. v. HICKEY On the day the complaint was filed. The default was vacated when Hickey and the SEC entered into a consent decree. Hickey to demonstrate why he was unable to comply with the order. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200507/04-5352a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> With him on the briefs were Richard B. With him on the brief were Michelle M. Fred Wertheimer. 2 Trevor Potter was on the brief for amici curiae John McCain. Federal campaign finance law is complex. BCRA is no exception. Though few of its details are important to this litigation (and those that are we describe later in our analysis). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/04/00-1317.htm">00-1317 -- STERLING CONSULTING CORP. V. U.S. -- 04/10/2001 </A> The judgment of the district court is therefore reversed. II. IMMI was one of several companies embroiled in a dispute over the Indian Motorcycle trademark. Have been in bankruptcy in Massachusetts since before 1995. The assets of the receivership estate and bankruptcy estates were combined for sale and eventually sold. $3.5 million of the proceeds from the sale of assets was allocated to the bankruptcy estates and placed in an escrow account with the district court in Colorado. The account was established for the payment of claims owed by the bankruptcy estates. Claiming the district court lacked jurisdiction to determine the tax liabilities of debtors who were in bankruptcy in Massachusetts. In December 1999. The government indicated that the tax liabilities of the bankruptcy estates for 1999 would amount to $1.2 million if the top corporate tax rate was applied to the $3.5 million allocated to the bankruptcy estates from the sale of the combined estates. 000 to cover the potential tax liabilities of the bankruptcy estates was insufficient. The bankruptcy court entered an order approving the trustee's amended final accounts. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june97/96-6456.opa.html">GOLDEN ROD FARMS, INC. V. UNITED STATES </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Golden Rod Farms. Who are engaged full time in farming activities. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200407/99-1020a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/09/016013P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Block's (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200107/99-1252a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> With him on the brief was Kenneth L. (Cerand) appeals from a judgment of the tax court predicated upon that court's conclusion that payments Cerand made to three of its sister corporations were intended to be capital contribu tions rather than loans. Background Gerard Cerand is the president and sole shareholder of Cerand. Many of the airports at which Cerand provides services are small and are not served by regularly scheduled flights. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued a notice of deficiency based upon his conclusion that the initial transfers from Cerand to its sister corporations were capital contributions rather than loans. In determining whether the transfers were loans or capital contributions. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C03/03-50865-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> A national bank is a citizen of each and every state in which it has a branch. Bank One immediately removed the case to Horton moved to remand arguing that federal district court. there was no federal jurisdiction because complete diversity of citizenship was lacking. It was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054164p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> We will affirm the order of August 12. The Parties ASTM is a Pennsylvania non profit corporation whose mission is to provide a forum for volunteer technical experts to 2 develop and publish standards for materials. These committees are broken down further into 2. Has a six member Executive Committee that acts on its behalf when the full Board is not in session. Defendant Corrpro is in the business of providing corrosion control and cathodic protection (i.e. Defendant Baach was the Executive Vice President of Sales and Marketing for Corrpro. Defendant WRA is primarily in the business of providing mathematical and statistical consulting services. Rogers was President of WRA. Rogers was a member of Corrpro's Board of Directors from sometime in the mid 1990s until 2001 or 2002. Guidelines do not prohibit an individual from participating in a standard setting activity by reason of his association with or employment by a company with a financial interest in the technical standard on which he is working. Under ASTM Bylaw No. 10.1: 3 Any person who was or is a party. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1998/98a1894p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> 1998) * Judge Lewis heard argument in this matter but was not available to clear the opinion. ** Honorable Louis H. New Jersey insurance law was governed by a joint and several liability regime a regime which appeared to permit Mennen to seek full recovery from its other insurers without suing Federal. While the suit was pending. The practical effect of the Owens Illinois decision with respect to this litigation was that. If Mennen was to have the complete recovery it sought. Mennen's first step was to move to compel the defendants to implead Federal. The motion was denied. Then Mennen discovered pleadings that Federal had filed in other actions 3 pleadings in which Federal stated that its principal place of business was in Indiana. Federal contended that its principal place of business was in New Jersey. It was a citizen of New Jersey as well as of Indiana. That there was a New Jersey plaintiff (Mennen) and a New Jersey defendant (Federal). Arguing that Federal was a citizen of Indiana only. 1 The district court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-5098.html">RITE AID V. U.S. </A> Argued for plaintiff appellant. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2004/032176p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> MA 02210 Counsel for Appellee/Cross Appellant pension fund against Holmes was untimely. As the complaint was filed seven years after the cause of action accrued. We will affirm in part and reverse in part. Is the plan sponsor of a multiemployer fund established under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/12C322D4C95EA54388256E97005775C6/$file/0216754.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> It is sufficiently within the statutory zone of interest to have prudential standing to bring an action under § 1981. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200416733.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The district court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the Defendants did not have sufficient contacts with the state of Florida to assert personal jurisdiction over them. Was severely injured when he dove into the shallow end of a swimming pool at the Nassau Resort. 1 claiming they were negligent for installing poor lighting. WHC moved to dismiss on the sole basis that it was an improper party because it exercised no control over and held no interest in Nassau Resort.2 In support of the motion to dismiss. The court did not address any other issue. 2 The motion to dismiss was filed by Wyndham before the August 25. 1268 69 (11th Cir. 2002). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-3019b.html">USA V. PORNPIMOL KANCHANALAK </A> Argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellant. Eric L. With him on the brief were Erik L. Defendants were also alleged to have caused political committees to file reports with the Federal Election Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2002/01-14431.opn.html">MEIER V. SUN INT'L HOTELS, LTD. (4/19/2002, NO. 01-14431) </A> Plaintiffs were vacationing on Paradise Island in the Bahamas. Victor was struck by a commercial motorboat and sustained massive injuries. Victor was airlifted to Miami. He survived but lost his arm and was permanently disfigured. The Meiers subsequently filed this diversity action<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june97/96-6456.opa.html">GOLDEN ROD FARMS, INC. V. UNITED STATES </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Golden Rod Farms. Who are engaged full time in farming activities. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3260_051.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> This is the third appeal arising out of an effort by the Internal Revenue Service ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8CE8A914332C91C588256E94007D30FC/$file/0216754.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> It is sufficiently within the statutory zone of interest to have prudential standing to bring an action under § 1981. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2002/01-14431.opn.html">MEIER V. SUN INT'L HOTELS, LTD. (4/19/2002, NO. 01-14431) </A> Plaintiffs were vacationing on Paradise Island in the Bahamas. Victor was struck by a commercial motorboat and sustained massive injuries. Victor was airlifted to Miami. He survived but lost his arm and was permanently disfigured. The Meiers subsequently filed this diversity action<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct05/03-50865-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> A national bank is a citizen of each and every state in which it has a branch. Bank One immediately removed the case to Horton moved to remand arguing that federal district court. there was no federal jurisdiction because complete diversity of citizenship was lacking. It was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-3019a.html">USA V. PORNPIMOL KANCHANALAK </A> Argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellant. Eric L. With him on the brief were Erik L. Defendants were also alleged to have caused political committees to file reports with the Federal Election Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-5084.html">IU INTERNATIONAL CORP. V. U.S. </A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/05/964108P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Starr is to investigate and prosecute matters </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5339a.html">CHAMBER CMERC US V. FEC </A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991113.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7758D5B8300A072588256E8D00126BB2/$file/0315305.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> The question is one of first impression in this circuit. Are governed by the [Act]. The most prominent distinction between the procedures available under the federal Act and those available under Arizona law is that the latter provides for a judicial determination of the fair value of dissenting shareholders' shares. Section 215a(a) addresses the merging bank's requirement to notify its shareholders of a plan of merger and to have that plan ratified and confirmed by the affirmative vote of the shareholders of each such association or State bank owning at least two thirds of its capital stock outstanding. Or by a greater proportion of such capital stock in the case of a State bank if the laws of the State where it is organized so require . . . . 5878 COMMUNITY BANK OF ARIZONA v. Once the merger is approved. Section 215a(c) sets out the process by which the dissenting shareholder's shares are appraised. Any dissenting shareholder who is dissatisfied with the appraised value arrived at by this method has the right to appeal to the Comptroller of Currency. </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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1313a.html">DEL CMERCL PROP INC V. CMSNR IRS </A> Fuller argued the cause for appellant. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov99/97-2803.man.html">UNITED STATES V. MAJORS (11/19/1999, NO. 97-2803) </A> Were convicted by a jury in 1996 on sixteen counts of conspiracy to commit mail fraud. <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/07a0136p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> We are presented with a case of first impression regarding the validity of the Treasury Department's so called </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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/431DFC64385683A788256DE20083365B/$file/0216990.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: The issue presented in this interlocutory appeal is the extent to which a reorganization plan proposed under 11 U.S.C. § 1123(a)(5) preempts otherwise applicable nonbankruptcy law. Section 1123(a) was enacted as part of the Bankruptcy Code in 1978. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov99/97-2803.man.html">UNITED STATES V. MAJORS (11/19/1999, NO. 97-2803) </A> Were convicted by a jury in 1996 on sixteen counts of conspiracy to commit mail fraud. <A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C99FAD19E34AED5688256DF70004D6C2/$file/0216990.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Is hereby amended as follows: 1. Circuit Judge: The issue presented in this interlocutory appeal is the extent to which a reorganization plan proposed under 11 U.S.C. 17208 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC v. Section 1123(a) was enacted as part of the Bankruptcy Code in 1978. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199805/97-1113a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> With him on the briefs were Jonathan S. With him on the briefs were Frank W. With him on the brief were David W. BellSouth says s 274 is an unconstitutional bill of attainder. Are singled 1 The order under challenge is Implementation of the Telecom munications Act of 1996: Telemessaging. BellSouth's challenge to the order is entirely derivative of its constitutional challenge to the statute. Although electronic publishing restrictions have usually amounted to little more than a subplot. In 1982 a consent decree was entered in settlement of the govern ment's 1974 antitrust suit against AT&T. The twenty BOCs eventually named in the 1996 Act were spun off from AT&T and grouped into seven regional Bell operating companies. Of which BellSouth is one.2 The MFJ initially prohibited the BOCs from providing </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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/99-1581.htm">99-1581 -- VOIROL V. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS -- 07/26/2002 </A> 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. 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-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/994021P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> This case is before us en banc upon remand from the United States Supreme Court. Believing that it will be helpful in analyzing the issues presented. At issue were the so called </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1182.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Benitez & Peral were on brief. The servers examined records filed with the Puerto Rico Department of State and determined that the resident agent for both corporations was Barbarossa's wife. Arguing that service was improper because the summons had been left at Barbarossa's home rather than delivered personally to him. This time arguing in both the freight and demurrage cases that Ortiz was not served and that in any case Ortiz was not the resident agent for one of the corporations. The defendants attempted once again to have the default judgments set aside. Arguing once again that it had not been properly served because Ortiz was not its resident agent. Concluded that there was nonetheless no </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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041749p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Reliance Insurance Company and United Pacific Insurance Company are Pennsylvania corporations with their principal places of business in Philadelphia. Reliance Surety Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Philadelphia. Plaintiff Reliance National Indemnity Company is a Wisconsin corporation with its principal place of business in Wisconsin or in Philadelphia. For itself and as successor in interest by merger with United Pacific Insurance Company and Reliance National Indemnity Company is the successor to the original plaintiffs. As a matter of convenience we will refer to the plaintiffs appellants as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1999/981102.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Was convicted of various counts of conspiracy. When these assets were called upon to pay outstanding medical reinsurance claims. The stocks were deemed worthless. Teale's contracts reinsuring these policies were entered on November 16. The Teale Network was organized and controlled by Alan Teale. Neither is a party to these proceedings but both are alleged to be unindicted co conspirators. We will refer to both collectively as </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec99/98-4781.man.html">UNITED STATES V. HUNERLACH (12/7/1999, NO. 98-4781) </A> He argues that his conviction for filing a false statement should be reversed because the prosecution was commenced beyond the six year statute of limitations and the district court erroneously admitted evidence in violation of his constitutional rights. He also challenges his conviction for wilful evasion of payment of taxes arguing that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. He further argues that the district court erroneously included interest and penalties as </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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/03/994021P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> We remand to the district court for consideration of whether its disposition of the plaintiffs' claims based on restriction of partisan activities is consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. Except to say that Wersal was a candidate for election to the Minnesota Supreme Court. Asking whether the restrictions were narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. We held that the state had shown the required quantum of evidence that each of those interests was threatened by the Other plaintiffs associated with Wersal were his campaign committee and Republican Party members Cheryl Wersal. Who was also a member of the Minnesota Republican Party. Who was another candidate for judicial office. The affiliated organizations were the Indian Asian American Republicans. The Minnesota African American Republican Council and the Muslim Republicans were later added as plaintiffs. Named as defendants were the Director of the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility and the Chair of the Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199911/99-3019b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellant. With him on the brief were Erik L. Defendants were also alleged to have caused political committees to file reports with the Federal Election Commission ( </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.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-4316.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A> Have been audited by the Internal Revenue Service virtually. Every year since Richard Nixon was President. Kanter was a wellknown and accomplished tax and estate lawyer. Among Kanter's clients was the Pritzker family of Hyatt Corporation fame. Kanter was also an accomplished businessman. Was an expert on the subject of trusts and estate planning. His estate was subsequently substituted as the principal party to this litigation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1995/95a1122p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: Defendant Appellant Hartford Fire Insurance Company is the surety on a labor and material payment bond purchased by Mele Construction Co. Hartford's bond required prospective claimants who were not in a </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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/02/96-8120.htm">96-8120 -- WELLBORN V. COBRAY FIREARMS INC. -- 02/25/1998 </A> The district court found the Daniels were protected by corporate veils and no grounds existed for piercing those veils. We reverse in part and affirm in part.<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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2000/97-6163.ma2.html">UNITED STATES V. GOLDIN INDUS. (6/29/2000, NO. 97-6163) </A> The individual defendants were acquitted. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2000/97-6163.ma2.html">UNITED STATES V. GOLDIN INDUS. (6/29/2000, NO. 97-6163) </A> The individual defendants were acquitted. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec99/98-4781.man.html">UNITED STATES V. HUNERLACH (12/7/1999, NO. 98-4781) </A> He argues that his conviction for filing a false statement should be reversed because the prosecution was commenced beyond the six year statute of limitations and the district court erroneously admitted evidence in violation of his constitutional rights. He also challenges his conviction for wilful evasion of payment of taxes arguing that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. He further argues that the district court erroneously included interest and penalties as </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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/11/983191P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> To the extent such findings are relevant to our decision today. Are not clearly erroneous. Riley all were senior executives with Bull Moose Tube Company (BMT). When BMT was acquired by Caparo. The first is a phantom stock plan (PSP) created around the time Caparo acquired BMT in order to give seven members of BMT's management. As we will explain in more detail infra. The other plan at issue in this case is the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Riley was a vice president of the newlyformed Caparo Steel Company. Are essentially controlled by Swraj Paul. Riley all were terminated in March 1996. Stock that the plaintiffs allege was redistributed to them after it was redeemed by another original PSP participant.4 Moreover. Which is essentially identical to the BMT plan.). It is not clear to this Court why the Company has not yet paid the plaintiffs at least part of what they claim they are owed. The Company acknowledges obligations due the plaintiffs under the PSP: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2002/002713.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The District Court held that it was clear from the complaint that plaintiffs' claims are subject to the two year statute of limitations governing actions for fraud under Virgin Islands law and that their filing of an earlier identical action in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. Which was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Since the complaint in this case was not filed within the two year limitations period. Plaintiffs submit that the most appropriate statute of limitations under Virgin Islands law is the catch all six year statute of limitations for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/06/953235P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> When the Tax Court decided the income earned from the farm was taxable to the Scherpings individually rather than the Noske corporation. Ellering were charged in Count I of the indictment with conspiracy to defraud the United States by impeding the IRS. Joan Noske and the Scherpings were also charged with several counts of structuring a monetary transaction for negotiation of the cattle proceeds. Ellering were convicted of all charges against them. The Scherpings were found guilty of conspiracy to evade income taxes. The Noskes have not been punished by assessment of the § 6700 penalties. Because the penalties are remedial rather than punitive in nature. The Noskes were jointly assessed a penalty of $490. This is not overwhelmingly disproportionate to the Government's damages. </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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200114431.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Plaintiffs were vacationing on Paradise Island in the Bahamas. Victor was struck by a commercial motorboat and sustained massive injuries. Victor was airlifted to Miami. He survived but lost his arm and was permanently disfigured. Plaintiffs claimed that the Sun Defendants were partially responsible for the motorboat and. The motorboat was owned and operated by a It is undisputed that the district court had original subject matter jurisdiction through diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The Plaintiffs are citizens of Utah and the Defendants are foreign Bahamian corporations. The Plaintiffs requested that the court dismiss the Sheraton claims without prejudice in order to pursue this appeal. 3 2 1 Bahamian water sports vendor conducting business at the Atlantis Hotel and Casino ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199910/99-3019a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellant. With him on the brief were Erik L. Defendants were also alleged to have caused political committees to file reports with the Federal Election Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011894.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Mark Gidley </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2002/01-13606.opn.html">MANDERS V. LEE (3/14/2002, NO. 01-13606) </A> This interlocutory appeal presents the question of whether a Georgia sheriff in his official capacity is an agent for the state. Thus is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981043.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> D.C. office space where his private law firm was located. He never informed Baybrook that the expenses were personal and therefore not properly payable with corporate funds. A taxpayer cannot be held to have committed civil tax fraud when the understatement of tax results from </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan99/98-8005.man.html">ALUMAX, INC. V. COMMISSIONER (1/21/1999, NO. 98-8005) </A> It is on those that we rely. Alumax is a Delaware corporation and Atlanta based manufacturer of aluminum products. Shareholder votes were redistributed. Extend to the election of Alumax's board of directors: the Amax shares were entitled to elect four of the board's six voting members. Any action had to be approved by a majority of the Amax elected directors and a majority of the Japanese interest directors. There was yet another restriction on the Amax directors' authority. That objection was ratified within fourteen days by the Japanese corporation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1504.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> With whom Leonard Mignucci & Perez Giusti was on brief for appellees. This appeal is from the district court's dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction of plaintiffs DeCastros' diversity action for personal injuries caused by a waste disposal truck in Puerto Rico. Plaintiffs have sued Sanifill. That the activities of relevance to the truck caused injury in Puerto Rico were largely attributable to Sanifill's wholly owned Puerto Rican subsidiaries. Sanifill San Juan was organized on August 21. Waste a municipal solid waste services agreement was executed between the Municipality of San Juan and a joint venture entitled El Coqui of San Juan ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1371.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Snyder LLP were on brief for appellants. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19976163.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The individual defendants were acquitted. Inc. is referred to as Goldin Mississippi. Both parties conceded in their briefs and at oral argument that this argument is foreclosed if Hartley has continued viability. The Goldin Corporations argue that Hartley was wrongly decided and should be revisited. After Hartley was decided. 1369 (11th Cir. 1993) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2640.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Pratt was on brief for appellant. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2987.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A> He pleaded guilty to two counts of mail fraud and was sentenced to ten years in prison. Claiming that Gateway was improperly labeled a financial institution under U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(6). Collins used numerous </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2002/01-16150.opn.html">RILEY V. MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INC. (6/7/2002, NO. 01-16150) </A> Riley and Sheila Cantrell are the trustees of the Performance Toyota. Gregory Dingle is the trustee of the Master Packaging. 15 U.S.C. § 78bb ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1462.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Velasco and Goldman Antonetti Ferraiuoli & Axtmayer were on brief for appellees. This appeal is from a summary judgment of dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Tagamet was manufactured by the plaintiff's employer. The other plaintiffs are Mrs. The original defendants were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19988005.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> It is on those that we rely. Alumax is a Delaware corporation and Atlanta based manufacturer of aluminum products. Shareholder votes were redistributed. Extend to the election of Alumax's board of directors: the Amax shares were entitled to elect four of the board's six voting members. Alumax's chief executive officer served ex officio as another nonvoting member. 1 There was yet another restriction on the Amax directors' authority. That objection was ratified within fourteen days by the Japanese corporation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2618A.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A> No judge in active service has requested a vote thereon and the petition is denied. 2 No. 02 2618 Nonetheless. Appellants' primary argument is that the panel's opinion does not address prior case law of this circuit and of the Supreme Court. This principle is not established by the cases they cite and is contradicted by other authority. It will be useful to restate the general principle set forth in our initial opinion. It is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2455.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were on the brief for appellant. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19988005.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> It is on those that we rely. Alumax is a Delaware corporation and Atlanta based manufacturer of aluminum products. Shareholder votes were redistributed. Extend to the election of Alumax's board of directors: the Amax shares were entitled to elect four of the board's six voting members. There was yet another restriction on the Amax directors' authority. That objection was ratified within fourteen days by the Japanese corporation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/may96/95-1162.wpd.html">OPINION/ORDER</A> The scheme was masterminded and operated by James Donahue. The corporation and the three limited partnerships are in bankruptcy under Chapter 7 of Title 11 of the United States Code. Harvey Sender is the trustee in bankruptcy for the four bankrupt entities' estates. (2) Colorado partnership law to recover the money she was overpaid. Buchanan after concluding her limited partnership (1) A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment scheme in which </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0370p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The Tax Court held that neither the transfer of the property from LOF to LOF Glass nor the change in ownership of LOF Glass was a disposition of Section 38 property under 26 U.S.C. § 47. I. The facts are not disputed. Petitioner was engaged in the fluid power and plastics businesses and the manufacture of glass. The glass business was referred to as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/99-5102.htm">99-5102 -- ELLSWORTH MOTOR FREIGHT LINES INC. V. NORTH AMERICAN RESOURCES INC. -- 08/22/2000 </A> Ellsworth was awarded $640. Punitive damages were assessed against NAR in the amount of $35. Ellsworth was then providing between $150. Ellsworth alleged all the defendants were liable based on numerous legal theories. The district court concluded the general verdict against only NAR on the contract claim was not inconsistent with the jury's answer to the agency interrogatory on the verdict form for the fraud claims. Aiding and abetting claims were reconcilable with its findings of liability and the evidence presented at trial. The district court had previously rejected Ellsworth's proposed instruction which would have enabled the jury to find against the other defendants on the contract claim based on an agency theory. To rectify the finding that only NAR is liable on the contract claim. Is whether the district court erred in refusing to submit Ellsworth's proposed instruction which would have allowed the jury to consider agency liability on the contract claim.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2002/01-16150.opn.html">RILEY V. MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INC. (6/7/2002, NO. 01-16150) </A> Riley and Sheila Cantrell are the trustees of the Performance Toyota. Gregory Dingle is the trustee of the Master Packaging. 15 U.S.C. § 78bb ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2002/01-13606.opn.html">MANDERS V. LEE (3/14/2002, NO. 01-13606) </A> This interlocutory appeal presents the question of whether a Georgia sheriff in his official capacity is an agent for the state. Thus is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/oct95/95-5074.html">TULSA LITHO CO. V. TILE AND DECORATIVE SURFACES MAGAZINE PUBLISHING </A> For Plaintiff Appellee. * The parties have agreed that this case may be submitted for decision on the briefs. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Appellant Jerry Fisher is President of three magazine publishing corporations: Contemporary Dialysis. Fisher as an additional defendant in the suit claiming he caused the breaches and was individually liable as the alter ego of the corporations. Fisher filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that he was a disclosed agent of the corporate defendants and that he signed the price schedules in his capacity as President. On appellate review a district court's award of attorney fees is subject to an abuse of discretion standard. Any legal conclusions that provide a basis for the award are reviewable de novo. Unless otherwise provided by law or the contract which is the subject [of] the action. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/52A6ACBBB6C52CBF88256ED90068AC5B/$file/0273933.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> When calculating the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021520.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Because federal diversity jurisdiction is proper between the parties. Because the district court erred in reaching the constitutional issue of whether Hugger and Settle are required to meet the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan actual malice standard before deciding the state law issue of whether sufficient evidence was proffered to establish a claim of defamation. H.D. told her mother that Settle Although the district court held that TRINC was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/08/996035P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> This case was commenced by an involuntary petition under Chapter 7 filed against the law firm of Popkin & Stern. Subsequently the case was converted to a case under Chapter 11. That plan was confirmed. A liquidating trust agreement was executed between Blackwell and Popkin & Stern pursuant to the terms of the bankruptcy court's confirmation order. Ronald Lurie was a general and managing partner of Popkin & Stern. Judgment was entered in favor of Blackwell and against Lurie in the amount of $1. The appeal was dismissed by the district court and accordingly the The Honorable Barry S. United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 2 1 judgment is final. An appeal to the Eighth Circuit is pending. There is no stay pending appeal. The order granting the motion provided that Daniel Dierdorf and James Hart were entitled. We dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the orders appealed from were not final. We stated that Lurie would have the opportunity before the bankruptcy court to argue his position against Blackwell's application. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200106/00-1313a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> With him on the briefs were David L. With him on the brief was Jonathan S. The United States all of which were related to each other and to Delcom Financial. The final transaction was a $14 million loan from Del Investments Netherlands B.V. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200113606enb.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity for these particular functions. Defendant Sheriff Peterson is responsible for the operation of the jail in Clinch County. Sheriff Peterson's deputy and chief jailer is Alan Brown. As Manders was escorted into the jail's holding cell. Manders was released from jail. The Manual also details when deadly force is justified. Are responsible for use of force policy at the jail. For ensuring that the policy is followed.3 According to Manders. Manders sought damages against Clinch County and Sheriff Peterson in his official capacity.4 The district court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on Manders's § 1983 damage claims against Clinch County and Sheriff Peterson in his official capacity for the use of force policy at the jail and the training and The parties and the district court litigated this lawsuit against Sheriff Peterson as if all of Manders's § 1983 claims against Clinch County also were made against Sheriff Peterson in his official capacity. Claiming that he is a state actor and that the district court erred in denying him Eleventh Amendment immunity.6 This appeal does not address the individual liability of Sheriff Peterson or his deputies for using excessive force.7 Instead. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961818.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Lawrence was a law firm founded in 1976 by Colonel Matthew Clary. It was named Clary. Clary Jr. was the majority stockholder of the firm. Was a minority shareholder with 42% of the stock. Clary Jr. was president. Clary III was vice president. Other partners were officers of the firm. In 1991 the outstanding debt was about $574. Sovran's debt was personally secured by Clary Jr. Lawrence is $271. Clary & Moore was founded in October 1990. Although it was called The Business Law Firm for the first couple of months. Clary III was the sole shareholder. All of the attorneys who would join Clary & Moore were still on the payroll of Clary. They were not officially hired at Clary & Moore until March 31. Services of staff members were also leased to Clary & Moore by Clary. That Clary & Moore's client list and the nature of its practice was substantially identical to that of Clary. Lawrence was dying while Clary & Moore was setting up shop. A public foreclosure sale was held in an attempt to raise enough capital to cover Clary. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan99/98-8005.man.html">ALUMAX, INC. V. COMMISSIONER (1/21/1999, NO. 98-8005) </A> It is on those that we rely. Alumax is a Delaware corporation and Atlanta based manufacturer of aluminum products. Shareholder votes were redistributed. Extend to the election of Alumax's board of directors: the Amax shares were entitled to elect four of the board's six voting members. Any action had to be approved by a majority of the Amax elected directors and a majority of the Japanese interest directors. There was yet another restriction on the Amax directors' authority. That objection was ratified within fourteen days by the Japanese corporation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961904.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Having concluded that COTC NC was the alter ego of COTC FL. Pierce's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law was denied. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Who was convicted of the murder in July 1992. Was a member of the unincorporated COTC. The self proclaimed purpose of the COTC was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E850B862A18465C788256EA600528742/$file/0256509.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> The other to dismiss the complaint against the remaining defendants because the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the Sherman Antitrust Act's per se prohibition against price fixing is applicable to the economic arrangements between the defendants. Shell Oil Co. were once fierce competitors in the national oil and gasoline markets. Both Shell and Texaco sensed intensified competition in the downstream operations of their industry they similarly believed that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19976163.MA2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The individual defendants were acquitted. Inc. is referred to as Goldin Mississippi. Both parties conceded in their briefs and at oral argument that this argument is foreclosed if Hartley has continued viability. The Goldin Corporations argue that Hartley was wrongly decided and should be revisited. After Hartley was decided. 1369 (11th Cir.1993) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/04/982104P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> I. During 1990 Larry Bergman was the president and owner of three S corporations: Advanced Flex. AFI was started in 1976. AF3 was established in 1989. AF3 manufactured flexible printed circuit boards and was never profitable. Bergman was advised that he would not be able to deduct all of AF3's losses on his personal income tax return because his basis in the corporation was insufficient. It appears that his sons owned additional non voting stock in AFI and AF2 but that there was no non voting stock in AF3. 2 1 increase his basis in an S corporation by adding capital or loaning money to it. When all the transactions were concluded. All of the December 20 checks were drawn on accounts maintained at Marquette Bank by Bergman and the two corporations. At the end of the day the same amount of funds was in each account as at the beginning of the day. Interest was accrued on the loan but not paid. Interest was also accrued on the AF2 loans and was eventually paid off in full in 1992. AF3's remaining debt to Bergman was $214. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct2000/991803.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Have brought this RICO class action on behalf of all individuals who played NHL professional hockey during the time in which defendant R. Count II of the complaint alleges that Eagleson and certain companies with which he was affiliated conspired to pilfer NHLPA funds over the course of many years. The principal issue on this appeal is whether the district court correctly granted Eagleson and the NHL defendants summary judgment on Count I on statute of limitations grounds. Thus is not at issue on appeal. We nevertheless have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Alan Eagleson was executive director of the NHLPA. Which would otherwise have been prohibited by the players' contracts. The participation of the best NHL players was essential to the success of the tournaments. Hockey Canada was to be paid the first $600. All other net revenues were to be split equally between the NHL clubs and the NHLPA. The NHL players earned little additional pay for playing in the tournaments and were induced to participate on the understanding that they would be benefitting their pension fund. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200502/04-5089b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200016685.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> As the parent corporation was also an S Corporation. The gain passed through and was taxable to its shareholders. A company will typically obtain a private letter ruling from the Internal Revenue Service. Determining in advance whether such a spinoff will be taxable or not. </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec2001/00-16685.opn.html">MCLAULIN V. COMMISSIONER (12/21/2001, NO. 00-16685) </A> As the parent corporation was also an S Corporation. The gain passed through and was taxable to its shareholders. It was equally owned by Douglas P. It was equally owned by Ridge and John L. Ridge and Hutto had tentatively agreed that a 50% interest was worth $825. The corporate return included a statement that no gain or loss was recognized because the spinoff qualified for nonrecognition treatment under section 355. Which was passed through in pro rata shares to the Ridge shareholders. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1363.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND Plaintiff is the general partner of fifteen limited partnerships that own and operate residential multi family housing projects throughout the United States. The projects are subsidized to varying degrees by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ( </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1865.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Dailey were on brief for appellants. Dana & Gould were on brief for appellees. This appeal requires us to decide for a second time1 whether plaintiffs appellants ( </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.law.emory.edu/10circuit/jan97/95-1464.wpd.html">YODER V. HONEYWELL INC. </A> Plaintiffs assert that summary judgment was improper because material issues of fact remain as to whether (1) Bull was the alter ego or instru mentality of its parent Honeywell. (2) Honeywell was a manufacturer or apparent manufacturer under Colorado law and Restatement (Second) of Torts 400. Honeywell was the only defendant at that time. In plaintiffs' amended complaint they alleged that Honeywell and/or Bull manufactured the keyboard equipment and asserted that Bull and its predecessors were alter egos or instrumentalities of Honeywell. The court first found that Honeywell was not liable to plaintiffs as a manufacturer of the keyboards. Based on [a former Honeywell em ployee's] examination of the keyboards he determined that the keyboards were not manufactured by Honeywell. Plaintiffs have made no showing that a genuine issue of fact exists that Honeywell manufactured. Finding that plaintiffs' claim was time barred. II Plaintiffs first assert that summary judgment(1) in favor of Honeywell was improper. </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/op/02/02-1432.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A> Because we conclude that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find that Transnation was the alter ego of its sibling corporations. Transnation was acquired by Reliance Insurance Company. Which was aware of the acquisitions. The jury found in favor of LandAmerica (which was not a party to the contract) but awarded $1.5 million against Transnation. Mid America concedes that no Chicago area policies were issued on Transnation paper. 02 1469 3 Neither Commonwealth nor Lawyers Title was a party to the contract. Where Transnation is incorporated. Is that corporations are legally separate entities whose acts are not imputed to their officers. In rare cases Arizona courts will pierce the corporate veil and declare a corporation the alter ego of another entity. Mere common ownership is insufficient for piercing. We view the additional evidence tending to show that the underwriters were commonly controlled in the light most favorable to Mid America. There was evidence that the three underwriters had overlapping corporate officers: they shared the same president (Janet Alpert). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/09/02-4037.htm">02-4037 -- SHELTER MORTGAGE CORP. V. CASTLE MORTGAGE CO. -- 09/15/2004 </A> Circuit Judges. <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1998/98a1948p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> The district court held that pre merger notice of the debt owed by the non surviving local was not required and that the surviving local union was liable for the debt. I. The facts of this case are undisputed. Teamsters Local 513 was a labor union which represented certain employees in the Philadelphia metropolitan area for purposes of collective bargaining. Both of the local unions were unincorporated associations. Littlejohn was covered by the Teamsters Pension Trust Fund of Philadelphia & Vicinity (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Mar2002/001268.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> That district courts have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. Is unable to do so. The statute provides in pertinent part: A person who is prohibited from possessing. The Secretary may grant such relief if it is established to his satisfaction that the circumstances regarding the disability. Are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest. Any person whose application for relief from disabilities is denied by the Secretary may file a petition with the United States district court for the district in which he resides for a judicial review of such denial. 18 U.S.C. Or receiving firearms that have traveled in interstate commerce. 18 U.S.C. A convicted felon can regain his firearms privileges if the jurisdiction in which he was convicted expunges his conviction. Rice was the first circuit court opinion to address whether the appropriations ban enables felons to seek the restoration of their firearms privileges in federal court despite ATF 's inability to review their applications. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/00-1145.htm">00-1145 -- CONCRETE WORKS OF COLORADO INC. V. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER -- 02/10/2003 </A> Denver has amended the ordinance twice since this lawsuit was initiated but it remains essentially unchanged for purposes of this case. In 1993. A bench trial was held and the district court entered judgment in favor of CWC on its claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. See Concrete Works of Colorado. CWC's entitlement to damages was reserved and the district court directed entry of judgment under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See id. at 1044. Anecdotal evidence which are discussed respectively in subsections IV.A. <a href= </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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1824.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> With whom Robin Alexander was on brief. Dailey was on brief. Dana & Gould were on brief. As is often true at the preliminary injunction stage. The record is somewhat scanty. We credit the undisputed facts presented below and adopt the district court's findings as to controverted matters to the extent they are supported by the record and not clearly erroneous. PSC is a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business in New Bedford. Or were PSC retirees and Morse Tool retirees or to consider separately widows of former employees. 3 beneficiaries of. The chief defendant is International Twist Drill (Holdings). Morse Tool was mired in bankruptcy. ITD was the sole voting shareholder. During the period when purchase was under consideration. Became involved in negotiations regarding the company's collective bargaining agreement but ITD was not itself a signatory to that pact. PSC was unable to survive. Then ITD was to make the payments. 5 In granting the injunction. The district court found </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2001/003366.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> The arbitration forum designated in the collective bargaining agreement is an inappropriate vehicle by which to settle the parties' dispute. We will affirm the District Court's order which enjoins the Union and the American Arbitration Association from including AmeriSteel as a party in pending arbitration proceedings. Yet the arbitrator is powerless to enforce these obligations because they are not binding on the successor employer. Facts and Procedural Background Appellee AmeriSteel is a Florida corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of steel products. The purchase agreement between 3 AmeriSteel and Brocker Rebar included various provisions expressly stating that AmeriSteel was not to be bound by the terms of the CBA. AmeriSteel has consistently and repeatedly maintained that it is not bound by the terms of the CBA. Therefore that it is not bound to arbitrate under the agreement. All but six members of Local 430 who had worked for Brocker Rebar were hired by AmeriSteel. AmeriSteel was obligated to bargain with the Union. </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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/10/951665P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The court concluded that Commerce Clause restrictions do not apply to the statute because the state of South Dakota is acting as a market participant in the video lottery business. The court further held that the statute The does not violate the Equal Protection Clause and that the plaintiffs have no standing to assert the Privileges and Immunities Clause challenge. plaintiffs appeal. Various forms of gambling are legal. Which is Video lottery consists of games of chance played South Dakota operates its video on a computer controlled video machine. Which are regulated by the state of South Dakota. Which are owned and operated by the state of South Dakota. Which is located in the main office of the South Dakota Lottery in Pierre. South Dakota. played or the modems attached to the Although the state does not own the video machines on which the games of chance are The South Dakota Lottery began operating in October 1989. The Supreme Court of South Dakota declared that the state was not actually running a lottery. </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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4AB147978B29627288256E5A00707D59/$file/0035545.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> The district court held that Clackamas was not an </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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec2001/00-16685.opn.html">MCLAULIN V. COMMISSIONER (12/21/2001, NO. 00-16685) </A> As the parent corporation was also an S Corporation. The gain passed through and was taxable to its shareholders. It was equally owned by Douglas P. It was equally owned by Ridge and John L. Ridge and Hutto had tentatively agreed that a 50% interest was worth $825. The corporate return included a statement that no gain or loss was recognized because the spinoff qualified for nonrecognition treatment under section 355. Which was passed through in pro rata shares to the Ridge shareholders. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200415898.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Sitting by designation. 2 * The essential facts developed at trial are these. Use and development of land in unincorporated Broward County is regulated by the Broward County Zoning Code ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E9B2567FD81D455588256B0E00043F7C/$file/0035545.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> The district court held that Clackamas was not an </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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/10/983871P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> She argues the court lacked diversity jurisdiction because the Union Pacific is a citizen of Arkansas. Named as defendants were the land. Who was a citizen of Tennessee. Lessees who were citizens of Arkansas. The federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over civil actions between </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2002/014317.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: At issue in this case is the interest rate that should apply to the overpayment of income tax owed to the Virgin Islands' taxing authority. I. Background The facts of this case are not contested. In 1994 Chase and the VIBIR agreed that Chase was owed a refund of $3. </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/op/03/03-2892.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A> The CHA notified its employees that it was closing the department. Rejecting its argument that the CHA was not a covered employer for purposes of the Act. Like the CHA is subject to the WARN Act.2 The CHA also 1 Plaintiffs represent a class of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/09/03-1080.htm">03-1080 -- COMBS V. PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS -- 09/08/2004 </A> BACKGROUND</center> 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-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043589p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> One of these subcontractors was 2 Hull. Various logistical and timing issues plagued the manufacture and delivery of the freeze dryers before they were eventually installed at Huadu's facility in China in April 1997. These tests would have held the freeze dryers to even more stringent standards than did the failed start up test. Satisfaction of the performance tests was required by the Huadu Contract. The result was an agreement among Huadu. March 1998 was set as the date by which modifications would be completed and Huadu would grant final acceptance. Several particular provisions of the APA are relevant to our discussion. The first is a list of purchase assets. The second provision at issue is Section 7.8. Which states that: Purchaser will. At the location of the customer) or accept returns of products of the Business shipped by [Hull] on and prior to the Closing Date ... which are defective or which fail to conform to the customer's order in accordance with the following provisions (but [SPI] does not hereby assume any liability to any third party claimant. ...). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-1430a.html">BUSH-QUAYLE '92' V. FEC </A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/99-1211.htm">99-1211 -- FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION V. COLORADO REPUBLICAN FEDERAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE -- 05/05/2000 </A> Are subject to FECA's contribution limits. Buckley. The Act sets the following contribution limits: A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1654.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> P.C. was on brief. LLP was on brief. LLP were on brief. That is only a step along the road to meaningful relief. This is a case in point. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1702.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Lorincz & Jacobi were on brief for appellee. Debtor's appeal from that decision asks us to do two things: reverse the district court's holding that federal credit unions are nonprofit organizations and hold that educational loans issued to him by creditor appellee TI Federal Credit Union are. We affirm the result achieved by the district court that debtor's loans are nondischargeable and elect not to reach the issue of federal credit unions' nonprofit status. From which DelBonis obtained no direct personal benefit and on which he is the sole obligor. Were acquired from the Texas Instrument Federal Credit Union. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043408p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Appellants/Plaintiffs are physicians and their professional corporations who purchased life insurance through Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Associations ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199802/96-7228a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> The governing legal principles are well known. Our review of district court decisions on motions for judgment as a matter of law is de novo. The jury's verdict will stand unless </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1605.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A> Sidley & Austin (as it then was) demoted 32 of its equity partners to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-30021.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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. R. 47.5.4. 2 * The defendants were convicted by a jury on various offenses related to their participation in a major drug distribution enterprise. Pearson was represented by counsel. The Browns were each sentenced to life imprisonment. Who was 3 charged only on the conspiracy count and one drug distribution count. Consolidated with these appeals is the appeal of Betty L. Tongula Facts relevant to each of the various Veal are pro se on appeal. appellants are set forth separately below. CHRISTOPHER BROWN Christopher Brown's sole issue on appeal is whether he validly waived his right to the assistance of counsel at trial. Christopher Brown was represented by his own retained attorney. 2001. 4 The defendant appeared before the magistrate judge on November 7 without a lawyer and said that he was unaware that he had been ordered to obtain new counsel. Which was separate from the prosecution. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/02/993114P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Jurisdiction Jurisdiction in the district court was proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Jurisdiction on appeal is proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 2 1 Background The following facts are undisputed based on evidence introduced at trial. The district court determined that the growth of the Company is not likely to continue at its current rate absent the continuation of an aggressive acquisition policy. It may not have more than 75 shareholders. The Company had 63 shareholders: 40 were Robert family members and 23 were non family members. While it 3 would have been possible to attain Subchapter S status without squeezing out the minority shareholders. Anderson asserted that the merger action was taken to assure that the Subchapter S election could be made and preserved into the future without being repealed. Even though he also admitted that the bylaws could have been amended to provide that no person could transfer their shares in violation of the Subchapter S election. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/01/992356P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The defendant hospitals are Unity Hospital. Also named as defendants are hospital employees John Murphy and Allina Health System Corp. Which is an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DBAB43E076D3FEAE88256B18007E3907/$file/9916133.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Is amended as follows: 16430 At slip op. 13284. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/09/033831P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The district court denied the motion on the grounds the three principals were not signatories to the franchise agreements between the two corporations. The tort lawsuit was not covered by the agreements' arbitration clauses. The purpose of the agreements was to sell new and used music compact discs (CDs). Each franchise agreement provided </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/04/066007P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Bankruptcy Judge This is an appeal from an Order of the Bankruptcy Court1 entered January 20. That they were unable to reach a resolution that would prevent the foreclosure sale. It appears from the Affidavit and e mails attached to it that the foreclosure sale was scheduled the day they filed their bankruptcy Petition. Because the Debtors are individuals. That section requires that the Debtors have either received a briefing from an approved credit counseling agency prior to filing the petition. Or have filed a certificate of exigent circumstances that meets three requirements set forth in the statute. Much less that they were unable to receive it within five days of requesting it. While doing nothing about satisfying the prerequisites for filing a bankruptcy case until it was too late. The Hedquists were ineligible to file a bankruptcy case and. Was unable to obtain the services referred to in paragraph (1) during the 5 day period beginning on the date on which the debtor made that request. (iii) is satisfactory to the court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/07/943380P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Benton argues that UHC was Benton also UHC. Risk retention groups and purchase groups are exempt from state laws prohibiting their operation or regulating their membership. 15 U.S.C. §§ 3902 & 3903. UHC is the parent company of United HealthCare Management Corporation (United HealthCare Management). United HealthCare Management sought this Over the HealthCare Management is responsible for obtaining liability insurance coverage from Healing Arts National Association (HANA). HANA insureds were to be covered by master insurance policies provided by either Diversified Insurers Corporation (Diversified) or Victoria Insurance Company (Victoria). UHC discovered that the insurance premiums it had paid had never in fact reached these insurance companies and that the policies purporting to provide insurance coverage were worthless. Which was to be insured through the HANA program. instead. The premiums were initially That company would deduct its commission and forward the remaining premium to Robis International. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BD99C3CBB6C6B9C88825732A007F682C/$file/0572899.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> The appellant taxpayer is the Charles Schwab Corporation and its subsidiaries. Provides that a taxpayer's accrual date for federal tax purposes may be no earlier than it would have been under state law as it existed at the end of 1960. Are required to pay a yearly franchise tax the state levies </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B3F23ACE4CA2BB9588256E5A00707D76/$file/9916133.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Is amended as follows: 16430 At slip op. 13284. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/08/974025P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Fisher was the The Honorable Owen M. Hurst was a registered lobbyist. Who was a member of the Clay County Commission in Clay County. Was not a defendant in this case. Were associated with a RICO enterprise. Which was introduced in the Missouri House of Representatives on January 9. Which was proposed to increase the state motor fuel tax by six cents a gallon over five years to pay for construction of highways. Which was owned by the City of North Kansas City. The members of the CON Committee are appointed by the Governor of Missouri. Was hostile to some of their activities. Simmons was acquitted of the bribery count involving the removal of Rep. Michael Fisher was convicted of four of the five counts against him. Was acquitted of the bribery count involving the removal of Rep. Bob Griffin was acquitted of four of the counts against him. The jury was unable to reach a decision on the other five counts against him. Steven Hurst was acquitted of all three counts brought against him. 5 For purposes of the federal Sentencing Guidelines. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200107/00-7072a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> With him on the briefs were Stanley F. With him on the brief were Susan F. For the six miners whose benefits are involved here. It is undisputed that To ney's Branch Coal Company was that operator. Toney's Branch is bankrupt. The sole issue before us is whether Augusta and Williams Mountain can on that account be held liable as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/09/974025P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Griffin was acquitted of the RICO count. Whereas in fact the jury was unable to reach agreement on that count. The opinion is amended to correct this error. The Clerk is directed to file an amended opinion containing the appropriate change. Fisher was the President of the Greater Kansas City AFL CIO. Hurst was a registered lobbyist. Who was a member of the Clay County Commission in Clay County. Was not a defendant in this case. Were associated with a RICO enterprise. Which was introduced in the Missouri House of Representatives on January 9. Which was proposed to increase the state motor fuel tax by six cents a gallon over five years to pay for construction of highways. Which was owned by the City of North Kansas City. The members of the CON Committee are appointed by the Governor of Missouri. Was hostile to some of their activities. Simmons was acquitted of the bribery count involving the removal of Rep. Michael Fisher was convicted of four of the five counts against him. Was acquitted of the bribery count involving the removal of Rep. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9AA6971BF3CC423388256E5A00707CCC/$file/9916133.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Appellants are JR International Corp. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1C1298DB8B834FC388256D81005C56F8/$file/0215301.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> McKesson HBOC is suing its own shareholders for unjust enrichment arising from a merger between McKesson and HBO & Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2F3D0EAED61F52D5882571B10081495F/$file/0435210.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Plaintiffs' homes were built with wood foundations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The MHHO Program was designed to These facts. Are taken from Plaintiffs' complaint. Which is presumed true for purposes of this Rule 12(b)(6) proceeding. The families were required to contribute land. Each family was required to make monthly payments in an amount calibrated to their income. The homebuyers were made responsible for maintenance of the house. When the program was formalized in the Indian Housing Act of 1988. The Blackfeet Housing Authority was charged with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3AD3B8DF742F2F7788256C3800051FFE/$file/0070764.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: This is a tax case regarding availability of a loss deduction to a company whose predecessor in interest left a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8E6D00949CDFE6D38825705B004F17C8/$file/0316194.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> We affirm the district court's conclusion as to preemption under the Bank Act but hold that the per diem loan interest statute is not preempted by the DIDMCA. The purpose of the audits was to ascertain whether the mortgage subsidiaries had overcharged interest and provided unduly low estimates of certain classes of settlement fees. 3 WFHMI was licensed to engage in real estate lending activities under the California Residential Mortgage Lending Act (CRMLA). Wells Fargo's claims as to WFHMI are not moot. Even if they were. There is no distinction between WFHMI and NCMC pertinent to our disposition. 4 Specifically. Unless a person or transaction is excepted from a definition or exempt from licensure by a provision of this law or a rule of the commissioner. The licensing requirements referred to in the section are discussed in more detail below. 5 The CFLL does not apply to any loans made pursuant to the CRMLA. BOUTRIS Commissioner is the state official charged with enforcing those laws governing licensed home mortgage lenders. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may99/97-4845.opn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: This case raises the issue of whether certain tax debts are dischargeable in bankruptcy despite the debtor's efforts to evade payment of the taxes by transferring assets to his wife. The district court found that such tax debts are not dischargeable. The amount of taxes owed at the time that Griffith filed for bankruptcy in this case was close to $2. Inc. was incorporated. Assets from another corporation that he owned were transferred to NuWave. The assets transferred pursuant to the antenuptial agreement were insulated from being levied upon because assets held by tenants in the entirety cannot be levied upon without a judgment against both owners. The government argued that the tax debts were nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(C). The bankruptcy court agreed. Although there was no evasion with respect to the assessment of the tax. The court held that the phrase </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5B79FA29E35D9FB38825717600570F6C/$file/0416244.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> The district court held that these laws were preempted by the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (DIDMCA). That California's per diem statutes are not preempted by the DIDMCA. We affirm this conclusion because California's per diem statutes are not expressly preempted. The per diem statutes therefore are not preempted by the Parity Act. Hold that any facial claim was waived. I. Background Quicken Loans (Quicken) is licensed to engage in residential mortgage lending in California by the California Department of Corporations Commissioner. When the conditions required to close the transaction have been satisfied. The escrow company is instructed by Quicken Loans to disburse the funds to or on behalf of the borrower. Quicken admits that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/683E7F5C1AA50A9688256AC70059A5CF/$file/9916133.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Appellants are JR International Corp. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1998/98a1847p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> We will address the question directly posed by the Supreme Court: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-8079.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> Pathfinder Mines Corp. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1994/94a0905p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> The issue is whether the Department of the Treasury may implement a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july97/96-6560.opa.html">BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD V. NIELSEN </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Blue Cross and Blue Shield v. Individually and on behalf of all other persons who are similarly situated. The disposition of this appeal depends upon the resolution of these issues: (1) is Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama (Blue Cross) exempt from the application of the three Alabama acts by the terms of previously enacted Alabama statutes. (2) if Blue Cross is exempt from the application of the three Alabama Acts due to the terms of those previously enacted statutes. Are those exempting statutes violative of the Alabama Constitution. (3) are those three acts preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) insofar as they relate to ERISA governed health benefit plans? Although the third issue involves a question of federal law. Its existence in and relevance to this case is entirely dependent upon the answers to the first two issues. Not only is this case fraught with unsettled issues of Alabama law. The decision of those state law issues will affect the insurance rights of more than half of Alabama's population. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1995/94a0968p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> We conclude that an inactive corporation is a citizen of the state of its incorporation only. We have. We are also called upon to address the meaning of the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1997/97a1538p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Before us is the certified question of whether the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act are applicable to the denial of a promotional opportunity based upon age to an individual working in Philadelphia. Where the promotional opportunity is a position with the foreign corporation outside the United States. We will affirm the judgment of the district court. I. The relevant facts on summary judgment are not disputed. Garland Denty was hired by Smith Kline French. When he was given the title. Is incorporated and headquartered in the United Kingdom. Five new positions were created with SB plc in foreign locations. He was told he would be promoted to one of these positions. He was subsequently denied the promotion allegedly because of his age which. Was fifty two. Denty further contends that these positions were filled with men younger than he. The promotion decisions were made by SB plc executives in England while Denty worked for SBC in Philadelphia. The court specifically ruled that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-4091.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> David Cardon and Noel Vallejo entered into a (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Their partnership was governed by the United Education Centers Partnership Agreement ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1995/95a1178p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> We must piece together what effect the rulings on relief have had as judgments were entered. As retroactive relief was granted. As appeals were filed. All three defendants have appealed the district court's order of February 26. Absolutely and irrevocably guarantee(s) and become(s) surety to Bank for the prompt payment of all sums now or hereafter due to Bank from Borrower . . .. * * * The Obligation of Guarantor hereunder shall continue in full force and effect until thirty (30) days after Bank shall have actually received written notice of Guarantor's intention to terminate this Guaranty sent by certified or registered mail. This Guaranty shall nevertheless continue in effect and Guarantor shall remain liable for any Obligation which was incurred by Borrower prior to such date of termination. Which is the result of any renewal. GWA was represented to ConBank as being a single accounting firm with offices in both New Jersey and Florida. GWA's two </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1996/96a1437p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> At issue is the ownership of certain real property in Camden. The district court held that Plaintiff Scotts African Union Methodist Protestant Church ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-30459.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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. R. 47.5.4. 2 * The defendants were convicted by a jury on various offenses related to their participation in a major drug distribution enterprise. Pearson was represented by counsel. The Browns were each sentenced to life imprisonment. Who was 3 charged only on the conspiracy count and one drug distribution count. Consolidated with these appeals is the appeal of Betty L. Tongula Facts relevant to each of the various Veal are pro se on appeal. appellants are set forth separately below. CHRISTOPHER BROWN Christopher Brown's sole issue on appeal is whether he validly waived his right to the assistance of counsel at trial. Christopher Brown was represented by his own retained attorney. 2001. 4 The defendant appeared before the magistrate judge on November 7 without a lawyer and said that he was unaware that he had been ordered to obtain new counsel. Which was separate from the prosecution. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1996/96a1416p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> This is a diversity suit arising out of a dispute among the members of a small limited partnership. Although there is complete diversity among the three partners. Manchester argues that the Partnership itself which shares the citizenship of all of the parties is an indispensable party whose joinder destroys diversity jurisdiction. A limited partner is considered a citizen of each state in which its partners are citizens. Because all of the partners of this small limited partnership are before the district court. Joinder of the partnership entity is not required. Proceeding in the absence of the Partnership will cause no prejudice to Manchester. That the Partnership is effectively represented by the partners and consequently suffers no prejudice from its exclusion. That whether or not the plaintiffs' claims are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2003/021192.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> PBI was used as a pawn in an illegal scheme perpetrated by its CEO and sole owner. Arguing that the payments were a fraudulent conveyance under § 548 of the Code. The District Court determined that despite the fact that Kesselring's actions were adverse to PBI's interests. Kesselring's fraud must be imputed to PBI because he was its sole representative. That the payments made to PFS were made in partial satisfaction of that debt. Meaning that the transfers to PFS were neither constructively nor actually fraudulent. The Trustee responds that even if Kesselring's fraud was properly imputed to PBI pre petition. Who is bringing this claim on behalf of innocent creditors. In determining whether the transfers were fraudulent under § 548. He cites persuasive caselaw which holds that the invocation of the doctrine of imputation against a trustee should not be allowed when a bad actor has been removed and the defense is serving only to bar the claims of an innocent successor. We will therefore reverse the judgment of the District Court and remand the matter for further proceedings. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2000/99-10114.man.html">SHANDS TEACHING HOSP. V. BEECH ST. CORP. (4/13/2000, NO. 99-10114) </A> The district court concluded that although the State of Florida was not named as a defendant in the suit. A judgment granting the relief sought by Shands would have to be satisfied from the state coffers. Thus the suit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Is a self insured plan funded by annual appropriations from the state legislature and premium payments by enrollees. The Department of Management Services ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/September2004/033173p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Concluding the transfer of assets was not a bona fide sale for adequate and full consideration. We will affirm. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-30514.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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. R. 47.5.4. 2 * The defendants were convicted by a jury on various offenses related to their participation in a major drug distribution enterprise. Pearson was represented by counsel. The Browns were each sentenced to life imprisonment. Who was 3 charged only on the conspiracy count and one drug distribution count. Consolidated with these appeals is the appeal of Betty L. Tongula Facts relevant to each of the various Veal are pro se on appeal. appellants are set forth separately below. CHRISTOPHER BROWN Christopher Brown's sole issue on appeal is whether he validly waived his right to the assistance of counsel at trial. Christopher Brown was represented by his own retained attorney. 2001. 4 The defendant appeared before the magistrate judge on November 7 without a lawyer and said that he was unaware that he had been ordered to obtain new counsel. Which was separate from the prosecution. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may99/97-4845.opn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: This case raises the issue of whether certain tax debts are dischargeable in bankruptcy despite the debtor's efforts to evade payment of the taxes by transferring assets to his wife. The district court found that such tax debts are not dischargeable. The amount of taxes owed at the time that Griffith filed for bankruptcy in this case was close to $2. Inc. was incorporated. Assets from another corporation that he owned were transferred to NuWave. The assets transferred pursuant to the antenuptial agreement were insulated from being levied upon because assets held by tenants in the entirety cannot be levied upon without a judgment against both owners. The government argued that the tax debts were nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(C). The bankruptcy court agreed. Although there was no evasion with respect to the assessment of the tax. The court held that the phrase </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022088.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Because we conclude that First Financial's bylaw is valid under Maryland law and that the practice of directors holding over does not violate the ICA. I. Badlands is a large. Badlands was seeking information about First Financial shareholders. A plurality of all the votes cast at a meeting at which a quorum is present is sufficient to elect a director. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1034.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Is amended as follows: Page 8. O'Keefe and Packer & O'Keefe were on brief for appellant. Snow & Hahn was on brief for appellee. The R/V Endeavor is a vessel chartered by the National Science Foundation to URI's Graduate School of Oceanog raphy (GSO) for research purposes. Which are submerged in salt water during normal operation of the vessel. Is not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july97/96-6560.opa.html">BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD V. NIELSEN </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Blue Cross and Blue Shield v. Individually and on behalf of all other persons who are similarly situated. The disposition of this appeal depends upon the resolution of these issues: (1) is Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama (Blue Cross) exempt from the application of the three Alabama acts by the terms of previously enacted Alabama statutes. (2) if Blue Cross is exempt from the application of the three Alabama Acts due to the terms of those previously enacted statutes. Are those exempting statutes violative of the Alabama Constitution. (3) are those three acts preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) insofar as they relate to ERISA governed health benefit plans? Although the third issue involves a question of federal law. Its existence in and relevance to this case is entirely dependent upon the answers to the first two issues. Not only is this case fraught with unsettled issues of Alabama law. The decision of those state law issues will affect the insurance rights of more than half of Alabama's population. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug17/03-60835.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> PER CURIAM:* Appellant Bill Libbey appeals from the district court decision finding that he was not permitted to bring suit to recover money he claims is owed by Appellees John and Lucille Ridges because such Pursuant to 5th Cir. The court has determined t hat this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. * suit is barred by Miss Code Ann. § 73 59 9. (5) Libbey is entitled to recover under a theory of quantum meruit or unjust enrichment because these theories are not based on the contract. Libbey argues that he is entitled to reco ver under a theory of quantum meruit or unjust enrichment because these theories are not based on the contract. He claimed only that he was entitled to recover the value of the labor and materials under the theory of quantum meruit or unjust enrichment. In his motion for reconsideration Libbey still did not include the argument that these theories are not barred by § 73 59 9 because they are not based on the contract. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1877.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> UNUM Corporation and UNUM Life Insurance Company of America were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. Whether the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1133.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> P.C. were on brief for appellant. Denied they were personally liable for these corporate debts. Background Defendant Appellee Green & Freedman Baking Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-2246.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Lougee were on brief. Pease LLP were on brief. That the rules and regulations of the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) grant them a right to arbitrate the claims that the respondents have asserted against them in parallel state court litigation. The Paul Revere Variable Annuity Insurance Company (Variable) and The Paul Revere Protective Life Insurance Company (Protective) are wholly owned subsidiaries of The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company (Revere Life). Revere Life is. A is a wholly owned subsidiary of a Delaware corporation. Both are headquartered in Tennessee.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2000/99-10114.man.html">SHANDS TEACHING HOSP. V. BEECH ST. CORP. (4/13/2000, NO. 99-10114) </A> The district court concluded that although the State of Florida was not named as a defendant in the suit. A judgment granting the relief sought by Shands would have to be satisfied from the state coffers. Thus the suit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Is a self insured plan funded by annual appropriations from the state legislature and premium payments by enrollees. The Department of Management Services ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971230.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: The instant case is an appeal by the plaintiffs. Who were minority stockholders of The Kerrison Dry Goods Company. The stock of Kerrisons was largely owned by Edwin H. The Kreischers contended that there were erroneous legal 2 conclusions of the district court. Is as follows: The Kreischers seek to have the corporate defendant. The Kreischers contend that the Poulnots have engaged in a series of oppressive. They claim that the Poulnots have wasted and misapplied the corporate assets of Kerrisons to such an extent that dissolution is warranted. The Kreischers are minority shareholders who own approximately 28% of the stock in Kerrisons. The defendants are Kerrisons. The Poulnots are members of the board of directors and also hold various positions as officers. The Kreischers' complaint was filed on October 28. The six causes of action alleged by the Kreischers are as follows: breach of fiduciary duties by the directors of the Company (Count One). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200310272.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: The main issue in this appeal is one of contract interpretation. Kraft UK was not a party to the agreement and the express terms of the agreement do not reflect an intention to bind Kraft UK. Defendant Kraft NA is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois.1 Kraft NA manufactures. Owns 99.995% 1 Kraft NA was formerly known as Kraft Foods. Kraft UK is a business entity organized under the laws of the United Kingdom and has its principal place of business there. Kraft NA became aware that Whetstone was preparing to market a chocolate orange product. In the Settlement Terry's Chocolate Orange is an orange flavored ball of chocolate that is the size and shape of a small orange. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200311235.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were selling </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200315932.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The district court approved the bankruptcy court's decision that held an alter ego claim is property of the debtor's bankruptcy estate under Georgia law. Because it is unclear under Georgia law whether a corporate entity can bring an alter ego action against its former principal. I. BACKGROUND The facts of this case are undisputed. Icarus is a national manufacturer and 1 Formerly known as Piedmont Hardwood Flooring. Baillie Lumber sold lumber to Icarus and was never paid. At the time of this suit Thompson was no longer involved in the management of Icarus. Icarus filed a complaint against Thompson in bankruptcy court claiming that the irregularities were fraudulent transfers and were held in constructive trust for Icarus. Baillie Lumber filed suit against Thompson in a Georgia state court alleging Thomson is the alter ego of Icarus and thus personally liable for the debts owed to Baillie Lumber. Baillie argues that the state alter ego claim is not the property of Icarus's estate. That it is not trying to recover money owed to the estate. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-2156.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A> The Jimmy was occupied by passengers Donna Shields. Brandi 2 No. 01 2156 Shields and Sherry Pershing (who was pregnant with Adrianna1). Were ejected. Betty Deckard and Donna Shields were seriously injured. Sherry and Adrianna Pershing were killed. Frank Pershing also signed release agreements to settle claims arising from the death of his wife Sherry and his 1 Adrianna is referred to in some documents as Andrea or Adriana. We use the name Adrianna because that is the name the appellants use in their appellate brief. The plaintiffs filed an automotive products liability suit against GM claiming that the Jimmy was improperly designed. That release agreement is not the subject of this appeal. Pershing's claims against GM on behalf of Adrianna are still pending. 4 No. 01 2156 On March 31. The order was made final pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on May 29. Although the district court's order is cast in terms of a motion to dismiss. GM's Motion to Dismiss was converted into a Motion for Summary Judgment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200512974.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> While their lawsuit was pending. Although we do not decide whether Appellants' claims for unpaid employment benefits were extinguished. Historical Background Some historical background is necessary to place Appellants' appeal in proper context. Directed the PCC to establish the OTA </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/04/02-9000.htm">02-9000 -- COLORADO GAS COMPRESSION INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE -- 04/06/2004 </A> We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971524.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Chief District Judge: This case is before the Court on the District Court's Order dismissing the Omniflight defendants on the grounds that the Amended Complaint was not timely filed. Were seriously injured when the engine failed in the helicopter in which they were flying. At the time the lawsuit was filed. HTS was operating out of that facility. Process was served on HTS in Maryland. Was served on HTS on December 4. HTS argues that it could not be held liable as a successor corporation because it was a separate and distinct corporation. The helicopter manufacturers removed the cases to federal court and the cases were consolidated. Omniflight then moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it was untimely under the Maryland three year statute of limitations. The United States District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed the Omniflight defendants from the case on the basis that the amended complaint was barred by the statute of limitations. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200515395.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> We conclude that the district court did not err in its determination that P.G.'s limitation of liability action was not timely filed within the requisite six month period.1 I. Was working on the NAV1. The NAV1 was owned by P.G. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-60835.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> PER CURIAM:* Appellant Bill Libbey appeals from the district court decision finding that he was not permitted to bring suit to recover money he claims is owed by Appellees John and Lucille Ridges because such Pursuant to 5th Cir. The court has determined t hat this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. * suit is barred by Miss Code Ann. § 73 59 9. (5) Libbey is entitled to recover under a theory of quantum meruit or unjust enrichment because these theories are not based on the contract. Libbey argues that he is entitled to reco ver under a theory of quantum meruit or unjust enrichment because these theories are not based on the contract. He claimed only that he was entitled to recover the value of the labor and materials under the theory of quantum meruit or unjust enrichment. In his motion for reconsideration Libbey still did not include the argument that these theories are not barred by § 73 59 9 because they are not based on the contract. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTEwODAtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1080-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The Rondout Valley Central School District Board of Education is not entitled to dismissal on the ground of Eleventh Amendment immunity. We consider whether defendant Rondout Valley Central School District Board of Education is an arm of the State of New York entitled to claim Eleventh Amendment immunity. We conclude that it is not. I. Factual Background The background facts that follow are taken from the complaint. Plaintiff Harold Woods was first employed as a per diem substitute teacher at Rondout Valley Central High School in September 1999. Because he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTk0NTEgdyAybmQgRXJyYXRhLnBkZg==/02-9451%20w%202nd%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The primary issue is whether the work for hire doctrine applies to works created by the principal employee of a corporation that was. The Court's principal ruling was that copyrights in most of the 70 dances in dispute belong to Defendants Appellees Martha Graham Center of Contemporary Dance. Who is Graham's sole beneficiary under her will. We agree with the District Court that the work for hire doctrine was properly applied to dances created after 1966. On certain other aspects of the Court's judgment we conclude that a partial reversal or remand is required. That title is appropriate for the task this litigation presented to the District Court and now presents to this Court. The earliest account of this classic Greek myth is from Pherecydes. Many of the pertinent facts are obscured by inadequate record keeping. Graham was very successful. Initially known as the The Center was incorporated Graham Foundation for Martha Contemporary Dance. The corporation was renamed the Martha Graham Center of Contemporary Dance. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTk0NTEgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/02-9451%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The primary issue is whether the work for hire doctrine applies to works created by the principal employee of a corporation that was. The Court's principal ruling was that copyrights in most of the 70 dances in dispute belong to DefendantsAppellees Martha Graham Center of Contemporary Dance. Who is Graham's sole beneficiary under her will. We agree with the District Court that the work for hire doctrine was properly applied to dances created after 1966. On certain other aspects of the Court's judgment we conclude that a partial reversal or remand is required. That title is appropriate for the task this litigation presented to the District Court and now presents to this Court. The earliest account of this classic Greek myth is from Pherecydes. Many of the pertinent facts are obscured by inadequate record keeping. Graham was very successful. The Center was incorporated in Initially known as the Martha Graham Foundation for Contemporary Dance. The corporation was renamed the Martha Graham Center of Contemporary Dance. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTkzNjFfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-9361_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Before us are (1) an interlocutory appeal by the Republic of Austria. We are asked by the Republic of Austria and by the United States and the American Council for Equal Compensation of Nazi Victims from Austria. Which is reported to be the sole remaining obstacle to the implementation of a fund to compensate Austrian Jewish victims of the Nazi regime for Holocaust related property deprivations. Circuit Judge: We are asked by the Republic of Austria and by the United States and the American Council for Equal Compensation of Nazi Victims from Austria. Which is reported to be the sole remaining obstacle to the implementation of a fund to compensate Austrian Jewish victims of the Nazi regime for Holocaust related property deprivations. That fund was created in 2001 pursuant to an executive agreement between the United States and Austria. Other Austrian entities arises from sweeping confiscations of property that were part of the systematic Nazi victimization of Austrian Jews between 1938 and 1945. We are reminded of the words of Judah Gribetz. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/93opinions/93-5067.html">PRESEAULT V. U.S. </A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTY2ODVfc28ucGRm/04-6685_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTY2ODVfc28ucGRm/04-6685_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054728np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred in granting a motion to dismiss for failure to join indispensable parties who were signatories of the two agreements at issue in this case. We will affirm the dismissal. Who are familiar with the factual context and the procedural history of the case. We will set forth only those facts necessary to our analysis. Dickson is the sole owner and President of Yacht Sales. Inc. is owned by Carson R. Roberts is no longer a party to this dispute because Dickson and Yacht Sales voluntarily dismissed their claim against Mr. 2005. 2 1 the Agreement are all of these corporations. Both of these agreements provide that they are governed by North Carolina law and lawsuits under the Boat Agreement must be brought in North Carolina courts. Dickson is a citizen of Pennsylvania and Yacht Sales is a Pennsylvania corporation. Every other corporation that signed the two agreements are North Carolina corporations. Carson Davis and Barbara Davis are citizens of North Carolina. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982446.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. I. Pamela Dickson is a shareholder of Schmidt Baking Company (Schmidt or the Company). The stockholders of Schmidt were composed of three groups: the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0140p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> This case requires us to decide whether an affiliated group of corporations filing a consolidated federal income tax return is entitled to a 10 year carryback for certain </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-7072a.html">MICHAEL H. HOLLAND V. WILLIAMS MOUNTAIN COAL COMPANY </A> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0134n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> All three argue the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support their convictions. Carl Woodman adds two other arguments that he was denied due process and a downward sentencing departure. That Carl Woodman was not denied due process. All three were convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States. That a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. A. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0378p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Claiming that the cooperatives ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991861.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. I. Raleigh C & T is a corporation located in Raleigh. The plans were amended and restated in 1986. RCV Tech was a corporation formed by Drs. These two doctors were the sole shareholders and officers of RCV Tech. The two corporations were separate corporate entities. Davis and Chaudhry began employment discussions with Lopriore in October 1987 because they were interested in his perfusion services.2 Lopriore was hired to work for RCV Tech at a salary of $36. Inc. is not a party to this appeal. No contributions were made to the Raleigh C & T plans on Lopriore's behalf until 1991. Contributions were then made by Raleigh C & T on Lopriore's behalf for the years 1991. The following terms from the 1986 Master Plan were in force at Raleigh C & T: Section 18.1 Multiple Employers. (a) General. If the employers sponsoring the Plan are all corporations that are members of the same </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-5087.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> With him on the brief were Melvin C. Of counsel on the brief was Thomas R. With him on the brief were Stuart E. The plaintiffs argue that the 1993 legislation breached the contract because it changed the tax laws to abrogate tax benefits to which they were entitled at the time the contract was executed and because the legislation specifically targeted the benefits they enjoyed under the contract. Holding that under the pre 1993 tax laws they were entitled to the tax benefits in question and that * Paul R. The plaintiffs have cross appealed from the court's denial of their request for additional damages. Fixed rate mortgages created when interest rates were low. The acquisition was effected through a contract between FSLIC. FSLIC bound itself to make assistance payments to Texas Trust in an amount equal to the difference between the book basis of the covered assets and the value of those assets when they were sold or written down. The Consolidated Group expected to be able to take deductions for the built in losses on the covered assets as those assets were liquidated or written down. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-2098.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A> Concluding that many of the DCFS employees were entitled to absolute or qualified immunity. Was not a state actor. They have reasonable cause to believe that a child may be abused or neglected. If the person who is alleged to have caused the abuse or neglect is employed or otherwise engaged in an activity resulting in frequent contact with children and the alleged abuse or neglect are in the course of such employment or activity. Once DCFS informs a licensed child care facility that one of its employees is the subject of a DCFS formal investigation. State law mandates that the employer </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="388"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-30375.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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. R. 47.5.4. 2 * The defendants were convicted by a jury on various offenses related to their participation in a major drug distribution enterprise. Pearson was represented by counsel. The Browns were each sentenced to life imprisonment. Who was 3 charged only on the conspiracy count and one drug distribution count. Consolidated with these appeals is the appeal of Betty L. Tongula Facts relevant to each of the various Veal are pro se on appeal. appellants are set forth separately below. CHRISTOPHER BROWN Christopher Brown's sole issue on appeal is whether he validly waived his right to the assistance of counsel at trial. Christopher Brown was represented by his own retained attorney. 2001. 4 The defendant appeared before the magistrate judge on November 7 without a lawyer and said that he was unaware that he had been ordered to obtain new counsel. Which was separate from the prosecution. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0217p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> When defendant appellant Lummie Sanders was convicted of two firearm offenses and sentenced to 37 months imprisonment. Sanders was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and for making a false statement in acquiring a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6). The district court ruled that the 1972 conviction was constitutionally infirm. The district court should have considered the 1972 assault conviction in its determination of whether to sentence under the ACCA. The district court determined that involuntary manslaughter was a violent felony for the purposes of the ACCA. The case was remanded once again for resentencing. Arguing that Custis did not foreclose him from attacking his predicate convictions and that his 1972 assault conviction was constitutionally infirm. He was released from custody. Sanders' petition for rehearing was denied in January 2000 and the Supreme Court denied certiorari in March 2000. Which was received and docketed by the district court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2000/97-4845.ma2.html">OPINION/ORDER</A> We AFFIRM the finding that Griffith's tax debts are nondischargeable. <CENTER>I. The amount of taxes owed at the time that Griffith filed for bankruptcy in this case was close to $2. Was incorporated. Assets from another corporation that he owned were transferred to NuWave. The assets transferred pursuant to the antenuptial agreement were insulated from being levied upon because assets held by tenants in the entirety cannot be levied upon without a judgment against both owners. The government argued that the tax debts were nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(C). Although there was no evasion with respect to the assessment of the tax. The court held that the phrase </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept96/95-6198.opa.html">REDWING CARRIERS, INC. V. SARALAND APTS. </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Redwing Carriers. Redwing sued the Appellees claiming they are liable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. (Saraland) Site is a 5.1 acre parcel of land located within the southern Alabama community of Saraland. Redwing was in the business of hauling materials used in construction and other industries. Trucks were cleaned out. The ground at the Site became contaminated with hazardous chemicals which have combined to form a black. Bolton were partners in Saraland Limited. Meador completed construction of the Saraland Apartments complex in May 1974. Construction of the complex was subsidized by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to provide low income housing. Marcrum denies Redwing's claim that the company is the daily. The complex's parking lot was repaved. Coit and Roar are responsible for managing the business of the Partnership. Meador were liable under </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTYxNTNfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-6153_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Defendants submit that the district court's ruling as to antitrust standing was correct and that dismissal was further warranted for lack of personal jurisdiction and venue. Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs appellants are licensed physicians who practice or had practiced emergency medicine throughout the United States although they did not complete formal residency training programs in that specialty. Defendants insist that the case was properly dismissed not only for lack of antitrust standing but also for lack of personal jurisdiction and venue in the Western District of New York. We conclude that such a transfer is not in the interests of justice in this case because the plaintiffs lack antitrust standing to pursue their claims. American Board of Emergency Medicine Defendant ABEM is a Michigan not for profit corporation that was established in 6 1976 to certify physicians in emergency medicine. Staff are located in East Lansing. ABEM is a member of the American Board of Medical Specialties ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1210.html">U.S. SHOE CORP. V. U.S. </A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971325.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Did allow the jury to decide whether Marathon and Emro's actions were unfair trade practices. I Havird is a gasoline retailer or </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/00-1040.htm">00-1040 -- WELLS V. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER -- 07/02/2001 </A> The East Steps </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1053.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Sherman and Sullivan & Worcester were on brief for Bernardo Nadal Ginard. Were on brief for Boston Children's Heart Foundation. Bernardo Nadal Ginard was alleged to have misappropriated the funds of the corporation of which he had served as both an officer and director. BACKGROUND Plaintiff appellee BCHF is a non profit corporation organized for the purposes of conducting medical research in the field of cardiology and providing medical services to patients at Boston Children's Hospital ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug96/95-4120.wpd.html">RUPP V. MARKGRAF </A> The cashier's check was purchased using Cowboy funds and it stated on its face that it was purchased by Cowboy Enterprises. This address was not Cowboy's business address. Davis was living at the time. The cashier's check was delivered to the Markgrafs. Which was later converted to a Chapter 7 liquidation. The trustee brought this adversary proceeding in 1993 alleging that the transfer was fraudulent and seeking its avoidance and recovery against the Markgrafs under 11 U.S.C. 544(b) & 550. Was the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug95/93-1498.html">ROSENBAUM V. MACALLISTER </A> In this appeal we are asked to determine whether the district court abused its discretion in awarding plaintiffs' counsel $2. An unnamed class member who is also a US West shareholder. The first issue on appeal is whether Russell has standing to appeal the district court's fee award to plaintiffs' counsel. We hold that he does have standing. The complaint was later amended to add another plaintiff. The district court determined that the class members and current shareholders were given adequate notice as required by Rules 23 and 23.1. Approved the settlement after finding it was fair. Asserting that the attorney's fees award was excessive. The issue whether a class member must intervene in the underlying suit to have standing to challenge approval of a settlement has split the circuits. This court has recently joined the circuits that require intervention by a class member in a Rule 23(b)(3) case in order to have standing to appeal the district court's approval of the settlement. Is to unify and render manageable litigation in which there are many members of a homogeneous class with common claims against a defendant. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-4063.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> The Government acts in bad faith when its claim (1) is entirely without color and (2) has been asserted wantonly. [Haroldsen] has had or should have had knowledge of the content of the sales materials and sales presentations described . . . including specifically the language cited in Counts One through Sixteen. Has known or should have known that the representations described in Counts One through Sixteen were and are false and misleading. Haroldsen is. Defendants also were required to submit financial statements that established their inability to pay consumer redress. Individual defendants Robert Brazell andDon Gull were officers. Defendant Kelly Haroldsen was an officer and director ofSSF. Defendants Annette Brazell and Dana Gull are thewives ofRobert Brazell andDon Gull. These transfers were the subject of counts XVII and XVIII of the complaint. Counsel and parties will be requested to report to the court throughout the day on any progress made. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTE5OTRfc28ucGRm/04-1994_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1328a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A> Durham argued the cause for appellants/cross appellees. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/034334.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> HARGROVE Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Hargrove's sentencing range would have been ten to sixteen months' imprisonment. We must sustain the verdict if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Is the longstanding rule that when a jury returns a general verdict on an indictment charging several acts in the conjunctive. The verdict stands if the evidence is sufficient with respect to any one of the several acts charged. 56 57 (1991) (reversal not permitted where general verdict could have rested on a theory of liability without adequate evidentiary support. B. Hargrove's sufficiency of the evidence challenge to his conviction on Count Two for violating 18 U.S.C. § 152(3) is without merit. C. Hargrove's sufficiency of the evidence challenge to his conviction on Count Four for violating 18 U.S.C. § 1623 is without merit. Even assuming arguendo that the evidence is insufficient to support Hargrove's conviction on Count Four based upon his denial of ownership of the Flagship Way Property. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-1570_016.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Wendell Gates were indicted on a number of charges stemming from a fraudulent investment scheme. The other charges against her were eventually dropped. Gigi Zaccagnino was sentenced to 97 months in prison. Gigi Zaccagnino now appeals the sentencing court's finding that she was responsible for the entire amount of loss caused by the investment scheme. Falsely claiming that the bonds were valid security for a line of credit that could be used to buy notes in a high yield investment.1 In reality. One of those corporations was Wonder Glass Products. Gigi Zaccagnino was the secretary. Just two days after Wonder Glass was incorporated. Money from the historical bond sales was then transferred into an off shore DIR bank account. Peter Zaccagnino told them that they could make huge sums of money with the proposed investments and that he had been arranging similar investments successfully for so long that he was ready to retire. He was careful. Are listed as president and secretary of an entity that was used to deal with disgruntled investors. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/023304p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Because we conclude that Appellees have sufficient contacts with New Jersey. We will reverse. Miller Yacht was required to present a prima facie case that jurisdiction existed. Miller Yacht is a New Jersey corporation with its principal offices in South Toms River. Are not New Jersey residents or corporations. Miller Yacht and Appellees began negotiating a deal that was intended to allow the Appellees to become exclusive marketing representatives and dealers for some of Miller Yacht's boats. Appellees stress their argument that they were each acting in their individual corporate or personal capacities and that their contacts with New Jersey should be analyzed separately. While they are correct that. Miller Yacht alleges that Steven Smith and Ivan Bogachoff were acting as partners while they negotiated with Miller Yacht. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/07/972247P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D4D127794750EEF288256C050053AFED/$file/0017355.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Is amended as follows: At slip op. 8609. Is DENIED. Circuit Judge: We hold that an unincorporated Indian tribe such as appellee is not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1206.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Epstein with whom Spillane & Epstein was on brief for Joao Carreiro. Mahoney & Miller were on brief for Main Machinery Company and H. Fine with whom Licht & Semonoff was on brief for Barry G. Fox was on brief for The Robbins Company. Whose wife Teresa was killed while operating a machine press at The Robbins Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2000/97-4845.ma2.html">OPINION/ORDER</A> We AFFIRM the finding that Griffith's tax debts are nondischargeable. <CENTER>I. The amount of taxes owed at the time that Griffith filed for bankruptcy in this case was close to $2. Was incorporated. Assets from another corporation that he owned were transferred to NuWave. The assets transferred pursuant to the antenuptial agreement were insulated from being levied upon because assets held by tenants in the entirety cannot be levied upon without a judgment against both owners. The government argued that the tax debts were nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(C). Although there was no evasion with respect to the assessment of the tax. The court held that the phrase </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jul1998/98a1901p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Which was designed to reduce the accumulation of wax in the shafts of oil wells. One of which was Pennzoil's refinery in Pennsylvania. We will reverse and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. Pennzoil is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in Texas. The two Colelli entities are Ohio corporations with principal places of business in Ohio. Colelli is in the oil well maintenance business. Approximately sixty percent of the Penn grade and Corning grade crude oil produced by the Ohio producers was sold and shipped to Pennsylvania refineries. One of these was Pennzoil's Rouseville refinery. The other was a refinery owned by Witco in Bradford. The remaining oil was sold to a refinery in West Virginia. Once the issue was brought to his attention. The other defendants are Ohio corporations with principal places of business in Ohio. Which was granted. The two appeals have been consolidated. Although the propriety of personal jurisdiction is in dispute. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200315917.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Comcast alleged that it is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D840671383736FD388256BD700817DFF/$file/0017355.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: We hold that an unincorporated Indian tribe such as appellee is not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1998/98a1935p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Venue is proper pursuant to 26 U.S.C. We will reverse the Tax Court's decision. Leaving a will which provided that its </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042198np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Healthcare is outside the purview of the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act of 1974 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042744p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Barbara Schwartz Lee and Bernard Lee This appeal was argued before the panel of Chief Judge Scirica. The quorum was reconstituted to include Judge Smith and Judge Stapleton after the elevation of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court and the death of Judge Rosenn. The case was reargued before the reconstituted panel on April 26. At issue in this World War II reparations case is whether a suit seeking additional funds for victims of Nazi era wrongs is justiciable. We will reverse and remand. Legal redress was largely unavailable to 6 the victims of these crimes for nearly half a century1 because their claims against the German government and German companies were barred or deferred by various international agreements and treaties. The treaty was silent on the issue of private individuals' war related claims against the German government and German companies. The seventeen founding members were Allianz AG. Leading negotiations on the German side were Chancellor Schroeder's Envoy and Chief German Negotiator. The goal was to create a foundation (a reparations fund) to compensate Nazi era victims and to fund ongoing projects to prevent religious and ethnic intolerance in Germany. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1506.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Marcaccio and Blish & Cavanagh were on brief for plaintiffs. These cross appeals are from orders of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island dismissing the respective claims of plaintiffs and defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs are two entities wholly controlled by Carl Acebes. Defendants are Richard N. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D971661C3CE8DF6488256C1E00030FEF/$file/0115963.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Once those contracts were canceled. It dismissed the federal antitrust claims on the ground that the Postal Service was protected by sovereign immunity from antitrust liability. It determined that the claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was a tort claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. That claim was properly dismissed because it is preempted by federal law. (6) venue for the Postal Service Procurement Manual claim was properly laid in the Northern District of California. Which provides in relevant part that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/05/962612P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Unless the Concluding that MCCL has standing to challenge the regulation and the dispute is The HONORABLE RICHARD H. That fund is then regulated as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1238.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Public employees are categorized as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb99/96-4577.ma2.html">LYES V. CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH (2/11/1999, NO. 96-4577) </A> The first is whether women are a protected class for 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) purposes. So that a sex based conspiracy against women is actionable under that provision. We hold that they are and it is. At least where they involve state action. The second issue concerns the test applicable for deciding whether the employees of two employers are to be aggregated for determining if the minimum number of employees exist for Title VII coverage. In which the employers are always private entities. Is not applicable to those Title VII cases in which the employers are state and local government entities. One which presumes public entities that are separate under state law will not be aggregated for Title VII purposes. By showing either: 1) that the state's purpose for separating the entities under state law was to evade Title VII. Or 2) that the entities are so closely related with respect to the fundamental aspects of employment relationships that the presumption in favor of the state law's denomination is clearly outweighed. Applying that test to the public entity that employed the plaintiff in this case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043849np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Before us is an appeal by William G. Those companies were the subject of an involuntary bankruptcy proceeding under Chapter 7. Fiorillo had advised Miners Fuel Companies that because of this potential conflict of interest they would have to find substitute counsel immediately after the emergency proceedings. Before substitute counsel was appointed. Noting that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043934np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Alito heard oral argument in this case but was elevated to the United States Supreme Court on January 31. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). **Honorable Alan D. Because Rozenkier's claims are nonjusticiable under the political question doctrine. Was subjected to inhumane Nazi medical experimentation while he was imprisoned at the Auschwitz Birkenau concentration camps. He was forced to undergo injections of unknown chemical substances into his 3 testicles causing swelling and bleeding of his genitalia. He married but was unable to have children. When Rozenkier learned definitively that his </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1997/97a1569p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> The purpose of this rule is to give top corporate managers an incentive to use available corporate funds for the payment of wages and benefits rather than for some other purpose. The issue raised by this case is what happens when their company files a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition and the employees seek to recover from the corporate managers for unpaid vacation and retirement benefits that were allegedly earned in the pre petition period. Is whether. The company's managers have no discretion to order payment of the amounts owed to the employees. I. The Shenango Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/04/962154P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> I. This case was submitted to the Tax Court on the basis of a fully stipulated record that provides the following salient facts. The Broadaways and the Camerons are shareholders in Cameron Construction Company (the Company) which operated and paid taxes as a Subchapter C corporation. All references to the Internal Revenue Code are to the 1988 edition of Title 26 of the United States Code. Which is applicable to the tax years in dispute. We have disregarded amendments effective after December 31. The total income from a contract is recognized. The total costs of performance are deducted. In the taxable year in which the contract is completed. The Company was required to maintain an earnings dividends. and profits account from which distributions to Company shareholders including the Broadaways and the Camerons would be taxed as See I.R.C. § 316(a). Was required under I.R.C. § 312(n)(6) to account for its long term construction contracts under the percentage of completion method of accounting.5 The dispute in this case flows from the Company's election pursuant to I.R.C. § 1362(a) to switch from Subchapter C status and to be taxed as a Subchapter S corporation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052378np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> We will affirm the judgment of the District Court. Anthony DePaul and Donna DePaul Bartynski are directors and officers of the St. Inc. and will be referred to collectively as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-2193.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054661p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> We will reverse and remand with instructions to dismiss Fasano's Complaint. Federal Reserve Banks Because the nature of Federal Reserve Banks is at issue in this case. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1995/94a0939p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Sr. contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to find him liable of the RICO predicate acts of aiding and abetting mail fraud. Sr. and Mark ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054882p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> We encounter an appeal where just about everyone appears to have behaved badly. This is such a case. Myers was the president and sole shareholder. The couple was involved in the operations of AWI and earned income from it. Myers and AWI were the only remaining defendants. Myers was not present in court for this announcement. Who were both present. The day before the state court was to render its judgment. A preliminary injunction hearing before the same state court was scheduled for August 13. Their attorney was present and asserted that Mrs. The state court stated that it was aware of Mrs. It was appropriate to pierce the corporate veil of AWI and hold Mrs. The CP Court decreed that judgment was entered against Mrs. Will be [entered against her] in her individual capacity when the stay is lifted. Myers were not present in court to witness 5 these events. Myers was current on all of her debts other than her obligations to SMS. Myers and her husband were incarcerated for civil contempt by the CP Court until they could each pay $5. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982380.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The issue on appeal is whether. These five group members' product liability expenses are properly characterized as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/03/98-4180.htm">98-4180 -- PEAY V. BELLSOUTH MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PLAN -- 03/06/2000 </A> 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-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199712/97-1218a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> With him on the briefs was Steven A. With him on the brief were William E. General Counsel at the time the brief was filed. With him on the brief was Evan M. Are posed by a provision in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. 1996 unless the company was already in that market. I There is no need to repeat the description. 000 customers and is the second largest provider of alarm services in the country. We are con cerned here with 47 U.S.C. s 275(a): (a) Delayed entry into alarm monitoring (1) Prohibition No Bell operating company or affiliate thereof shall engage in the provision of alarm monitoring services before the date which is 5 years after February 8. Of alarm monitoring services by a Bell operating company that was engaged in providing alarm monitoring services as of November 30. Asked the Federal Communica tions Commission to issue an order to show cause why Ameritech's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/01/99-6059.htm">99-6059 -- PATTERSON V. SPEARS -- 01/31/2000 </A> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This appeal arises out of an adversary proceeding commenced by Appellee Kenneth Spears. Who is Denton's mother. The matter was tried to the bankruptcy court along with another adversary proceeding commenced by one of Denton's creditors. So the alleged oral revocation of the trust was of no effect. Who was the trustee of the spendthrift trust. Claims that she had contributed virtually all of the corpus of the trust and that the trust was revoked. Both parties agree that all the issues raised on appeal are governed by Oklahoma law. We note that our review of this appeal was hindered by Patterson's failure to comply with 10th . Which requires her to refer to the specific places in the record where each issue was raised and ruled on. That the trust was revoked by oral consent of all the interested parties in the early 1990s. Because Oklahoma's Trust Act requires the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5111.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> With him on the brief were William H. With her on the brief were Eileen J. This loss was generated by Coltec's selling of high basis stock for a relatively low price. BACKGROUND I In 1996 Coltec was a publicly traded company with numerous subsidiaries. Which were a prerequisite for this type of transaction. Asbestos was widely used in the manufacture of a variety of products. Manufacturers and distributors of asbestos products have faced a flood of claims from workers and other individuals who subsequently suffered from asbestos related diseases. Coltec was at risk from the asbestos problem. Corporate veil piercing claims were not uncommon in asbestos cases. Has admitted that tax avoidance was one of its reasons for doing so. Coltec's first step was to rename one of its dormant subsidiaries. Coltec explicitly admits that Garrison's assumption of the asbestos liabilities was in exchange for the Stemco note. The $375 million amount was calculated to cover the estimated future asbestos liabilities of Garlock. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200512239.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Who were insured by a Mt. Both of which are dissolved Florida corporations. Muria International was not actually a named insured on the Mt. Hawley thus argued alternatively that it had no duty to defend Muria International because Muria International was not covered under the policy. Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: . . . (2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect that interest. Unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties. (b) Permissive Intervention. Upon timely application anyone may be permitted to intervene in an action: . . . (2) when an applicant's claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common. . . . In exercising its discretion the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-2224.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> 3 5 11(b)(1)(v). \ Because these provisions are similar in character to the joint\ advertising ban and because the plaintiffs lavish most of their\ attention on the latter. The\ restricted speech was neither misleading nor related to unlawful\ activity. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr98/96-8792.man.html">PACHECO DE PEREZ V. AT&T CO. (4/29/1998, NO. 96-8792) </A> Dismissed the consolidated actions under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The threshold question on appeal is whether. The district court should have remanded the case back to the Georgia state court for lack of federal jurisdiction. Although there is complete diversity among the parties. Removal of a case on diversity grounds is not permitted if one or more of the defendants is a citizen of the state in which the suit was originally filed. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Because the individual defendants in this case are Georgia citizens. That the presence of the Georgia defendants should not prevent removal of the plaintiffs' lawsuits because the Georgia defendants were fraudulently joined in order to defeat original diversity jurisdiction. The defendants further assert that federal question jurisdiction exists in this case under four alternative theories. They argue that the plaintiffs' complaint presents a substantial federal question because the plaintiffs must rely on a federal treaty to prove that they have standing to proceed in the Georgia state courts. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1086.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A> The proponents of this view argue that the federal courts are overburdened. We have little doubt that this case would have been better brought in an Indiana state court. It was the appellee that chose to file its complaint in federal court and it was that complaint which sought novel remedies. Although we are not fans of delay. It is with limited sympathy that ultimately we must certify several of the questions raised in this appeal to the Indiana Supreme Court. DFS purchased </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb99/96-4577.ma2.html">LYES V. CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH (2/11/1999, NO. 96-4577) </A> The first is whether women are a protected class for 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) purposes. So that a sex based conspiracy against women is actionable under that provision. We hold that they are and it is. At least where they involve state action. The second issue concerns the test applicable for deciding whether the employees of two employers are to be aggregated for determining if the minimum number of employees exist for Title VII coverage. In which the employers are always private entities. Is not applicable to those Title VII cases in which the employers are state and local government entities. One which presumes public entities that are separate under state law will not be aggregated for Title VII purposes. By showing either: 1) that the state's purpose for separating the entities under state law was to evade Title VII. Or 2) that the entities are so closely related with respect to the fundamental aspects of employment relationships that the presumption in favor of the state law's denomination is clearly outweighed. Applying that test to the public entity that employed the plaintiff in this case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july97/93-4713.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. ARNOLD </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Arnold and Coto were tried together before a jury and convicted on Count I for conspiracy to distribute marijuana. Appellants contend that they are entitled to a new trial based on the government's violation of Brady v. Where Goldman was being held. After appellants were sentenced. The appellants moved for a new trial on the ground that the tapes contained favorable material that should have been disclosed to the defense. The outcome of the trial would have been different. Particularly the sale of the fish cargo that was used to disguise the marijuana. The marijuana was distributed before June 1985. Because Goldman was a heavy drinker and drug user. Arnold was involved in numerous real estate transactions on Goldman's behalf in Miami and California. Goldman paid Arnold a six percent commission for handling the sale of one of Goldman's houses because of Arnold's knowledge that drug proceeds were involved in the property. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july97/93-4713.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. ARNOLD </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Arnold and Coto were tried together before a jury and convicted on Count I for conspiracy to distribute marijuana. Appellants contend that they are entitled to a new trial based on the government's violation of Brady v. Where Goldman was being held. After appellants were sentenced. The appellants moved for a new trial on the ground that the tapes contained favorable material that should have been disclosed to the defense. The outcome of the trial would have been different. Particularly the sale of the fish cargo that was used to disguise the marijuana. The marijuana was distributed before June 1985. Because Goldman was a heavy drinker and drug user. Arnold was involved in numerous real estate transactions on Goldman's behalf in Miami and California. Goldman paid Arnold a six percent commission for handling the sale of one of Goldman's houses because of Arnold's knowledge that drug proceeds were involved in the property. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C04/04-20064-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Memon </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200516659.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The appellants (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0027p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Both plaintiffs appeal and submit the following three issues for our review: · Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motions for a new trial on the basis that the jury's apportionment of fault was against the great weight of the evidence. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp. 3 Owens Corning that the complaints introduced in evidence are relevant to causation and sufficiently probative to survive Rule 403 scrutiny. We do not believe the jury was confused given the paucity of the evidence of Owens Corning's fault found in these cases and given further its decision to allocate 40% liability in the Becht case. This court reversed the district court's decision not to allow into evidence a prior complaint claiming the injuries alleged were caused by a different defendant. There is no principled reason to treat differently the allegations here. That other defendants were jointly liable. That the complaints were merely to preserve the ability to discover the proper defendant: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19968792.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> As potentially liable defendants.3 Defendant AT&T is listed as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E6F7D86C0D07E46788256DAB00804CAD/$file/0235958.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: This case is the latest round in a long simmering legal feud between an Alaska Native corporation and a municipality over ownership of land on St. The district court found that the City's claims were barred by the six year statute of limitations that Alaska law imposes on lawsuits by municipalities. Because the City's affirmative defenses are likewise barred by the statute of limitations. Windswept Pribilof Islands were one of the reasons that the United States bought Alaska from Russia in 1867. The fur seal trade on the Pribilof Islands was the only viable commercial prospect of any significance. The City was entitled to a reconveyance from TDX for certain municipal purposes. The parties' disagreement centered on the amount of land TDX was required to reconvey to the City under 43 U.S.C. § 1613(c)(3) and the use restrictions that TDX could impose on the reconveyed land. The two sides reached a settlement that was ultimately approved by the City Council at a public meeting in early 1988. The City's case was later transferred to federal court in Alaska. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct13/04-20064-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Memon </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-1117_026.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> An arbitration between Intec USA and a group of corporations controlled by Raph Engle was settled in 2003. Intec's new investors maintained in the arbitration that Engle's other ventures (IBEX Industries Ltd. and related firms) were violating covenants not to compete that Engle had given in order to induce them to buy out his interest in Intec. After concluding that Engle and his firms were not paying any more attention to the 2003 agreement than to the 1997 covenants. The 2003 settlement specifies that North Carolina's law will govern but does not include a provision consenting to litigate there. 2 No. 06 1117 Engle is a citizen of New Zealand. As are three of the seven corporate defendants. Two are citizens of Australia and one each of Brazil and the United Kingdom. They do not do business in North Carolina and denied that its courts have personal jurisdiction over them. New Zealand is the more appropriate forum: only two of Intec's potential 18 witnesses. All of the defendants have consented to be sued in New Zealand. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19968792.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Which Defendant AT&T is listed as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-3604.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A> Kestrel contends that Longwall furnished defective roof supports for a coal mine and is liable under a contract signed in 1991 between Longwall and Gordonstone Coal Management. Joy Global is a holding company that. The first two are Australian firms. Kestrel asked the court to require the four defendants that are Joy Global's subsidiaries to hand over certain documents. Writing: The subject documents are not necessary to enable a case to be pleaded. If the defendants' conduct becomes oppressive in a material way or if it appears that the lack of disclosure will prejudice the plaintiff's prospects of a fair trial. I have in mind matters such as an oppressive request for particulars or an attempt to strike out the statement of claim for want of relevant particulars. Unless the defendants complain that the complaint is defective because Kestrel has omitted details that it lacks. The documents in question are not necessary to the litigation. Have them shipped to Wisconsin. Which will cart them to Australia. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTIxNTgtY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/04-2158-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Are corporations organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of India. Is a joint venture that was created and initially owned by Usha India and defendant Honeywell International. Usha India's holdings in UAML were transferred to UIS and RKKR are therefore successors in UIS and then to RKKR. interest to Usha India with respect to UAML. Honeywell is a Delaware corporation with its principal office in New Jersey. Is a corporation Hitachi Metals organized and existing under the laws of Japan. Is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hitachi Metals. Differ from traditional metals in that they have a noncrystalline structure and possess unique physical and magnetic properties that combine strength and hardness with flexibility and toughness. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0196p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2003/02-12261.opn.html">CSX TRANSP., INC. V. CITY OF GARDEN CITY (3/27/2003, NO. 02-12261) </A> The district court granted summary judgment in favor of a municipality that had entered into such an agreement on the ground that it was ultra vires. Which are not in dispute. Were succinctly stated in our earlier opinion. His truck stalled on the tracks where it was hit by a National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) passenger train. Claiming that the indemnity agreement was void for a number of reasons. That </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/984223.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> No. 98 4223 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: John Joseph Armetta was convicted and sentenced for various offenses stemming from his involvement in a scheme to roll back odometers on motor vehicles and resell them to legitimate retailers. The charges were based on Armetta's involvement. Armetta was tried jointly with Carroll and Granata in an eight day trial in March 1996. Alami 1 launched the 1 We have already affirmed the convictions and sentences of Alami. It was not common practice for wholesalers to obtain new titles for transfers because the transferor could simply attach an assignment sheet. Became involved in the operation when he was working as a salesman at Murray's Motors. Alami testified that when he found out that Armetta was the salesman on some of his cars at Murray's. Saying that he didn't know whether the cars were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTIxNTgtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2158-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Are corporations organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of India. Is a joint venture that was created and initially owned by Usha India and defendant Honeywell International. Usha India's holdings in UAML were transferred to UIS and RKKR are therefore successors in UIS and then to RKKR. interest to Usha India with respect to UAML. Honeywell is a Delaware corporation with its principal office in New Jersey. Is a corporation Hitachi Metals organized and existing under the laws of Japan. Is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hitachi Metals. Differ from traditional metals in that they have a noncrystalline structure and possess unique physical and magnetic properties that combine strength and hardness with flexibility and toughness. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep20/04-20064-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Memon </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTQ3MDMtY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-4703-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Appellant was found guilty of five counts of bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344(1) and (2). Hoblin was a self employed accountant who prepared individual income tax returns for his clients. Who was a business development/loan officer at Fleet Bank. Knowing that the information being submitted was false and/or obtained without Hoblin's clients' permission. 000. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 As each loan was nearing approval. A bank account was opened for each entity. each account: Two persons were designated to issue checks on on four of the accounts Vitale (or a relative of Vitale's) and the person in whose name the loan application had been submitted were authorized to draw on the funds. A relative of Hoblin's was named along with the unwitting </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0897n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> This is an appeal from the district court's order granting appellees' motion for summary judgment. Sitting by designation. * refusal was not triggered. It also argues that the order dismissing the counterclaim in its entirety was overly broad. Shall at any time desire to sell the demised premises and shall have received a bona fide written offer for the purchase thereof. The Tenant shall thereupon have the right . . . to purchase the interest of the then landlord or owner at the same price and on the same terms as the offer. . . Were to trigger this right of first refusal. Paragraph 25 goes on to state: [S]uch right of first refusal shall not be applicable in the event of a sale or transfer of the demised premises by the Landlord (as the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0293p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Challenging the validity of certain state tax credits and local property tax abatements that were granted to DaimlerChrysler Corporation as an inducement to the company to expand its business operations in Toledo. The total value of the tax incentives was estimated to be $280 million. Provided that the new manufacturing machinery and equipment are installed in [Ohio]. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-6293.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> O'Brien. This case is the latest in a long running dispute between Moshe Tal. The powers of an urban renewal authority are exercised by commissioners. 11 Okla. One statutory requirement is that the plan allow private developers the opportunity to obtain redevelopment contracts. 11 Okla. The Bricktown redevelopment plan was amended in 1997 as the MAPS <hr> Sports Entertainment Parking Support Redevelopment Plan. The City's intended use was public parking. Which was modified on October 2. The final decision was made by the City Council only after two years of public meetings. Inc.'s land had been impermissibly taken for private use and the redevelopment contract was awarded amid </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0356a-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Challenging the validity of certain state tax credits and local property tax abatements that were granted to DaimlerChrysler Corporation as an inducement to the company to expand its business operations in Toledo. The total value of the tax incentives was estimated to be $280 million. Provided that the new manufacturing machinery and equipment are installed in [Ohio]. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0004n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Marsh Citizens for a Strong Ohio ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2073.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Mann with whom Mann & Mitchell was on brief for appellant Joseph Cassiere. Fishman & Leonard were on brief for appellant Janet Dolber. Was on brief for appellee. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200006/99-1198a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> With him on the briefs were Jerold L. With her on the brief were Christopher J. The FCC took those actions after the licensees' sole owner and president was convicted of sexually abusing children. The case is no more difficult than this recitation of the facts suggests. Have an application pending for another Missouri station. Michael Rice is the sole share holder. Rice was arrested for criminal conduct involving sexual acts with a teenager. He was formally charged with three felony counts of sexual assault on an individual between fourteen and sixteen years of age. Two days after the charges were filed. The reports were filed pursuant to 47 C.F.R. s 165(a). Rice is being completely insulated and excluded from any involvement in the managerial. Rice was discharged from the hospital. Rice is no longer hospitalized. He continues to have no managerial or policy role in the affairs of the three broadcast corpora tions ... in which he has ownership interests and corpo rate positions. Rice was convicted of all twelve felony counts against him: four counts of forcible sodomy. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5037.html">SHELL PETROLEUM, INC V. U.S. </A> Argued for plaintiff appellant. Of counsel on the brief were Charles W. New York. Of counsel was Nancy T. Argued for defendant appellee. With him on the brief were Eileen J. Appeal the decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims granting summary judgment to the United States. The court held that Shell was not entitled to a tax refund for calendar years 1988 and 1989 under the Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act ( COWPTA ). 1992. Because we conclude that Shell is precluded from disputing that hydrocarbons produced by enhanced recovery techniques in use prior to April 2. Are crude oil as opposed to tar sand oil under § . Because there is an absence of evidence that Shell recovered hydrocarbons by any means other than enhanced recovery techniques available in 1980. Line height:200%'>Crude oil is generally extracted through wells from underground reservoir formations of sand or rock containing tiny pore spaces permeated with oil. To be recoverable. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/08/96-3166.htm">96-3166 -- FLOYD V. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE -- 08/10/1998 </A> Circuit Judge. <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1056.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> The pegs are square. The holes are round. The fit is inexact. The obvious bar to arbitrability is the abecedarian tenet that a party cannot be forced to arbitrate if it has not agreed to do so. The facts are not disputed. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0297p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> I BACKGROUND VTC is an Ohio corporation that was formed on December 5. Mary Ann Rabin was appointed Chapter 11 Operating Trustee for VTC. VTC confessed that it was unwilling or unable to litigate to determine which of the two plans would survive the confirmation process. The parties met to determine whether it was more appropriate to sell VTC's assets pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363 (providing that the bankruptcy trustee may use. Provided that: (1) the bankruptcy court would have confirmed the plan at least 11 days prior to that date. (3) the confirmation order would not have been vacated. [would] have been satisfied or waived. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/09/006059P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> We have jurisdiction over this appeal from the final order of the bankruptcy court. A company where they were both employed. At the time NMS was formed. There was no formal contract or documentation setting forth the structure of NMS. Innovative Software Designs Inc. are equally owned by the following persons: James Bombardo Henry F. There is no evidence that ISD ever issued any stock to Kimmons. There are no other documents or corporate resolutions from any of the three subject corporations implementing the alleged equal ownership agreement between Kimmons. Inc. was not formally incorporated until January of 1995. 2 December 20. Only Kimmons and Camacho were left inside the original partnership. The IRS was pursuing collection efforts against him. Kimmons was experiencing marital problems. Kimmons' marriage was dissolved on December 12. Ceased doing business and was eventually dissolved by the Secretary of State on September 25. Kimmons was fired by Blue Cross. Criminal charges were filed against Kimmons which are still 3 Kimmons' 1998 tax return also fails to indicate any ownership interest in ISD. 3 pending. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0348p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Which denied her claim because it found that she was not an employee for the purposes of the whistleblower provisions of the Energy Reorganization Act. Because we agree that Petitioner was not an employee of Defendant Intervener Indiana Michigan Power Company (I & M). DOL Page 2 BACKGROUND Petitioner Demski was the president and sole shareholder of two different corporations. (The corporations are hereinafter referred to as ANR/Scope). The terms of the agreements expressly provided that ANR/Scope were not agents or employees of I & M. She did not have an I & M supervisor. She did have two offices at the Cook plant. Two other managers of ANR/Scope were responsible for overseeing the day to day management of the contracts. Without determining whether she was an employee. Dismissed Petitioner's claims against AEP and substituted I & M as a party because I & M was the legal holder of the licenses for the Cook plant. The ALJ also ruled that ANR/Scope were improperly listed as complainants because. The ALJ ruled that Petitioner was not a covered employee because she was not an employee as the common law defined the term.2 Additionally under Nationwide Mut. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1744.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> With whom </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1759.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Odell & Calabria were on brief for appellants. Bobonis & Rodriguez Poventud and Roberto Corretjer Piquer were on brief for appellees. Inc. (hereinafter </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2241.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Levinson LLP was on brief. P.C. were on brief. Because the charitable organization was still functioning as such at the time its entitlement to the bequest vested. BACKGROUND </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/May2004/May11/03-20849-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Is a wholly owned subsidiary of Teal Energy. Its only domestic office is located in Houston. GT is a Nevada corporation that supplies seismic information and funding for land acquisition. The two cases were then consolidated into a single action. The case was assigned to a magistrate judge after both parties consented to trial before her. Both were citizens of Texas for diversity purposes. As the portion of the court's order remanding the Hildago County action is nonreviewable. PRO. 12(b)(1). 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). 3 2 The district court found that both Teal USA's and GT's principal places of business were in Texas. factual determinations for clear error.3 III. LAW AND ANALYSIS We review these Section 1332(a) provides that a corporation is a citizen of both its state of incorporation and the state of its principal place of business for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.4 Teal USA argues that the court erred in finding that the situs of its principal place of business was Texas rather than Canada. It argues that the court erred in determining that GT's principal place of business was Texas. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2002/004318.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> American Depositary Receipts ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2002/012862up.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: Before me is a motion under Rule 29(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae over the opposition of the appellants. Because it appears that the criteria set out in Rule 29(b) are met. That the amici have a sufficient </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199910983.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> This declaratory judgment action presents important issues of Florida law that have not been directly addressed by the Supreme Court of Florida. We believe the issues are appropriate for resolution by Florida's highest court and defer our decision in this case pending certification of the issues to the Supreme Court of Florida. Whether such allegations constitute an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2002/994069.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Harry Kradel was injured in 1994 while operating a forage harvester. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania based on diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C. Hiniker is not liable because it does not fall within the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Mar2002/004302mo.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> I. Introduction Much of the factual background of this lawsuit is described in the related case. By the time Fryer's scheme was exposed. Bayer was the sole defendant remaining when the Lakens' suit came to trial on November 16. Bayer created the impression that he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011324.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. *This appeal was initially assigned to a panel consisting of Judge Traxler. Senior Judge Baldock was unable to hear and participate in oral argument. By consent of the parties this appeal was heard and determined by a quorum of the assigned panel. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. He contends that a default judgment entered against one of SunSport's shareholders was erroneously modified. While it was initially successful. Due largely to the fact that it was seeking to develop its own high pressure tanning bed. The principal officers and directors of SunSport were the same as the UltraBronz management. A significant part of these problems was that Barclay Leisure initiated trade dress litigation against SunSport. The sale of SunSport's assets to Gilcom was consummated on March 7 and 8. SunSport's assets were valued at $327. This marketplace confusion was exacerbated by Gilcom's continuing use of SunSport's phone numbers. The Complaint alleged that Gilcom and Simply Tan were alter ego corporations of SunSport and that the unity of ownership and control between the individual and corporate defendants required that the corporate forms be disregarded. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept96/95-6198.opa.html">REDWING CARRIERS, INC. V. SARALAND APTS. </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Redwing Carriers. Redwing sued the Appellees claiming they are liable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response. (Saraland) Site is a 5.1 acre parcel of land located within the southern Alabama community of Saraland. Redwing was in the business of hauling materials used in construction and other industries. Trucks were cleaned out. The ground at the Site became contaminated with hazardous chemicals which have combined to form a black. Bolton were partners in Saraland Limited. Meador completed construction of the Saraland Apartments complex in May 1974. Construction of the complex was subsidized by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to provide low income housing. Marcrum denies Redwing's claim that the company is the daily. The complex's parking lot was repaved. Coit and Roar are responsible for managing the business of the Partnership. Meador were liable under </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2004/031511p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> A Pennsylvania insurance company that was already in financial difficulty. The stocks were found to be worthless. Though the stocks were essentially worthless. I. Appellants Michael Miller and Philip Rennert were convicted by a jury of conspiracy. Appellant George Jensen was convicted by a jury of securities fraud. Are set forth in our earlier opinion in United States v. We repeat only such details as are necessary to decide the issues before us in this appeal. reinsurance regulations that require u n l i c e n s e d o f f s h o r e r e i n s u r a n ce companies. The Teale Network was Forum Rothmore's sole client. Forum Rothmore was the Teale Network's only consistent source of assets. Jensen was at various times in control of and president of Ecotech. Although Ecotech's shares were virtually wo rthless. Was corporate counsel for Forum Rothmore and a shareholder in Ecotech. The Ecotech stock at issue was not tradeable and carried a restrictive legend to that effect. The Government submitted evidence that Miller was paid $130. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2003/012394p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The sole issue raised by defendant Andrew Lutyk is whether the record of a non jury trial justified piercing the corporate veil of the American Elevator Company to impose personal liability on him as its sole shareholder for unpaid contributions the corporation owed to health. We will affirm. I. Defendant Andrew Lutyk was the president. American was obligated to make monthly contributions to various benefit and pension funds. American was also required to make certain wage deductions from the employees' salaries. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200204/01-7071a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> With him on the briefs was Peter J. With him on the brief were Roscoe C. Mitchell were on the brief for appellee Envirovac. The National Railroad Passenger Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2002/012662.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> We have concluded contrary to the District Court of the Virgin Islands. There is no statutory or decisional bar preventing restitution from being ordered when the defendant must also serve time in prison and is not on probation. It is the obligation of the sentencing court to order restitution providing. Restitution and the amount thereof is deemed appropriate. Was sentenced to 27 years and $13. 2000.1 The issue presented in this appeal is whether the Territorial Court may order a convicted defendant to pay restitution without first sentencing him to probation. We will hold that it may. We will therefore reverse the Appellate Division's judgment vacating the order of restitution. In the inquiry we have recognized in Government of the Virgin Islands v. The particulars of his crimes are not relevant to this appeal. So they will not be repeated in detail here. Marsham was charged with seven counts of third degree burglary. Which will be addressed by a subsequent panel of this Court. We consider whether we have jurisdiction to hear this case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2002/002525.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The Companies argue that the Act is unconstitutional as applied to them pursuant to Eastern Enterprises v. We conclude that the assignments are not unconstitutional as applied. It will be helpful to explain the historical background and context of this dispute. I. THE COAL ACT The Coal Act was enacted in 1992 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/September2004/023304p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Because we conclude that Appellees have sufficient contacts with New Jersey. We will reverse. Miller Yacht was required to present a prima facie case that jurisdiction existed. Miller Yacht is a New Jersey corporation with its principal offices in South Toms River. Are not New Jersey residents or corporations. Miller Yacht and Appellees began negotiating a deal that was intended to allow the Appellees to become exclusive marketing representatives and dealers for some of Miller Yacht's boats. Appellees stress their argument that they were each acting in their individual corporate or personal capacities and that their contacts with New Jersey should be analyzed separately. While they are correct that. Miller Yacht alleges that Steven Smith and Ivan Bogachoff were acting as partners while they negotiated with Miller Yacht. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991089.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Goldstein alleges that he was suspended and later terminated from Chestnut Ridge based on the substance of his speech. We must first determine whether Chestnut Ridge's decisions to suspend and to terminate him were under color of law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Is a state actor. We do so because Chestnut Ridge is: (1) carrying out functions. Chestnut Ridge is a state actor whose actions must comport with the First Amendment.1 However. Which is protected speech. Goldstein cannot establish that his protected speech was a substantial factor in Chestnut Ridge's decisions to take adverse employment actions against him. Goldstein was suspended from the company on March 15. His suspension was upheld by a vote of the Executive Committee. Goldstein was terminated from the company. Holding that Chestnut Ridge is a state actor for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.2 See Goldstein v. Summary judgment is appropriate only </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr98/96-8792.man.html">PACHECO DE PEREZ V. AT&T CO. (4/29/1998, NO. 96-8792) </A> Dismissed the consolidated actions under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The threshold question on appeal is whether. The district court should have remanded the case back to the Georgia state court for lack of federal jurisdiction. Although there is complete diversity among the parties. Removal of a case on diversity grounds is not permitted if one or more of the defendants is a citizen of the state in which the suit was originally filed. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Because the individual defendants in this case are Georgia citizens. That the presence of the Georgia defendants should not prevent removal of the plaintiffs' lawsuits because the Georgia defendants were fraudulently joined in order to defeat original diversity jurisdiction. The defendants further assert that federal question jurisdiction exists in this case under four alternative theories. They argue that the plaintiffs' complaint presents a substantial federal question because the plaintiffs must rely on a federal treaty to prove that they have standing to proceed in the Georgia state courts. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4070.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> Jackson is the principal shareholder of Great Basin Companies. We conclude that we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and AFFIRM the decisions of the district court. (Volvo) and were initially successful in doing so. Jackson was expressly named the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2002/013773u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> While he was using a gasoline powered saw that was manufactured and sold by Stihl. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291. We will affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the underlying facts. Plaintiffs argue that Stihl is liable for the manufacturing and sale of the Stihl Model TS 350 cut off saw ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199910983.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> This declaratory judgment action presents important issues of Florida law that have not been directly addressed by the Supreme Court of Florida. We believe the issues are appropriate for resolution by Florida's highest court and defer our decision in this case pending certification of the issues to the Supreme Court of Florida. Whether such allegations constitute an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2003/02-12261.opn.html">CSX TRANSP., INC. V. CITY OF GARDEN CITY (3/27/2003, NO. 02-12261) </A> The district court granted summary judgment in favor of a municipality that had entered into such an agreement on the ground that it was ultra vires. Which are not in dispute. Were succinctly stated in our earlier opinion. His truck stalled on the tracks where it was hit by a National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) passenger train. Claiming that the indemnity agreement was void for a number of reasons. That </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2038.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were on brief. Were on brief. The district court concluded that the principles of direct and derivative liability under CERCLA articulated in Bestfoods would not have altered that original judgment. United States v. Kayser Roth Corp.. Stamina Mills was a wholly owned subsidiary of Kayser Roth.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1996/96a1351p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> When the site was owned by R&H's predecessor ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9DCAD01A240C006E8825703B00829FE8/$file/0250495.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were charged with omitting assets from and making false statements in their joint petition for Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief. The Bussells were indicted in 2000 for omitting from their joint bankruptcy petition their ownership of a fourunit condominium located in Park City. The Bussells moved to dismiss certain of the charges on the ground that the questions posed by the bankruptcy forms were fundamentally ambiguous. Their motion was denied. Was hardfought and lengthy. John fell to his death from his hotel room.1 After being instructed that the case against John was no longer before them. Letantia was ultimately convicted of six counts (one count of conspiracy. For which she was jointly and severally liable with attorneys Sherman and Beaudry. The district court expressed concern that the jury was awaiting responses on two questions regarding counts against John and was likely to hear of John's death through the media. Letantia argues that there is no evidence clearly establishing that John took his own life. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1994/94a0925p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Likely will become of increasing significance. The basic agreement was to last until 1999. The 1968 technical agreement also granted PGM the exclusive right to use PGC's patents and trademarks in Mexico and provided that PGM would not have to pay a fee for the technical assistance so long as PGC remained a 49% shareholder in PGM. While the motion still was pending. PGC filed a brief in opposition to the relief sought in the Letter Rogatory along with an opinion of a Mexican attorney contending that the Letter Rogatory was ineffective. At that time the court filed a comprehensive opinion which explained why the court was granting summary judgment but which did not mention the Letter Rogatory. As PGC is incorporated in the United States. PGMex is a Mexican corporation. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The only issue we consider on this appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion by not granting the request in the Letter Rogatory that the court stay this case or transfer it to the Mexican court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec2000/99-2201.man.html">CRAWFORD & CO. V. APFEL (12/14/2000, NO. 99-2201) </A> 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.932 and 416.1432.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec2000/99-10983.man.html">ALLSTATE INS. CO. V. GINSBERG (12/20/2000, NO. 99-10983) </A> Circuit Judges. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec2000/99-2201.man.html">CRAWFORD & CO. V. APFEL (12/14/2000, NO. 99-2201) </A> 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.932 and 416.1432.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001915A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> They were residents of Bethesda. David Hillman was the sole shareholder of Southern Management Corporation (SMC). Under which the corporation's profits pass through directly to its shareholders on a pro rata basis and are reported on each shareholder's individual federal income tax returns. 26 U.S.C. § 1366(a)(1)(A). 1 HILLMAN v. Which were involved in real estate rental activities.2 At all times relevant to the issues in this appeal. The general partner of each limited partnership was either David Hillman or an upper tier partnership or Subchapter S corporation in which he owned an interest. Joint venturers and partners are taxed under a passthrough taxation system. 26 U.S.C. § 701 04. Each joint venturer or partner is individually taxed on his distributive share of joint venture or partnership income. We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We are presented with the following question of law: May the Hillmans legally deduct their passive management fee expenses from their related nonpassive management fee income for purposes of lowering their taxable income for taxable years 1993 and 1994? </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2481.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> LLP were on brief for appellant. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1994/94a0863p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Beekhuis was an officer. The site was sold to Brandywine Chemical. Because the site was contaminated with various chemicals. Witco's claim against Jeanne Beekhuis is in her representative capacity as executrix of the estate of Dr. Its claim against WTC is in its capacity of trustee. The district court entered two orders which are at issue in this appeal. The district court held that the Estate was entitled to statutory indemnification from Witco. The former is whether the three year statute of limitations established by Congress for contribution claims under CERCLA preempts state nonclaim statutes that govern the administration of decedents' estates. The latter issue is whether under CERCLA an estate of a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3581.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A> The three corporations are defunct but have made claims against co defendants (and third parties) that may have value. Is unclear. Cherry informed the district court that its clients had stopped paying and were making no efforts to engage new counsel. Substitution is unlikely. While the INTIC parties would have to give any replacement a hefty retainer (for Cherry anticipates that the trial of the suit may require lawyers' time plus outlays for copying. Other expenses that will bring the total tab to $1 million). Is appealable under this doctrine. Orders denying motions to withdraw are superficially similar to orders denying motions to disqualify. There is also a vital difference: incorrect decisions about disqualification may justify reversal at the end of the case. Because an order compelling a lawyer to work without prospect of compensation is unrelated to the merits of the dispute. We join the second circuit in holding that the order is immediately appealable as a collateral order. An interim order keeping the lawyer in the case while the motion to withdraw was under advisement would not meet Cohen's requirement that the decision finally determine the issue in question. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr2001/003318.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> The issue is whether plaintiffs should have obtained a stay under S 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code before appealing an assumption and an assignment under S 365. This appeal arises from the District Court's affirmance of the Bankruptcy Court's order approving the assumption of eight physician employment contracts by the Chapter 11 Trustee of a bankrupt health care system and their assignment to another hospital.1 Contending their employment contracts were not assignable. Our review of its decision is plenary. The other plaintiffs are Bonnie K. The defendants appellees are AHERF 's Chapter 11 trustee and the Western Pennsylvania Healthcare Alliance along with Allegheny General Hospital. 3. The acquisition of a nonprofit corporation's membership interest is comparable to the purchase of stock in a business. AHERF was the sole member of its affiliates and the sale of its memberships interests to the Western Pennsylvania Healthcare Alliance effected a complete change of control. 5. AUHS is substituted for MCP HU in their contracts. 5 contesting Western Pennsylvania Healthcare Alliance's financial viability. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-7071a.html">USA V. BOMBARDIER CORPORATION AND ENVIROVAC </A> Vincent McKnight Jr. argued the cause for appellant. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1999/995024.TXT">OPINION/ORDER</A> That thereafter while it was contemplating the amendment's adoption. In which it indicated that in its discretion it was determining the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec2000/99-10983.man.html">ALLSTATE INS. CO. V. GINSBERG (12/20/2000, NO. 99-10983) </A> Circuit Judges. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1995/95a1070p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> The Board of Directors of City Trusts [Board] appeals the district court's order finding that the Board and Girard College [College] were included in a certified class involving a nationwide class action suit against Uniroyal and numerous other defendants in regard to the presence of asbestos in public and private schools. Because the district court found the appellants were members of the class. The Board was enjoined from pursuing its own state asbestos lawsuit against Uniroyal. Was bound by the Uniroyal settlement. It was necessary in aid of the court's jurisdiction to enjoin the appellant's state court action. I. The Board was created by a Pennsylvania statute in June 1869 to act as a trustee in administering a number of estates and trusts for the benefit of the City of Philadelphia.[fn1] The estate involved here is the Estate of Stephen Girard. The Girard Estate is the largest estate and trust owned and administered by the Board. Girard College was established as an institution for orphan children in Philadelphia. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="347"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1012.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/95/12/952857P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Is his official capacity as Missouri Attorney General. Was amended twice in 1994. (4) the requirement that negative campaign advertisements state that they were approved 1 and authorized by the candidate on whose behalf they were disseminated. Stat. § 130.031 is unconstitutional. So that issue is not before us. 22 1 I. We must address the state's contention that summary judgment should not have been granted because genuine issues of material fact remain in dispute. We are satisfied that no genuine issues of material fact remain in dispute. (2) held that the state's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CC1781412D82A76288256AA1005C0BD5/$file/9935881.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The facts giving rise to the present action are tortuous and the truth may yet be obscured. Former director and executive vice president of Gulf. 2 Certain corporate relationships are central to the resulting real estate transactions. The basic relationships are as follows: Gulf wholly owned Gulfpac Ltd. At issue in this case is the contention that Felpark and Kingsley were shell corporations controlled by the Rowland Group. Which were used to siphon money out of the New Zealand real estate transactions to the benefit of the Rowland Group. 10197 purchase and sale contracts one contract involved Felpark's sale of nineteen properties. One of the properties acquired under the Felpark contract was an office building known as the Unisys House. The Unisys House was owned by a corporation known as Sunflower Services Ltd. Which was owned by Citibank. The Unisys House and the Sunflower ordinary shares were transferred to a Gulf subsidiary. The preferred shares of Sunflower were transferred to Kingsley. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/02/054345P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Post trial motions were denied. Which is headquartered and incorporated in Florida. United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 2 Rawlings and Matrix executed the contract which is the subject of this litigation. The license was to continue so long as certain conditions were satisfied. The other party was entitled to terminate the contract if the breaching party did not cure the breach within thirty days after the written notice. The contract was to be governed by the law of Delaware. There was testimony at trial that annual sales of Rawlings bags were about $300. In the next several years they declined and were at about $865. For some time Rawlings had been concerned with the decline in its bag sales and believed that Matrix was uninterested in growing this business and was not using its best efforts to foster and develop its products. Rawlings management expressed concern that the bag line was stagnant. Rawlings was dissatisfied with Orloff's response to these concerns. During that same month K2's consolidation plans were carried out. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTU4MjQtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5824-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: Three appeals have been consolidated in this case. A trial against defendant Robert Rosenstock and an inquest to fix damages against Briggs were scheduled to begin in August 1997. Briggs was a publicly held auto leasing company incorporated in New York. Robert Genser ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1114.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> With him on the brief were Thomas J. Of counsel on the brief were James F. With him on the brief was Todd R. Is the inventor of certain catheters for use in coronary angioplasty. The patented catheters are used in conjunction with the insertion of stents to keep coronary arteries open after they have been unblocked. Bonzel are used in over a million procedures annually. A Swiss corporation that was at that time a subsidiary of Pfizer. The license agreement was negotiated in Germany in the German language. By its terms is construed according to German law. Was also negotiated and drafted in Germany and is subject to German law. It requires in Section XII(a) that the licensee will notify Dr. Bonzel of any infringement occurring in any country and will pay Dr. In 1998 the Schneider companies were sold by Pfizer to Boston Scientific Corp. Boston Scientific's United States subsidiaries Boston Scientific Scimed and SciMed Life Systems are described as successors of Schneider (U.S.A.). Are Minnesota corporations. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQ3MDYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-4706-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Defendant counterclaimant appellee National Service Industries is not liable for the actions of Serv All Uniform Rental Corp. It has not established that there was a de facto merger. The question before us is whether federal common law for purposes of determining corporate successor liability under CERCLA incorporates state law in this case. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CFB41C638909CB8F88256D5C0063E355/$file/9935684.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> We have received a response and conclude that MALABED v. I The North Slope Borough is a political subdivision of the State of Alaska. Where there is more than one Native American applicant who meets the minimum qualifications for a position. A Native American is a person belonging to an Indian tribe as defined in 25 U.S.C. North Slope Borough Code § 2.20.150(A)(27).1 Plaintiffs/Appellees are not Native Americans and claim that they were denied employment with the Borough because of the Ordinance. Robert Malabed is an Asian American of Filipino descent. The Ordinance was amended to create a preference not only for qualified Native Americans. Appellees Malabed and Emerson were denied employment under the original ordinance. Appellee Welch was denied employment under the amended ordinance. These differences between the amended ordinance and the original ordinance are not material to our analysis. 1 9102 MALABED v. NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH nent employment was rejected in 1998. He was replaced by a Native American. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-7104a.html">SCANDINAVIAN SATELLITE SYSTEM V. PRIME TV LIMITED, </A> Tepper argued the cause for appellant. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQ3MjktY3YucGRm/05-4729-cv.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Therefore are exempt from application of the New York statute of frauds. The district court found that the notes were not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQwODMtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-4083-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Have jurisdiction to adjudicate a 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 taxpayer's challenge that the notice of foreclosure provided by the taxing authority of a state is constitutionally inadequate. We conclude that the district courts have jurisdiction. Whether the taxpayers in this consolidated appeal were provided with constitutionally adequate notice. The sole case to resolve the dispute on non jurisdictional grounds is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. A central Vermont town. plaintiff owned real property and was delinquent in paying property taxes. Plaintiffs assert that the local taxing authorities failed to notify them adequately of the pending foreclosure and subsequent public sale of their property.1 Plaintiffs complain that it is fundamentally unfair. Elizabeth Luessenhop Elizabeth Luessenhop (Luessenhop) was the owner of two parcels of land located in the Village of Champlain. Her permanent address was 2944 At times during 2002. It was her practice to pay a sufficient amount of the back taxes to avoid losing title to her property. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/10/053863P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Paine in a negligence suit brought against him by a student who was injured in a physical education class at Shattuck St. Paine is the head golf professional for Legacy Golf Corporation (Legacy). Paine's only duty at Legacy during the winter months is managing the golf shop. Shattuck is a college The Honorable Michael J. Shattuck is also the sole shareholder of Legacy. The two are separate legal entities. This was the first physical education class that he taught at the school during the school day. Paine worked with Headmaster Brown and Shattuck Athletic Director John Sommer in designing an indoor golf facility in the basement of Shattuck's gymnasium that was then used for the class. Shattuck student Lilian Wu was struck in the head by a golf ball. The amended complaint claimed that Shattuck was vicariously liable for the acts of its agent. That the golf class was a joint enterprise between Mr. Paine was not an insured under Legacy's policy because he was not acting within the scope of his employment with Legacy or performing any duties related to Legacy's business at the time of the accident. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTU3ODItY3IgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/05-5782-cr%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Was indicted on August 4. By a grand jury in the Southern District of New York.1 Giffen is the Chairman of the Board. The changes are not relevant to this 2 appeal. These deposits were bribes. The indictment alleges that funds in these accounts were used to pay personal expenses of Kazakh officials and their families. The theory of the fraud allegations is that the money used to bribe the Kazakh officials belonged to Kazakhstan. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTU3ODItY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-5782-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Was indicted on August 4. By a grand jury in the Southern District of New York.1 Giffen is the Chairman of the Board. The changes are not relevant to this 2 appeal. These deposits were bribes. The indictment alleges that funds in these accounts were used to pay personal expenses of Kazakh officials and their families. The theory of the fraud allegations is that the money used to bribe the Kazakh officials belonged to Kazakhstan. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAwLTk1OTVfb3BuLnBkZg==/00-9595_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Approving the Special Master's plan to allocate $1.25 billion in funds that have been obtained through an extensive settlement agreement that was previously entered into by the parties and approved by the district court. Are members of a class action brought against various Swiss banking institutions and entities (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5151.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Of counsel was Benjamin M. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel were Gregory T. With him on the brief was Mark R. Of counsel on the brief was Robin S. The state income tax payments made by ISN's sole shareholder resulting from dividends received from ISN were allowable costs in the cost reimbursement contract. I ISN is a Maryland corporation with one sole shareholder. A cost is allowable only when the cost complies with all of the following requirements: (1) Reasonableness. (2) Allocability. (3) Standards promulgated by the CAS Board. Many of these limitations are enumerated in 48 C.F.R. § 31.205 and include rules for determining the allowability of forty seven different types of costs. Taxes are discussed in 48 C.F.R. § 31.205 41. That subsection states that some but not all taxes paid by an entity are allowable. There is what is known as double taxation. An S corporation is only subject to single taxation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-7085a.html">DAVID J. GORMAN V. AMERITRADE </A> Craig argued the cause for appellees. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1618.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981808.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: In the wake of an announcement in April 1997 by Norfolk Southern Corporation and CSX Corporation that they were acquiring and dividing a major portion of the assets of Conrail. Gave notice under § 6 of the Railway Labor Act that it wished to renegotiate the terms of its collective bargaining agreements in light of the impact that the acquisition would have on the jobs of employees represented by the union. The district court ruled that the union's § 6 notice was invalid and that the union was required to present its position to the Surface Transportation Board which had exclusive jurisdiction under the Interstate Commerce Act to approve the terms and conditions of the acquisition. Conrail's assets were to be divided. They stated that under the transaction </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200002/98-7206b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> With him on the briefs were Mark H. With him on the brief were Benjamin P. The first three counts of the complaint allege that Venezuela and the FIV are derivatively liable for CAVN's breaches of contract. The final count alleges that Venezuela and the FIV are directly liable for having caused CAVN to breach its con tracts with the plaintiffs. Venezuela and the FIV argue that they are immune from suit upon all counts under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA). That they are immune from suit upon the fourth count under the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1635.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A> A portion of the profits were distributed to investors as dividends or </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTYyMzVfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-6235_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> This judgment was based on an order filed May 13. Richard Kern is the trustee of the Hannah G. Donald Kern is the trustee of the Hannah R. The Kerns' respective children are the beneficiaries of these trusts. 3 1 Section 4(1) of the Act. Defendants appellants argue that their sales are exempt from the registration requirements of Section 5 under Rule 144 or Section 4(1). That the district court's contrary holdings are the result of misapplications of the law and of the integration doctrine. Defendants appellants further argue that their violations were not willful or intentional. That the losses to others have been inflated by improper inclusion of certain sales. So that Tier III civil penalties are inappropriate. That the penalties imposed were thus within the permissible range of discretion of the district court. BACKGROUND Most of the facts in this case are not disputed or are definitively established by documentary evidence. Because the case was decided under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. 4 where the facts are subject to dispute. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/00-1289.htm">00-1289 -- SIPMA V. MASSACHUSETTS CASUALTY INSURANCE CO. -- 07/17/2001 </A> Background</center> The facts in this case are uncontested. Byron were covered by the disability and life insurance policies. Sipma was injured and claimed disability benefits. Sipma's state law claims are preempted. Summary judgment is appropriate </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-9010.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> Was born on June 12. True (David). <hr> Dave was a successful entrepreneur and established a number of companies involved in oil and gas exploration. Companies which generated a substantial amount of revenue often provided the funds to support companies which were not as profitable. Dave developed a business philosophy which was guided by four basic principles. Buy sell agreements were necessary to avoid conflicts among owners and to establish clear (1) Of these business entities. The True Ranches were structured as partnerships under Wyoming law. White Stallion Ranch were structured as Subchapter S corporations. <hr> exit strategies. Each True company was governed by buy sell agreements which embodied these business principles. Disability were each treated as if the holder of the interest had notified the other owners of his or her intent to withdraw from ownership. The other owners were required to purchase the departing owner's interests at a formula price listed in the buy sell agreement. The formula prices in the buy sell agreements were derived from a calculation of the tax book value for the various True companies. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc2ODNfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7683_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Are affiliated corporations which. Are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkyNjZfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9266_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Savin Corporation argues that the District Court erred in holding that (i) the FTDA requires a plaintiff to demonstrate evidence of actual dilution even where the court finds that the at issue marks are identical. (ii) the standard for dilution under New York General Business Law § 360 l is the same as the standard for dilution under the FTDA. (iii) there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the defendants appellees' use of certain at issue marks creates a likelihood of confusion with the plaintiff appellant's marks. Which are essentially undisputed. Are derived primarily from the District Court's findings of fact. Was founded in 1959 and has its principal place of business in Stamford. Plaintiff is engaged in the business of marketing. Plaintiff's products are sold through seventeen company owned branches consisting of over sixty sales and service offices and over 250 trained dealers throughout the United States. Plaintiff's largest customers are in the government. Plaintiff's ownership of the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/58351e7b6a377aa488256af7007fdeea/$FILE/0015444.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs appeal the district court's decision that Nevada rather than California law should be applied to a claim that usurious interest rates were charged on six loans made by defendants. The district court found that the interest rates were permissible and that there had been no conversion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm the district court on both issues. I Plaintiffs are three California corporations Shannon/Vail Five. The loans were secured by trust deeds for real property located in California. The loans were also personally guaranteed by Dobron. Each note recited that the loan was to be repaid in Nevada. The case was removed to federal district court in the Southern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1446. Was then transferred to the District Court of Nevada under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Thus the transactions were still not usurious. We need not reach the question of whether this exception applies under California law because we find that Nevada law applies. 15312 court also concluded that California did not have a more significant relationship to the contract than Nevada under the principles stated in § 6(b) of the Restatement. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200002/98-1583a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> With him on the briefs was Steuart H. With him on the brief were Loretta C. The transactions took advantage of provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (and related regulations) designed to yield reasonable results when property is sold on an installment basis and the value of the installment payments cannot be known in advance. Transactions that in substance added up to a wash were transmuted into ones generating tax losses of several hundred million dollars. The offsetting gains were allocated to foreign entities not subject to United States income tax at all. We affirm. * * * The hardest aspect of this case is simply getting a handle on the facts. Gains and losses are generally </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/02/051795P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Are unconstitutional and preempted by the Federal Election Campaign Act. Concluding that Appellants have standing. Appellants assert that these activities are expressly permitted by FECA and its implementing regulations. Appellants have refrained from making political contributions because they </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/01/99-4190.htm">99-4190 -- FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. PETERSON -- 01/22/2001 </A> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <center>Background</center> These two appeals arise from a district court action brought by the FTC against Jay Peterson and several of his corporations. A temporary restraining order was initially issued to freeze the corporations' assets and then. Which was formally approved by the district court handling these FTC actions and the bankruptcy court handling the Peterson bankruptcy. The receiver's administration of the agreement. Left over when administration is complete. The Court will allow the wind up to proceed under the direction of the Magistrate Judge as scheduled. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033786np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> FACTS Chusid and members of his family were embroiled in two different financial schemes giving rise to two separate legal actions. Was filed in the District Court of New Jersey and complained that Chusid. Was a receivership action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas and was related to a pyramid scheme in which members of the Chusid family were involved. The basis of the complaint is that the Chusid family used sham corporations in order to steal money from Construction Drilling. Only to have it diverted though other sham corporations for the family's benefit. 3 which was opposed by the Chusids. For which Construction Drilling was awarded over $350. Boris Chusid was included as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034715np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> PA 14219 OPINION PER CURIAM Lorenzo King appeals the judgment of sentence that was entered following his guilty plea to two counts of federal income tax evasion. We will remand for resentencing pursuant to the Supreme Court's recent pronouncements in United States v. He failed to report that income and was thereafter charged with evasion of federal income taxes in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201. King entered a plea agreement in which he stipulated that the tax loss 2 resulting from his evasion was greater than $23. The resulting adjusted Guideline range was ten to sixteen months with incarceration for at least one half of the ten month minimum. Was [unconstitutional] and that it must be severed and excised [from the Guidelines]. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034715npa.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> PA 14219 OPINION PER CURIAM Lorenzo King appeals the judgment of sentence that was entered following his guilty plea to two counts of federal income tax evasion. We will remand for resentencing pursuant to the Supreme Court's recent pronouncements in United States v. He failed to report that income and was thereafter charged with evasion of federal income taxes in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201. King entered a plea agreement in which he stipulated that the tax loss resulting from his evasion was greater than $23. The resulting adjusted Guideline range was ten to sixteen months with incarceration for at least one half of the ten month minimum. The Court ruled that any fact not admitted by a defendant or proven beyond a reasonable doubt to the fact finder could not be used to increase a defendant's sentence beyond the maximum sentence that would have otherwise applied. Was [unconstitutional] and that it must be severed and excised [from the Guidelines]. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/12/00-1465.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A> Facts and prior proceedings</center> The operative contracts are expressly governed by English law and contained a London forum selection clause. That plaintiffs alleged was obtained. Kozeny fraudulently diverted from them. The three corporate defendants in the Colorado case are either the title owners of the real property (a house worth $30 million in Aspen). Although the district court stated that the plaintiffs' real objective was to maintain the status quo of the Colorado assets in the event they prevailed in the London case. See Pet. Defendants have appealed from that order to this court in a separate appeal. In June 2000. Kozeny filed applications to stay the London proceeding pending resolution of the Colorado case on the grounds that defending in two jurisdictions would be burdensome and Colorado was a more convenient forum. The London court denied the application and found that London is a convenient forum. The court recognized that the mere fact that there are parallel proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction does not by itself constitute an exceptional circumstance justifying a stay. Kozeny II. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/10/98-6293.htm">98-6293 -- WEEKS V. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I-89 -- 10/25/2000 </A> The existence and relevance of the information was raised during Barringer's deposition of Marilyn Midgett ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/04/042357P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Moves to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was filed fifty five days after the judgment was entered. P. 4(a)(1)(A) a Notice of Appeal </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043575np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> We will affirm. Whose claim was described as involving </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/04/032246P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Defendants were citizens of Arkansas. Capitol alleged that it was a Wisconsin corporation. Capitol responded to the motions and moved for leave to amend its complaint to specifically allege that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/02/023436P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The publications were qualifiedly privileged. Gray submitted two </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200001/98-7206a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> With him on the briefs were Mark H. With him on the brief were Benjamin P. The first three counts of the complaint allege that Venezuela and the FIV are derivatively liable for CAVN's breaches of contract. The final count alleges that Venezuela and the FIV are directly liable for having caused CAVN to breach its con tracts with the plaintiffs. Venezuela and the FIV argue that they are immune from suit upon all counts under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA). That they are immune from suit upon the fourth count under the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E15F9DE428C15C4C88256E21005DCE7C/$file/0256432.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> The district court held that the corporation was not subject to liability under the FCA because DMJM was acting as an agent of the state when it allegedly submitted false claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Ali was employed by CSUN as an architect coordinating the reconstruction of buildings damaged by the January 1994 Northridge earthquake.1 CSUN retained DMJM as its construction management firm in December 1994. Claims against CSUN and the CSUN officials were dismissed pursuant to the parties' joint stipulation. The only remaining defendant is DMJM. Applicable FEMA regulations provided that buildings not in use at the time of the earthquake were ineligible for funding unless. The facts recounted here are not contested. Holding that the undisputed facts demonstrate that DMJM employees were acting as agents of CSUN. Thus DMJM is entitled to immunity for actions within the scope of their official duties. A. Standard of Review DISCUSSION The existence of sovereign immunity is a question of law reviewed de novo. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2640_021.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were they litigated rather than arbitrated. Asserts that the basis here is diversity. Merely asserts that they are citizens of different states. Rule 28(a)(1) requires in a diversity suit that the jurisdictional statement name the states of which the parties are citizens. Is particularly disturbing because the defendants are not standard business corporations. The NASD (formerly called the National Association of Securities Dealers) is a membership corporation a corporation. Wachovia Securities is a limited liability company. Because the overriding goal in crafting a jurisdictional rule is simplicity. The courts have held that all corporations are to be treated alike for diversity purposes: all are citizens both of the state of incorporation and the state in which the corporation has its principal place of business. In the case of the NASD those states are Delaware and Washington. Is the citizenship of each of its members. Is owned by another limited liability company. Which is owned in turn by two affiliated corporations one of which is a citizen of North Carolina and the other a citizen of New Jersey. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/055357p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> A federal district court in New Jersey with diversity jurisdiction transferred a personal injury claim filed within the limitations statutes of both New Jersey and Pennsylvania to another federal district court in Pennsylvania because the New Jersey district was an improper venue. The 2 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that recovery was barred because the transfer occurred after the running of Pennsylvania's statute of limitations. That response in this uncertain area is well reasoned. Even though the suit was filed in an improper. It was timely here because it was filed within the limitations statute for the transferee forum in Pennsylvania. As the filing date for a case transferred under § 1406(a) is that of the initial filing in the improper forum. Who was driving a delivery truck for Achenbach Pastries (together. Was in an automobile accident in Pennsylvania with Debra Lafferty. Riel and Achenbach Pastries were citizens of Pennsylvania. In relevant part: 3 (a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/12/97-4197.htm">97-4197 -- UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. V. STATE OF UTAH -- 12/03/1999 </A> The Railroads allege that their property has been assessed substantially in excess of its fair market value for tax purposes while all other commercial and industrial property in the same tax category is assessed at less than fair market value. That the individual members of the Tax Commission are amenable to suit under Ex parte Young. We hold that section 11501 is a valid abrogation of Eleventh Amendment immunity and we therefore do not address the district court's application of Ex parte Young. <center>I </center> <center>Eleventh Amendment Immunity</center> The Eleventh Amendment states that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-7244a.html">MICHAEL PRICE V. SOCIALIST PEOPLE'S LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA </A> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/09/022373P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge. 2 These are appeals1 from separate orders by the district court granting summary judgment for ADM Investor Services. The appeals have been consolidated for clarity in one opinion. The price of the grain is determined by reference to a futures contract price established by the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/09/98-8015.htm">98-8015 -- TRUE V. U.S. -- 09/09/1999 </A> Sharing equal minority interests in the ownership and operation of the businesses.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-5172.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> On a person in whom it does not have an insurable interest. The facts set forth here are undisputed. Tillman was extended a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/03/022088P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Riley cross appeal from the order awarding the Company partial cost of the supersedeas bond that the Company was required to post on the first appeal of this case. This is the second time this case has been before us. Senior executives whose employment with the Company was terminated. The District Court determined that ERISA was properly invoked and dismissed the state law claims as preempted. Judgment was entered for Emmenegger. Attorney fees and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs. Concluding that the severance plans were indeed ERISA plans. Having determined that the PSP was not an ERISA plan. Those claims were tried to a jury. Before us now are appeals from the District Court's denial of the Company's motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial and from two post judgment orders of the District Court. That decision is reviewed only for an abuse of discretion. Riley were employed as senior executives at Bull Moose Tube Company (BMT) when it was acquired in 1988 by Caparo. A phantom stock plan was put in place. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-4043.htm">98-4043 -- U.S. V. WORTHEN -- 08/19/1999 </A> Defendant was indicted on the following counts: (I) . The court sentenced Defendant to a term of 33 months' imprisonment followed by 3 years' supervised release. The facts underlying the indictment indicate that Defendant was the president of Nordic Limited. Defendant's stipulated amount of tax liability for 1990 was therefore $38. Rule 32(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/01/022030P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Appeal from an order of the United States Tax Court sustaining the findings by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/05/97-9535.htm">97-9535 -- ARAMARK CORP. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD -- 05/28/1999 </A> 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-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992455.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Lyon and Campbell were involved together in business deals for many years. The two men are now enveloped in a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3459_011.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Because the plaintiffs' claims are solely derivative claims and can only be brought on behalf of the corporation (Conseco). Conseco was a large scale Indiana corporation that sold. Merrill Lynch knew that its so called fairness opinion pertaining to Conseco's proposed valuation of Green Tree was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/04/98-3038.htm">98-3038 -- MITCHAEL V. INTRACORP, INC. -- 04/27/1999 </A> In this antitrust case.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0153p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> This is a section 1962(c) RICO fraud case. The gist of the case is that the lender's undisclosed fees were unreasonable. There may have been some confusion about the meaning of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982572.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Line 3 the number </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/07/016005P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The Trustee for the Corporation filed an avoidance action against Funaro to recover what he alleged were the Corporation's right to commissions. Since that right was transferred to Funaro within a year of the Chapter 7 filing. Is fraudulent and avoidable. Did the Trustee prove that the Corporation had the right to receive insurance commissions and that the assignment to Funaro of that right was a fraudulent transfer? 2. The bankruptcy court then imposed sanctions against the Trustee at trial for filing a lawsuit that was wholly without merit and frivolous. The bankruptcy court was. The fact that the Trustee failed to sustain his burden of proof in this fraudulent conveyance action does not mean that the action was frivolous. Which means that the bankruptcy court found that there was a genuine issue of material fact to be decided at trial. Since there was a genuine issue of material fact. The bankruptcy court erred in finding that the Complaint was wholly without merit and frivolous. He was the sole shareholder. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E77D789AFA704FEB88256D100080DA3A/$file/0056627.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> AOC was a Lake Arrowhead. WILSON 5203 The agreement provided that arbitration was to be the sole dispute resolution method. Was to be conducted pursuant to the rules of the American Arbitration Association ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/f048cefcf12625e488256e5a00707d37/$FILE/0015444.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs appeal the district court's decision that Nevada rather than California law should be applied to a claim that usurious interest rates were charged on six loans made by defendants. The district court found that the interest rates were permissible and that there had been no conversion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm the district court on both issues. I Plaintiffs are three California corporations Shannon/Vail Five. The loans were secured by trust deeds for real property located in California. The loans were also personally guaranteed by Dobron. Each note recited that the loan was to be repaid in Nevada. The case was removed to federal district court in the Southern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1446. Was then transferred to the District Court of Nevada under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Thus the transactions were still not usurious. We need not reach the question of whether this exception applies under California law because we find that Nevada law applies. 15312 court also concluded that California did not have a more significant relationship to the contract than Nevada under the principles stated in § 6(b) of the Restatement. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/11/97-4140.htm">97-4140 -- RELIANCE INSURANCE CO. V. MAST CONSTRUCTION CO. -- 11/05/1998 </A> Circuit Judges. <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199807/97-3072b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> With him on the briefs were Richard A. With him on the briefs were Donald C. Green were on the brief for amicus curiae American League of Lobbyists. Circuit Judge: Sun Diamond is a large agricul tural cooperative owned by individual member cooperatives including Diamond Walnut Growers. Who was responsible for investigating allegations of unlawful activity by former Secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy. Linking Sun Diamond and Espy was the figure of Richard Douglas. Douglas was responsible for (among other things) representing the interests of the corporation and its member cooperatives in Washington. The Department of Agriculture ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept95/94-6650.opa.html">MOREWITZ V. WEST OF ENG. SHIP OWNERS MUTUAL PROTECTION AND INDEMNITY ASSOC. </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Morewitz v. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/08/97-4140.htm">97-4140 -- RELIANCE INSURANCE CO. V. MAST CONSTRUCTION CO. -- 08/03/1998 </A> We reverse and instruct the district court to conduct a full factual adjudication in accordance with the directions set forth below. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0174p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Tennessee Code Annotated Section 63 8 113(c)(6) was signed into law. The constitutionality of which is at issue in this case. Provides that it is unlawful for any licensed optometrist to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0694n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were excused from paying future commissions on existing ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0702n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Because the Yangs are currently fugitives from justice we will. Because Four Pillars's sentence was imposed in violation of its Sixth Amendment rights. We will VACATE its sentence and REMAND for resentencing. Were out of the country when their resentencing hearing was held on July 25. Having fled to Taiwan shortly after their initial sentences were imposed.1 The district court resentenced P.Y. The doctrine is long established in the federal and state courts. Which is nominally a part of the People's Republic of China. We will dismiss their appeals with prejudice and the mandate shall issue at that time. Is not subject to dismissal under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. Have held that the Sixth Amendment guarantees a business association the right to a trial by jury in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/05/982961P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Wood and Diane Wood argue that the district court did not err in denying Helm's motion for summary judgment because there were genuine issues of material fact in dispute and because. Creditors do not have a common law cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty against corporate directors or officers for unlawful distribution of corporate assets to shareholders. We hold that we have appellate jurisdiction and we affirm the order of the district court. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The following statement of facts is taken in large part from the district court order. Helm is a locomotive and railcar leasing company and a judgment creditor of MNVA. It is a California corporation with its principal place of business in California. MNVA is a Minnesota corporation with its principal place of business in Minnesota. It was incorporated in July 1986 and operated a short line freight railroad in Minnesota and North Dakota. Larry and Diane Wood were officers and directors and major shareholders of MNVA. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F048CEFCF12625E488256E5A00707D37/$file/0015444.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs appeal the district court's decision that Nevada rather than California law should be applied to a claim that usurious interest rates were charged on six loans made by defendants. The district court found that the interest rates were permissible and that there had been no conversion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm the district court on both issues. I Plaintiffs are three California corporations Shannon/Vail Five. The loans were secured by trust deeds for real property located in California. The loans were also personally guaranteed by Dobron. Each note recited that the loan was to be repaid in Nevada. The case was removed to federal district court in the Southern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1446. Was then transferred to the District Court of Nevada under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Thus the transactions were still not usurious. We need not reach the question of whether this exception applies under California law because we find that Nevada law applies. 15312 court also concluded that California did not have a more significant relationship to the contract than Nevada under the principles stated in § 6(b) of the Restatement. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2004/031058np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> These three cases were consolidated for trial and similarly joined on appeal. Because this is a non precedential opinion. The discussion will be abbreviated. We are aware that the parties are well acquainted with the facts and rulings that developed at the trial. The defendants were convicted by a jury on counts of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2. Elderly individuals who were usually in the seventy to eighty year old range. Were recruited for operation of the scheme. Intimations that the securities were guaranteed by the United 2 States government. Claims that the securities were at least as safe as CDs. Finding that the mention of a lie detector test was inadvertent on the part of the government. The defendant must demonstrate that the government's conduct was intended to provoke or 3 goad him into moving for a mistrial. The personal delivery tactic was intended to provide another opportunity for additional sales. There is ample evidence in the record to establish that Oslosky furnished information to Thomas to be included in the letters. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept95/94-6650.opa.html">MOREWITZ V. WEST OF ENG. SHIP OWNERS MUTUAL PROTECTION AND INDEMNITY ASSOC. </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Morewitz v. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2002/012542.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The Board of Trustees of the pension fund ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2002/012700u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Ult Plus was created by Allerion. Is a derivative of the Pick Operating System ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001963.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Anderson's name is deleted from section 1. I. Plaintiff Luis Reyes Gaona is a Mexican national over the age of 40. Defendant North Carolina Growers Association (NCGA) is an American corporation that assists agricultural businesses in North Carolina in securing farm labor through the federal H 2A agricultural worker program.1 Defendant Del Al is an agent of NCGA that recruits 1 1 Agricultural employers who anticipate a labor shortage for temporary or seasonal jobs may petition the government for permission to employ 2 H 2A workers for NCGA and its members. That he was qualified for the job he sought. The district court granted defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss because it was undisputed that Reyes Gaona was not authorized to work in the United States at the time he sought employment with NCGA. Plaintiff is a foreign national who applied in a foreign country for work in the United States. Is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/95-4979.opa.html">REPUBLIC OF PANAMA V. BCCI HOLDINGS </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Republic of Panama v. Background BCCI Holdings is the parent corporation of BCCI S.A. and BCCI Ltd. These foreign defendants were the principal corporations in an international banking group operating in sixty nine countries. They will be referred to as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1194.html">BRASSELER, U.S.A. I, L.P V. STRYKER SALES CORPORATION </A> Argued for defendants appellees. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2502.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were on brief. Eliot LLP were on brief. Lockhart LLP were on brief. SAB was the wholly owned subsidiary of Swiss American Holding Company. Which in turn was wholly owned by Bank of New York Inter Maritime Bank (IMB). He admitted that the funds deposited at SAB were drug proceeds that he had laundered through shell corporations organized with the help of Peter F. Notice of the impending forfeiture was published in the Antiguan Gazette and the Boston Globe. No competing claims were filed. The banks have been instructed by the Government of Antigua and Barbuda to freeze all of the assets . . . in issue in your Petition. Until the ultimate beneficial owners have been ascertained to the Government's satisfaction. This is a directive that the banks have to honor on pain of having their licences revoked and is a problem that you may well have to address on the successful conclusion of your litigation. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2237.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Strother and </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1564OPN.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> LLP were on brief. Were on brief. Were sent tax deficiency notices by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on April 24. The legal fees were paid and then deducted by the corporation. Were not counted as income by Guarino. Petitioners argue that the criminal conduct was so related to the operation of the corporation that the legal fees were a deductible corporate expense and properly not included in Guarino's gross income. Finding that the criminal charges were not sufficiently related to the operation of the corporation. We affirm the ruling of the tax court. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001915.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> They were residents of Bethesda. David Hillman was the sole shareholder of Southern Management Corporation (SMC). Which were involved in real estate rental activities.2 At all times relevant to the issues in this appeal. Under which the corporation's profits pass through directly to its shareholders on a pro rata basis and are reported on each shareholder's individual federal income tax returns. 26 U.S.C. § 1366(a)(1)(A). 2 For purposes of federal income tax liability. Joint venturers and partners are taxed under a passthrough taxation system. 26 U.S.C. § 701 04. Each joint venturer or partner is individually taxed on his distributive share of joint venture or partnership income. The general partner of each limited partnership was either David Hillman or an upper tier partnership or Subchapter S corporation in which he owned an interest. We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). 3 During taxable years 1993 and 1994. We are presented with the following question of law: May the Hillmans legally deduct their passive management fee expenses from their related nonpassive management fee income for purposes of lowering their taxable income for taxable years 1993 and 1994? </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001481.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Because a state's sovereign immunity is not so fleeting as to depend upon the forum in which the state is sued. The judgment of the FMC is reversed and the case is remanded with directions to dismiss it. Passengers may gamble on board the ship while it is in international waters. The South Carolina State Ports Authority has a policy of refusing to berth ships whose primary purpose is gambling. Only so long as gambling is not their primary purpose. The SCSPA refused to give the M/V TROPIC SEA a berthing space at the port of Charleston because it claimed the ship's primary purpose was to facilitate gambling. Believing that it was being singled out for unfair treatment. This court held that the SCSPA is protected by South Carolina's sovereign immunity because it is an arm of the state. The doctrine that a sovereign could not be sued without its consent was universal in the States when the Constitution was drafted and ratified. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0123n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Kelly asserts that Plato's decision to fire her husband was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may95/93-4844.opa.html">LEVI STRAUSS V. SUNRISE INTL. TRADING </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Levi Strauss v. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from the district court's entry of a preliminary injunction and asset freeze in a suit brought under the Lanham Act. Manufactures blue jeans which are sold in the United States and abroad. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-9008.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Alicea Law Offices was on brief. Ndez were on brief. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1695p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> The three appellants in the present matter were defendants in an action brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Our principal concern is with their challenge to the district court's order of disgorgement. We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Is involved in a number of business ventures. She is the sole owner and president of Susan Lachance Industrial Design (SLID) and she is the president of Flat Rock Developers. These press releases did not mention that the acquisition candidates were all owned and controlled by affiliates of Hughes. Among the companies named as acquisition candidates were SLID and Flat Rock. That SLID was in good financial shape (in fact. It had only just emerged from bankruptcy) and was being acquired by Hughes. A more complete statement of the facts is available in Wiley v. Supp. 1264 (D.N.J. 1990). 3 Rock was an active concern (in fact. It was dormant and had no revenue at the time of the press release) and that Hughes had sufficient capital to acquire the business and to expand its real estate holdings. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1303.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> LLP were on brief for appellant. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2003/02-10576.opn.html">ARES V. MANUEL DIAZ FARMS, INC. (1/17/2003, NO. 02-10576) </A> That Ares was an exempt agricultural employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act. We affirm the district court's decision. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011468.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Claiming that RLC was liable for certain debts incurred by Green Thumb Landscape Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1529.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> 2003 </TD> <TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1695p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1996/96a1391p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: We are asked to consider once again the proper allocation of burdens in cases involving allegations of discriminatory employment actions. Which is rarely available. The issue in the specific matter before us concerns the elements of a prima facie case under the familiar McDonnell Douglas scheme in a case in which the plaintiff employee was terminated. There is little in this case about which the parties agree. Was hired by one of the appellees. That she was laid off on October 5. Much is in dispute: who Ms. Marzano's employer was at any one time. Whoever it was. Was doing financially. What the jobs of people hired after she was laid off entailed. What qualifications were required to perform those respective jobs. Why she was laid off. Who needs to establish the reason and what is necessary to do so. Of one thing we are certain: on September 5. Marzano was hired by Computer Science Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-9012.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Murray was on brief for appellants. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2003/02-11265.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. YEAGER (3/12/2003, NO. 02-11265) </A> We revisit the issue of whether proof of reasonable reliance is a necessary component of a federal mail fraud conviction. We hold that such proof is not required. We find that the appropriate focus of the loss calculation is the marginal value of the unrestricted right to distribute over the restricted right. We find that a reasonable estimate of this value is the profit obtained by the defendant from non authorized sales. Whose business it was to distribute prescription drugs at wholesale prices to pharmacies or other outlets. BIPI could immediately terminate its relationship with Druggist if these reports were not filed or if any Atrovent was diverted to non home health patients. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1996/96a1358p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> The Township is appealing only the jury's award of punitive damages. Arguing that the district court erroneously denied the Township's motion for judgment as a matter of law because: (1) punitive damages are unavailable under the LAD against municipalities. (3) there is insufficient evidence to support a punitive damage award. We will affirm. Is governed by a popularly elected Town Council. The Township Manager is ultimately responsible for all personnel actions. Employees are to direct all sexual harassment claims to the Township Manager. Who is the head of the Township's Police Department. One of whom is the Captain of the Services Division. The Police Department is an integral unit of the Township government. So that all who work in the department are in fact Township employees. Gares was under the direct supervision and management of defendant Gary Owens. A few specific examples of Owens' conduct will provide ample illustration of the nature of his actions. While Owens was Captain of Gares' division. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2000/99-10880.man.html">S & DAVIS INT'L V. REPUBLIC OF YEMEN (7/21/2000, NO. 99-10880) </A> Asserting that the General Corporation was controlled by the government. The district court held there was sufficient subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction to proceed. The district court's interlocutory order denying immunity is reviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1994/94a0762p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1688.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were on brief. We shifted the focus of the appeal by inquiring </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2000/98-5290.man.html">MCGREGOR V. CHIERICO (3/24/2000, NO. 98-5290) </A> Who was not a named defendant at the time. The district court entered an Emergency Show Cause Order upon finding good cause to believe the defendants had violated and were likely to further violate the Final Judgment. The court's basis for taking substantially all of the Chiericos' property and assets was its finding that the fraudulent telemarketing practices had caused </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2000/97-8483.ma3.html">MCANDREW V. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP. (3/8/2000, NO. 97-8483) </A> We reverse the district court's order dismissing McAndrew's § 1985(2) claim as barred by the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. <CENTER>I.</CENTER> The facts of this case are straightforward. The United States Department of Justice was investigating Lockheed's sale of three C 130 aircraft to the Arab Republic of Egypt for possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. 10 U.S.C. § 2409 et seq. Robert McAndrew had served as Lockheed's Director of International Marketing since 1989 and was responsible for negotiating the sale of aircraft to foreign nations. In the fall of 1993. McAndrew and more than 30 other Lockheed employees were subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury. McAndrew alleges that on the morning he was scheduled to appear before the grand jury. Told him specifically that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1995/94a0974p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> This is a negligence suit growing out of a transfusion of contaminated blood collected by the Red Cross through its volunteer donor program. We hold that the Red Cross is not clothed with governmental immunity and therefore the plaintiff's request for a jury trial should have been granted. Was infected with HIV as a result of a blood transfusion she received at Brandywine Hospital on February 5. Her condition has deteriorated to the point that it is inevitable she will soon develop full blown AIDS. 1985 by a homosexual male who was HIV+. Which can determine whether a blood sample is contaminated by HIV. That test did not receive approval from the Food and Drug Administration until March 1985 and was not available at the time of Marcella's transfusion. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The case was docketed in the district court as a jury trial. Shortly before the case was scheduled for trial. The Red Cross filed a motion </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june96/95-8396.opa.html">LEDBETTER V. FIRST STATE BANK & TRUST CO. </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Ledbetter v. Ledbetter is the beneficiary of a written. Of which he is also the trustor. First State Bank and Trust Company is the trustee. Is a wholly owned subsidiary of First State Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2238.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Was on brief for appellants. Was on brief for appellee. * Of the District of Massachusetts. For damages resulting from the rape of Kimberly Crocker while she and her husband of less than a year were guests at that lodging. Appellants allege that when Kimberly Crocker was walking through the hotel premises alone. She was attacked at knifepoint and raped. Claims that the assault was perpetrated by a person who was neither a guest at the hotel nor a hotel employee. Which was granted notwithstanding appellants' opposition. Which request was also denied. Appellants attempted to stay the jurisdictional ruling pending discovery but this move was rejected by the trial court. These rulings are all the subject of this appeal. (3) they contend that appellee's activities in Massachusetts were sufficient to warrant the exercise of jurisdiction under Mass. Appellee is a corporation organized under the laws of Barbados. As will be 3 described hereinafter. Have any process agent. Or is it listed as having a Massachusetts telephone number or address. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/96-1504.htm">96-1504 -- MAY V. TOWN OF MOUNTAIN VILLAGE -- 12/19/1997 </A> The District Court found that the provision allowing nonresidents to vote was not irrational or arbitrary. Summary judgment was granted in favor of defendants on all federal law claims. Plaintiffs based their claim of the unconstitutionality of the Charter upon five arguments that is i) that the Equal Protection Clause bars nonresident landowner voting. Finding that questions involving districting and various amendments to the Charter were moot or not ripe for judgment. The Court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims and those issues are not before us.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july97/95-4731.opa.html">GOLDEN DOOR JEWELRY CREATIONS, INC. V. LLOYDS UNDERWRITERS NON-MARINE ASS'N </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Golden Door Jewelry Creations. Leach was not added as a loss payee. On February 10. Holding that the facts did not support reformation under Florida law and that the Consignors' interest in recovery was subject to the policy's conditions and exclusions. Golden Door III. That the payments were unethical and in violation of Rule 4 3.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The court thus held that the Consignors could recover pursuant to the legal liability provisions because the coverage exclusions were severable and only precluded the recovery of the assured who arranged the theft. Golden Door V. The Consignors have no direct right of recovery and their interests are subject to the terms and exclusions of the policy. The Consignors are barred from recovery where the named insured cannot recover or where the policy has been breached. (2) recovery is barred because the district court previously granted summary judgment to Lloyds against the named assureds </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-3105.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> Seeking damages and declaratory relief for the Insurers' alleged breach of insurance policies under which THAN is insured. I. BACKGROUND THAN is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Delaware with <hr> its principal place of business in Lenexa. Kansas.(1) THAN is a subsidiary of Philips Electronics North America Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/993856.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Which have been consolidated before the district court for pretrial purposes. Which is in the business of purchasing such delinquent claims from municipalities in several states. Appendix references are to the appendix filed in Nos. 99 3858 and 99 3859. 4 September 1996. The City and the School District entered into a Purchase Agreement whereby existing claims and liens for unpaid taxes and sewer charges were assigned to NTF.2 App. at 517. Ltd. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1102.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> With whom Potters & Brown was on brief. With whom Harvey Nosowitz and Palmer & Dodge were on brief. Is impermissible. THE SETTING Plaintiff appellee Alfred Stauble is a shareholder and director of two closely held corporations. The saga of Stauble's shareholder suits is scarcely a short story.1 Our burden of exegesis is reduced. Because our focus is less on the vicious infighting and Byzantine business practices that plagued the parties' dealings inter sese than on the procedural path traversed below. The cases were consolidated below. When discovery was finally closed. The case was trial ready. Their objection was overruled and their motion to vacate the order of reference was denied. Concerned that the record was incomplete. We issued an order directing the court below to provide additional information as to why it thought the reference was desirable. That the record was voluminous. Judge McLaughlin's credentials are conceded by all concerned. 4 numerous. Occurring at a time when the court's docket was burgeoning. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1651.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Richard Schwartz were on brief for cross plaintiff. Was indicted and convicted in 1985 of wire fraud. Serrano's misdeeds have been extensively chronicled elsewhere. 3 5 (1st Cir. 1989).1 The primary victim of Serrano's fraud was Home Federal Savings and Loan Association ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-4192.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> Which originally was commenced in 1995. DeLorean was Ecclesiastes's sole director. LMC Holding was to pay a purchase price of $12. Plaintiffs also were responsible for furnishing the following documents within 77 days of closing: (1) a balance sheet. Both before and after its name change. (2) DeLorean was the sole shareholder of Cristina. Which was the sole shareholder of DeLorean Manufacturing. Which was the sole shareholder of Ecclesiastes. <hr> the results of its audit of this closing date documentation. DeLorean was plaintiffs' sole representative at the January 5. The closing date documentation was never completed. An amended complaint was filed. Cristina were added as plaintiffs. A second amended complaint was filed on December 15. Was misled by the methodology for calculating the purchase price adjustments. Supplies was both inadequate and obsolete. Little discovery had been completed at that point. (3) LMC Operating is a wholly owned subsidiary of LMC Holding. It was formed to assume ownership of and to operate the manufacturing business purchased by LMC Holding. (4) LMC Tenant Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of LMC Holding. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0340p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The Insurers are not parties to the underlying litigation. VES and CFL were both wholly owned by James A. A receiver was appointed in the Liberte case for the Liberte funds still held by VES and CFL. The two receiverships were joined under a single Receiver. The injunctions read: It is further ORDERED that all creditors. They hereby are. Said entities are further stayed from executing or issuing or causing the execution or issuance out of any Court of any writ. The Insurers have pursued numerous independent actions to rescind or cancel fraudulently obtained policies. Page 3 fraudulent policies were the subject of one of the Insurer's. Attempts to intervene in a related case (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022310.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Whose former subsidiary was the successful bidder for the packaging contract. The withheld information at issue is redacted from thirteen pages of spreadsheets relating to USPS's Ready Post Initiative ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july97/95-4731.opa.html">GOLDEN DOOR JEWELRY CREATIONS, INC. V. LLOYDS UNDERWRITERS NON-MARINE ASS'N </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Golden Door Jewelry Creations. Leach was not added as a loss payee. On February 10. Holding that the facts did not support reformation under Florida law and that the Consignors' interest in recovery was subject to the policy's conditions and exclusions. Golden Door III. That the payments were unethical and in violation of Rule 4 3.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The court thus held that the Consignors could recover pursuant to the legal liability provisions because the coverage exclusions were severable and only precluded the recovery of the assured who arranged the theft. Golden Door V. The Consignors have no direct right of recovery and their interests are subject to the terms and exclusions of the policy. The Consignors are barred from recovery where the named insured cannot recover or where the policy has been breached. (2) recovery is barred because the district court previously granted summary judgment to Lloyds against the named assureds </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june96/95-8396.opa.html">LEDBETTER V. FIRST STATE BANK & TRUST CO. </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Ledbetter v. Ledbetter is the beneficiary of a written. Of which he is also the trustor. First State Bank and Trust Company is the trustee. Is a wholly owned subsidiary of First State Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1154.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Spinella & Angelone were on brief for appellants. Bomster and Adler Pollock & Sheehan Incorporated were on brief for appellee. Who was also an officer and director of the bankrupt lender. Defendants argue that no fiduciary duty was transgressed. Counter that the Trustee committed waste and failed to mitigate damages to the bankrupt estate by allowing foreclosure on the properties which allegedly were conveyed in order to satisfy the debt. Defendants contend that they are entitled to a significant reduction of any outstanding debt because of the equity in. We now affirm the district court's partial summary judgment and hold affirm that final judgment certification was justified. Miscalculation of debt are unavailing as a matter of law. The nature of the business of Columbus Mortgage was to serve as a mortgage lending firm specializing in residential real estate loans secured by first and second mortgages on real estate. It is undisputed that Mr. Were in the business of selling and developing real estate: Defendants Appellants Muratore Agency. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1662p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) and Friends of the Earth (FOE) have sued Magnesium Elektron. We will reverse the district court and vacate its permanent injunction and judgment against MEI. Because no new permit was issued. The terms of the 1984 permit remained in effect. (1) against any person . . . who is alleged to be in violation of (A) an effluent standard or limitation under this chapter or (B) an order issued by the Administrator or a State with respect to such a standard or limitation . . . . 33 U.S.C. § 1365 (1986). 4 Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey and Friends of the Earth are non profit environmental organizations.2 Pursuant to the citizen suit provision of the Clean Water Act. The affiants' enjoyment of these activities is lessened to the extent that they </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2263.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> The agreement was illegally terminated on January 31. A magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation that the motion for dismissal be granted because both parties to the agreement were Florida corporations. II The dispute in this case arises out of the fact that there have been two corporations with the name </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1067.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Were on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellee. Are Puerto Rico corporations. Complete diversity of citizenship between the parties was thus destroyed. Although this fact was not called to the district court's attention at the time. Arguing 2 that summary judgment was improper and that the district court erred in granting the permanent injunction. Mita is a California corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey. An amendment Codefendants John Doe and Richard Roe are fictitious names used to refer to defendants whose names are unknown at present. Said defendants are the natural persons and/or corporate and/or judicial entities who together with MITA have conspired. John Doe and Richard Roe are citizens and residents of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and are also liable to plaintiff pursuant to the allegations mentioned hereinafter. (emphasis added). 4 filed on March 9. Inc. are. Said defendants are the corporate and/or judicial entities who together with MITA have conspired. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031122.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2000/99-10880.man.html">S & DAVIS INT'L V. REPUBLIC OF YEMEN (7/21/2000, NO. 99-10880) </A> Asserting that the General Corporation was controlled by the government. The district court held there was sufficient subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction to proceed. The district court's interlocutory order denying immunity is reviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-4088.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> Concerned that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2000/97-8483.ma3.html">MCANDREW V. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP. (3/8/2000, NO. 97-8483) </A> We reverse the district court's order dismissing McAndrew's § 1985(2) claim as barred by the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. <CENTER>I.</CENTER> The facts of this case are straightforward. The United States Department of Justice was investigating Lockheed's sale of three C 130 aircraft to the Arab Republic of Egypt for possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. 10 U.S.C. § 2409 et seq. Robert McAndrew had served as Lockheed's Director of International Marketing since 1989 and was responsible for negotiating the sale of aircraft to foreign nations. In the fall of 1993. McAndrew and more than 30 other Lockheed employees were subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury. McAndrew alleges that on the morning he was scheduled to appear before the grand jury. Told him specifically that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2003/02-10576.opn.html">ARES V. MANUEL DIAZ FARMS, INC. (1/17/2003, NO. 02-10576) </A> That Ares was an exempt agricultural employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act. We affirm the district court's decision. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-5242a.html">CHAMBER CMERC US V. REICH ROBERT B. </A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1501.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Brown & Dugan were on brief for appellants. P.A. were on brief for appellees George E. P.A. were on brief for appellees Michael S. Nor is any one of them licensed to practice law there. Review by this Court is de novo (nondeferential). Was killed when the aircraft he was flying. Was struck over the New Hampshire Vermont border by an aircraft from Florida. Which is not a party to this litigation. The affidavit is identical to an unsigned and undated draft affidavit of Mr. Sawtelle except that the draft states that plaintiffs were referred to the California firm by the New Hampshire attorney. They submitted an affidavit of an advertising assistant at AOPA who confirms that there were no advertisements for the law firm in the AOPA magazine for the years 1988 through 1991. The case was assigned to defendant. Farrell is not licensed to practice law in New Hampshire. Among the topics addressed in those communications was Farrell's recommendation that Florida was the most advantageous forum for the wrongful death claim. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2000/98-5290.man.html">MCGREGOR V. CHIERICO (3/24/2000, NO. 98-5290) </A> Who was not a named defendant at the time. The district court entered an Emergency Show Cause Order upon finding good cause to believe the defendants had violated and were likely to further violate the Final Judgment. The court's basis for taking substantially all of the Chiericos' property and assets was its finding that the fraudulent telemarketing practices had caused </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1996/96a1298p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Sokolow was convicted of 107 counts of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (1988). We will affirm the conviction. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1085.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> Claim a competing property interest in any of the land. (1) Phelps Dodge is the ultimate parent company of MEMCO. <hr> The BLM determined that nine of MEMCO's claims satisfied patent requirements. The district court held that third parties who claim no ownership interest in the land subject to a mineral patent cannot challenge the issuance or validity of the patent under the 1872 Mining Law and have no right to relief under the APA. Is a matter of first impression. The Plaintiffs' second claim (FOIA) against the BLM is still pending in the district court and is not the subject of this appeal. <hr> subject matter jurisdiction. P. 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6) is reviewed de novo). B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction Federal Appellees It is well settled that the Plaintiffs can only sue the BLM to the extent it waived its sovereign immunity. 1331 will only confer subject matter jurisdiction where some other statute provides such a waiver. Is entitled to judicial review thereof. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1734.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> LLP were on brief. Jones and Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis were on brief. Arguing that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all counts. That the action was barred 1. The plaintiffs in this action are Harold S. That both the compensatory and punitive damages awards are legally unsustainable. The facts are described as the jury might have found them. The sixth investor was Larry Ansin. Who was. Inc. was incorporated in August 1987. Larry Ansin's total investment in the venture was $100. For which he was issued a certificate. That was 10% of the then issued shares. 000 shares and was president of the company. 500 shares and was secretary and treasurer. Keenum and Simons were two of the three members of the Board of Directors. Each of the original investors contributed another $500 in capital and Larry Ansin was issued a share certificate for 437.5 shares in R O Realty. He would have to sign a non competition agreement. Harold Ansin did not know how many shares he was purchasing. Understood that he was buying his son's entire 10% interest in River Oaks. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/Locator/3d/Oct1999/983550.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> Clover was seriously and permanently injured. Clover is now paraplegic and already has incurred more than $1.5 million in medical bills. At that time the Clovers were living with Anderson in Bear Lake. B. The Policy The circumstances leading to the issuance of the policy were as follows. 2 Intrenet and its affiliates offered them physical damage insurance for their leased equipment at group rates lower than those that they could have obtained on their own. This insurance protected the lessee corporations against liability for damage caused by the owner operators and their drivers while they were not performing duties for the corporations. Which were in effect at the time of Clover's accident. The endorsement defined the term insured as follows: Who Is an Insured 1. If you are an individual. Anyone for damages he or she is entitled to rec over because of `bodily injury' sustained by another `insured.'. Marriage or adoption who is a resident of your household . . . . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/041180.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Which were engaged in the automobile towing business and related services. The search was conducted pursuant to several The search warrants signed by a circuit judge on January 28. 1999. police officers contended that they had reason to believe that Barr and her businesses were abusing their duties when hired by the Prince George's County </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2003/02-11265.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. YEAGER (3/12/2003, NO. 02-11265) </A> We revisit the issue of whether proof of reasonable reliance is a necessary component of a federal mail fraud conviction. We hold that such proof is not required. We find that the appropriate focus of the loss calculation is the marginal value of the unrestricted right to distribute over the restricted right. We find that a reasonable estimate of this value is the profit obtained by the defendant from non authorized sales. Whose business it was to distribute prescription drugs at wholesale prices to pharmacies or other outlets. BIPI could immediately terminate its relationship with Druggist if these reports were not filed or if any Atrovent was diverted to non home health patients. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-5152.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> Title to the Tulsa Property is held by a limited partnership. Whose general partner is 61 MM Corp. The partnership and the corporation are both parties to this dispute and will be referred to collectively as the 61 MM Defendants. The remaining defendant who is a party to this appeal is FPM S.A. d/b/a Finastate Projects Management S.A. A Swiss corporation whose principal place of business is Fribourg. Both of which are Panamanian corporations. Have not been served. (FSM is the successor in interest to Finastate SA. The latter will be referred to as FSM in this opinion.). Who were not parties to the Fiduciary Agreement and who forfeited any objection to venue by not timely raising it. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We reverse and remand for further proceedings regarding the meaning under Swiss law of the forum selection clause and whether dismissal is appropriate under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Yavuz was to have a 20% ownership share in the Tulsa Property. Was the value of the gold and silver that Mr. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200606/05-5197a.pdf">O:\OPN\KATE\YOUSUF\YOUSUF V. SAMANTAR V17.WPD </A> With him on the briefs were Tara M. With him on the brief were Peter D. Mills was on the brief for amici curiae The Educational Fund To Stop Gun Violence and National Security Archive in support of appellants. Chief Judge: The drafters of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure believed Rule 45 was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1047.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> The Department of Justice were on brief for appellee. Zanghi argues that there was insufficient evidence to convict him on the money laundering counts. That our review should thus ask if the evidence was sufficient to meet the higher standard set by the erroneous instruction. This unusual contention is important to the outcome of this appeal because the evidence met the lower statutory standard but would not have met the higher standard proposed by the instruction. Indian was not authorized by its articles of incorporation to issue preferred shares. Which was authorized to issue only 10. (Zanghi was the sole shareholder of Indian. He was ultimately arrested in New York City. Zanghi was convicted on all counts. The indictment alleged that these funds were the proceeds of securities fraud. [is subject to fine. Making it appear that the check was a repayment of a personal loan from Zanghi to Indian. Making it appear that the check was in repayment of a loan by Brazeau to Indian. The jury was required to find that Zanghi had (1) engaged in a financial transaction. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-5113.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A> Smedley argues that the district court erred because (1) she did not waive her argument that her claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983 was based on the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200606/04-1434a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> With him on the briefs were Cameron Cohick and Gregory E. With him on the brief were Giovanni P. Circuit Judge: This is a petition for review of the Securities and Exchange Commission's regulation of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-7212a.html">EL-FADL HASSAN V. CTRL BNK JORDAN </A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug10/03-50419-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Flourogas is a small English company that develops and manufactures fluorine generators. Who was also its president. It was owned by Graham FOC is a Texas company that The began with two brothers. The process involves spraying chemicals onto silicon wafers while those wafers are inside a chamber. cleaning. Chambers are cleaned with nitrogen trifluoride (or NF3) gas. One of these Yet Fluorine has companies have looked for alternatives to NF3. potential alternatives is fluorine gas (or F2). its own problems in particular. It is extremely dangerous and difficult to handle. As even the Siegeles have admitted. The MOU was a handwritten document drafted by Fluorogas Frederick Siegele over the course of a weekend. contends that the parties planned to eventually replace the MOU with a more formal contract. The MOU granted FOC </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may95/93-4844.opa.html">LEVI STRAUSS V. SUNRISE INTL. TRADING </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Levi Strauss v. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from the district court's entry of a preliminary injunction and asset freeze in a suit brought under the Lanham Act. Manufactures blue jeans which are sold in the United States and abroad. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200312/02-1273a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1589.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Linda Steinman were on brief. This is a tale of an American icon. Faigin's case against Kelly was tried to a jury over a 19 day span and resulted in a defendant's verdict. The founders' game plan was to furnish contract negotiation services through Lustig Pro Sports. He was a shareholder. He a was a principal in L & F. Was thought to be the most lucrative in the league's history. Faigin noted that Lustig's investment advice and other business decisions were largely self serving. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-31093.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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. It is not clear whether such liability could be found independent of a breach of fiduciary duty. Which would put the 1 * FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND SCDF Investment Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug97/95-4979.opa.html">REPUBLIC OF PANAMA V. BCCI HOLDINGS </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Republic of Panama v. Background BCCI Holdings is the parent corporation of BCCI S.A. and BCCI Ltd. These foreign defendants were the principal corporations in an international banking group operating in sixty nine countries. They will be referred to as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200206/01-7104a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> With him on the brief was Caroline Turner English. With him on the brief was Richard K. SSS also contends that the SSS/SSI Joint Venture Agreement is null and void because it was executed under duress. SSS's action is based on a claim of copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. ss 106 and 602. Because the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200206/01-7085a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> With him on the brief was Robert S. We consider whether the courts of the District of Columbia may assert general jurisdiction over a defendant that is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7FB8AD67BBC9E2C388256BFF00575C12/$file/0115630.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> (2) Kyocera's performance under the agreements was not excused. Relationship of the Parties LaPine is a corporation formed in 1984 to design. LaPine was financed by PruTech. The general partner of which was an 10390 KYOCERA v. Kyocera is a Japanese manufacturer of ceramic and electronic products. Under which K.K.P.B. was obligated to maintain the level of funding of LaPine until the cash flow of the latter achieved </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/728D5F3B6D62954888256C3E00584505/$file/0035924.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> At issue in this case are two of the provisions contained in that initiative. The district court's factual findings are adequately supported by the record and are not clearly erroneous. Two sections that were subsequently enacted as Mont. To a candidate are limited as follows: (i) for candidates filed jointly for the office of governor and lieutenant governor. It increased the amount that political parties are permitted to contribute. A candidate for the state house of representatives may receive no more M.C.A. § 13 37 216(3) reads: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6AA2DACB7759D17488256DB7005BBA85/$file/0235158.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Who was awarded both the overtime wages and an equal amount in liquidated damages. Because this case was decided on summary judgment. We are required. As was the district court. Black was interested in the purchase of Alternative because she sought to obtain certain state issued. Which were otherwise difficult to obtain. Alternative was behind in its taxes. The other problem was that Alternative. Was not yet certified as a Medicare provider. This second complication was remedied when Alternative's Medicare certification became effective on February 22. Alternative alone would have had difficulty passing the survey because Alternative had very few </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1800.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Associates were on brief for appellant. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6906DEF94363967388256D9B005A69F9/$file/0255287.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Arguing that his rights under the Confrontation Clause were violated by the admission of an extrajudicial statement given by his accomplice. We conclude that while the admission of Hill's statement was improper. The error was harmless under contemporary Supreme Court authority. 13200 FORN v. HORNUNG FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The November Statement Forn was convicted of conspiring with and soliciting James Hill (a/k/a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0090p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Are former nonunion steel industry employees. Neither defendant was ever the plaintiffs' direct employer. Had to demonstrate that they were entitled to pierce the defendant corporations' corporate veils under Ohio law. The plaintiffs have not made out a justiciable case showing the defendants' liability for the enhanced retirement benefits the plaintiffs claim. The claim fails because the plaintiffs have not shown that they are victims of unlawful age discrimination. The plaintiffs were enrolled in a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/65F252E2DE963B3588256D9D0069D9B5/$file/0035924.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> At issue in this case are two of the provisions contained in that initiative. The district court's factual findings are adequately supported by the record and are not clearly erroneous. Two sections that were subsequently enacted as Mont. To a candidate are limited as follows: (i) for candidates filed jointly for the office of governor and lieutenant governor. It increased the amount that political parties are permitted to contribute. A candidate for the state house of representatives may receive no more M.C.A. § 13 37 216(3) reads: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5CA19A1CA157C7B388256C62007C7A8C/$file/0135762.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> § 2737 is an unconstitutional bill of attainder and denies SeaRiver due process and equal pro 6 SEARIVER MARITIME FINANCIAL HOLDINGS v. We hold that § 2737 is not an unconstitutional bill of attainder because it does not punish SeaRiver. Nor is § 2737 inconsistent with the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection because there is a rational basis for Congress to have concluded that excluding the Exxon Valdez from Prince William Sound would further the legitimate purpose of protecting the Sound's environment from future oil spills. It was constructed at a cost of $125 million for the purpose of carrying oil from the Alaska North Slope to United States oil refineries. It is undisputed that the ship ran aground as a result of the actions of its master and crew. Congress recognized that Prince William Sound is an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/58351E7B6A377AA488256AF7007FDEEA/$file/0015444.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs appeal the district court's decision that Nevada rather than California law should be applied to a claim that usurious interest rates were charged on six loans made by defendants. The district court found that the interest rates were permissible and that there had been no conversion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm the district court on both issues. I Plaintiffs are three California corporations Shannon/Vail Five. The loans were secured by trust deeds for real property located in California. The loans were also personally guaranteed by Dobron. Each note recited that the loan was to be repaid in Nevada. The case was removed to federal district court in the Southern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1446. Was then transferred to the District Court of Nevada under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Thus the transactions were still not usurious. We need not reach the question of whether this exception applies under California law because we find that Nevada law applies. 15312 court also concluded that California did not have a more significant relationship to the contract than Nevada under the principles stated in § 6(b) of the Restatement. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19954731.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Leach was not added as a loss payee. 1 Other companies also intervened but have been dismissed during the course of this litigation. Holding that the facts did not support reformation under Florida law and that the Consignors' interest in recovery was subject to the policy's conditions and exclusions. That the payments were unethical and in violation of Rule 4 3.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The court thus held that the Consignors could recover pursuant to the legal liability provisions because the coverage exclusions were severable and only precluded the recovery of the assured who arranged the theft. The Consignors have no direct right of recovery and their interests are subject to the terms and exclusions of the policy. The Consignors are barred from recovery where the named insured cannot recover or where the policy has been breached. (2) recovery is barred because the district court previously granted summary judgment to Lloyds against the named assureds Credini. The district court incorrectly computed the prejudgment interest from the date of loss rather than from the date that the payments were due. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19958396.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Ledbetter is the beneficiary of a written. Of which he is also the trustor. First State Bank and Trust Company is the trustee. Is a wholly owned subsidiary of First State Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/551B0F46B06C491A882571A00054F840/$file/0535153.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Where hazardous substances disposed of by Teck have come to be located. We decide today whether a citizen suit based on Teck's alleged non compliance with the Order is a domestic or an extraterritorial application of the Comprehensive Environmental Response. We address Teck's argument that it is not liable for having </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/53DE6372E58D839988256BDE00807572/$file/0030337.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> We hold that the criminal statute under which he was charged the Indian Major Crimes Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8F8B293F4A9CD8EB882570CE005A27CD/$file/0216947.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Plant diseasecausing fungi are rarely the subject of casual dinner conversation. Scab are extremely serious matters. Benlate was one of DuPont's most successful commercial products. Who are commercial nurserymen. Many similar suits were filed by commercial growers across the nation. It became clear that DuPont had not revealed to Plaintiffs during discovery damaging test results that indicated that Benlate was indeed contaminated with SUs. There are three different categories of tests concealed. The settlement between Fuku Bonsai and DuPont was approved by the bankruptcy court on May 16. DUPONT DE NEMOURS 15643 by Alta Analytical Laboratories ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/51BFE3F68EDF896E88256B0300792F66/$file/9835154.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> V. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because the district court did not have the opportunity to consider Appellants' First Amendment claim in light of Phillips. One of the most significant is loyalty to the client. Lawyers have long been required to place their clients' money in bank accounts separate from their own. Lawyers in all fifty states are held to that same high standard of professional conduct. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4F3BBD41BFB73F0388256D87008263AC/$file/0216700.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs are residents and qualified voters of a community known as Tortolita. All three municipalities have opposed Tortolita's incorporation. CITY OF TUCSON 11741 Fourteenth Amendment because it unjustifiably burdens their right to vote on municipal incorporation.1 Plaintiffs argue that the right to petition for incorporation granted by Arizona law is the constitutional equivalent of the right to vote and is therefore protected by the Equal Protection Clause. Section 9 101.01 is not analogous to either of these two types of voting regulations because it treats all residents of the relevant electoral unit. Section 9 101.01 admittedly draws geographical distinctions between those unincorporated communities that are near existing municipalities and those that are not. We conclude that § 9101.01 is rationally related to Arizona's legitimate interest in regulating the establishment of new municipalities and in protecting the interests of existing ones. The suit was initially brought against Tucson. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/495220A1CDF8F91B88256AB70082A496/$file/0016582.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: This is a rare case. Which were based on federal law. Yet they complain that they were entitled to more: the right to proceed with their counterclaim seeking a declaration that their alleged conduct did not violate state law an issue that was pending in state court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The complaint alleges manipulation was accomplished by EFI disseminating false and misleading public statements about the company.1 On December 31. The California Supreme Court held that the California statutory remedy for acts of market manipulation occurring in Cal 1 The state court case is Steele v. 1997). 11909 ifornia was intended to benefit all victims of securities fraud regardless of where they purchased the affected securities. The California Supreme Court held that the corporate defendant was a person </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3D2188C8CBCD84D688256E5A00707C2C/$file/9935881.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The facts giving rise to the present action are tortuous and the truth may yet be obscured. Former director and executive vice president of Gulf. 2 Certain corporate relationships are central to the resulting real estate transactions. The basic relationships are as follows: Gulf wholly owned Gulfpac Ltd. At issue in this case is the contention that Felpark and Kingsley were shell corporations controlled by the Rowland Group. Which were used to siphon money out of the New Zealand real estate transactions to the benefit of the Rowland Group. 10197 purchase and sale contracts one contract involved Felpark's sale of nineteen properties. One of the properties acquired under the Felpark contract was an office building known as the Unisys House. The Unisys House was owned by a corporation known as Sunflower Services Ltd. Which was owned by Citibank. The Unisys House and the Sunflower ordinary shares were transferred to a Gulf subsidiary. The preferred shares of Sunflower were transferred to Kingsley. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3B181A3BD78A945088256E5A00707D47/$file/9835154.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> V. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because the district court did not have the opportunity to consider Appellants' First Amendment claim in light of Phillips. One of the most significant is loyalty to the client. Lawyers have long been required to place their clients' money in bank accounts separate from their own. Lawyers in all fifty states are held to that same high standard of professional conduct. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200206/00-7244a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> With him on the brief were Andrew C. With him on the brief was Stuart H. Two central questions have been raised on appeal: first. Whether plaintiffs have alleged facts that are legally sufficient to revoke Libya's immunity under the FSIA. That plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for hostage taking adequate to abrogate sovereign immunity and establish subject matter jurisdiction. We hold further that the allegations supporting plaintiffs' torture claim are not adequate to bring the case within the statutory exceptions to foreign sovereign immuntiy. The complaint in its present form is simply too conclusory to satisfy s 1605(a)(7). Plaintiffs have at least intimated that they can allege facts that might state a proper claim for torture under the FSIA. We will remand the case to allow plaintiffs to attempt to amend their complaint in an effort to satisfy the statute's rigorous definition of torture. We note that there is a question as to whether the complaint states a claim for relief upon which plaintiffs can recover. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1BBE99A82D53440288256C2B005015A5/$file/0155038.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> LUI were consolidated. As the removed action was essentially a counterclaim to the claims initially brought in federal court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The two attractions contemplated were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/98C687CB3ABCB71688256CF60060BF0A/$file/0056330.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> That Australia is entitled to immunity under the FSIA for the alleged torts. The facts that follow are therefore solely those alleged in the complaint. Plaintiff Appellee Christopher Blaxland is a legal resident of the United States. Blaxland was a director of ATS Resources Limited (ATSR). Blaxland was also a director of several affiliated corporations. Both Christopher Blaxland and his wife Marcella Blaxland are plaintiffs in this suit. OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS 4405 Blaxland was later charged with two offenses allegedly committed while he was a director of ATSR and the other corporations: (1) acting as a director with intent to defraud. These charges were filed against him for an ulterior purpose by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). The motive was the DPP's and the ASIC's desire to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199910880.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Asserting that the General Corporation was controlled by the government. The district court held there was sufficient subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction to proceed. The district court's interlocutory order denying immunity is reviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199910880.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Asserting that the General Corporation was controlled by the government. The district court held there was sufficient subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction to proceed. The district court's interlocutory order denying immunity is reviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0BFF2CFAE79835FD88256FE7005BEA8C/$file/0315208.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: We are faced here with the question whether claims for losses allegedly suffered at the hands of a Nazi puppet regime during World War II are cognizable in our courts today. It is tempting to jump to the conclusion that such claims are barred by the political question doctrine. That </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1569.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> With him on the brief was. With her on the brief was Julie K. Of counsel on the brief was Tara C. On the ground that the claim is barred by a covenant not to sue that General Mills granted to Kraft's predecessor in interest. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in deeming Kraft's counterclaim to have been abandoned. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9DEDD3B7119D049588256E5A00707C89/$file/0016582.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: This is a rare case. Which were based on federal law. Yet they complain that they were entitled to more: the right to proceed with their counterclaim seeking a declaration that their alleged conduct did not violate state law an issue that was pending in state court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The complaint alleges manipulation was accomplished by EFI disseminating false and misleading public statements about the company.1 On December 31. The California Supreme Court held that the California statutory remedy for acts of market manipulation occurring in Cal 1 The state court case is Steele v. 1997). 11909 ifornia was intended to benefit all victims of securities fraud regardless of where they purchased the affected securities. The California Supreme Court held that the corporate defendant was a person </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/08/982687P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The remaining claims were tried to a jury. The trial was the result of a decision by the Federal Communications Commission to allow telephone companies to provide interactive television programming to consumers' homes. Mostly Media claims incoming calls rolled over to an unknown destination when its telephone lines were busy or went unanswered. We have examined carefully the issue of damages in this case. Mostly Media must have been able to prove. That its involvement in the trial would have been profitable. Speculation is not permitted. Her testimony was supported. RSVP participated in the video dialtone trial in a manner substantially similar to the manner in which it would have participated. Testified that the estimated value of the joint venture was more than $8.5 million. This theory is based upon evidence that U.S. Assuming a third of the joint venture was worth more than $252. There are important differences between Mostly Media and Interface Communications. This figure was arrived at by projecting a constant rate of 4 growth. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/08/982442P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of THORN EMI. Which is a wholly owned subsidiary of TEMINAH. Is a wholly owned subsidiary of THORN EMI. Thereby ceasing to have a separate corporate existence. 2 1 interest rates on credit sales of consumer goods. The District Court certified the plaintiff class to include </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200210576.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> That Ares was an exempt agricultural employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act. I. Adan Ares was employed by Diaz Landscaping and Nursery. All of which is leased to Diaz Farms for use in its plant cultivation operations. Diaz Landscaping was the employer of record of all employees working at Diaz Farms from 1997 through 1999. Diaz Landscaping was not actively involved in agriculture and had no function or activity other than to lease land and employees to Diaz Farms. As we decide that Appellant is an exempt agricultural employee. This second claim is moot. Some of which is cultivated by Diaz Farms. He is a partner in the Manuel Diaz and Amelia Diaz Partnership. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/jan97/95-8050.wpd.html">THUNDER BASIN COAL CO. V. SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERV. CO. </A> Thunder Basin further alleged that Southwestern was contractually obligated to guarantee TUCO's performance and had failed to do so. Southwestern argues the district court erred when it determined TUCO was not an indispensable party. P. 24 is never an indispensable party under Fed. Mines coal from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and is a subsidiary of the Atlantic Richfield Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A0C0745D00D79B73882572A30077FE2E/$file/0535615.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Kenneth Reiserer was an attorney whose practice included tax planning services. The IRS alleged that he was involved in an abusive tax arrangement known as offshore employee leasing (OEL). Reiserer was an officer or director of several domestic leasing corporations involved in an OEL scheme. Under an OEL scheme a customer will terminate his current employment and enter into a contract with a foreign leasing corporation. The IRS published a notice stating that OEL schemes were abusive arrangements and persons involved could be subject to IRS investigation and possible liability. The case was referred to a magistrate judge. Who found: (1) the penalties under §§ 6700 and 6701 are not penal in nature and thus do not abate with death. Id. § 6701(a) & (b). [2] It is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A12C055823246BF688256DB0007A8549/$file/0255287.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Is corrected as follows: At slip op. page 13199. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200213084.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The trustee in bankruptcy of Greater Ministries and two individual investors in the Ponzi scheme are suing First Union for knowingly paying out funds from Greater Ministries' accounts to a malfeasant church official. I. Because this case was dismissed on a Fed. While G reater M inistries m ay have c onduc ted servic es and en gaged in charitable activities. Its significance was largely as a vehicle for a Ponzi scheme run by the church's elders. The investment interests were labeled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/09/972221P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The Arkansas General Assembly's goal in passing the PPA was to ensure </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B100A61F8EA22967882572C6007C3359/$file/0417353.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. BACKGROUND JAL is a Japanese commercial air carrier based in Tokyo. Ventress and Crawford were employed by HACS to perform services for JAL flights. HACS informed Crawford that his assignment to JAL was cancelled because of unsatisfactory performance. All claims were brought under California law. Or is about to provide (with any knowledge of the employer) or cause to be provided to the employer or Federal Government information relating to any violation or alleged violation of any order. That Hawaii was the more convenient forum for potential witnesses and for accessing HACS's personnel records. The Hawaii district court granted judgment on the pleadings for JAL on the ground that all of plaintiffs' claims were preempted by the Friendship. Even if they were not preempted. Saying that the issue was mooted by its decision on treaty preemption. Although Ventress and Crawford were represented by the same lawyer when they filed the complaint. (3) whether the interlocutory order compelling arbitration is appealable. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?caseno=06-1117&submit=showdkt">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD><TD> Nature of Suit: Oth Per Property Damage fedque</TD></TR></TABLE> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200312545.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Revives securities fraud actions that were time barred before the effective date of the SOA. Determining that the new limitations period revives actions that previously were time barred. A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B67C07DCC082AC598825701A007626F4/$file/0315208.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A> Circuit Judge: We are faced here with the question whether claims for losses allegedly suffered at the hands of a Nazi puppet regime during World War II are cognizable in our courts today. It is tempting to jump to the conclusion that such claims are barred by the political question doctrine. That </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199803/97-3072a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> With him on the briefs were Richard A. With him on the briefs were Donald C. Green were on the brief for amicus curiae American League of Lobbyists. Circuit Judge: Sun Diamond is a large agricul tural cooperative owned by individual member cooperatives including Diamond Walnut Growers. Who was responsible for investigating allegations of unlawful activity by former Secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy. Linking Sun Diamond and Espy was the figure of Richard Douglas. Douglas was responsible for (among other things) representing the interests of the corporation and its member cooperatives in Washington. The Department of Agriculture ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/05/962548P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> We conclude that parental liability is appropriate on the facts of this case and therefore grant the Board's petition to enforce. The charges were tried in Pittsburgh in March 1991. By informing job applicants that Graphics was a non union employer that would not hire union supporters. The administrative law judge issued a supplemental decision holding PSC liable for the back pay awarded because PSC and Graphics were a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/04/962761P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Astraea made numerous phone calls to Northwest's offices in Minnesota during this refurbishment contract was executed by the parties in Minnesota. contract was amended by a letter agreement in March 1994. Under which Astraea was to provide routine maintenance for some Northwest aircraft. United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 2 2 After the contracts were executed. There were delays in completing the aircraft. Including defective parts and a leaky fuel line and undetected tail crack on one of the aircraft. statements were included in an article in the Minneapolis newspaper. Copies of the article were faxed to Northwest employees in Texas. A suit is commenced when it is filed. The counterclaims filed in this action are basically identical to the claims asserted by Astraea in its Texas complaint. 3 3 breached the contracts by delivering the planes late and not performing to specifications. The parties Astraea to the breach of contract claims and moved for summary judgment on the counterclaims. settled the remaining claims which were dismissed with prejudice. counterclaims. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200412420.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Which are small loans with interest rates averaging 400 500% APR due on the next payday. This appeal presents the question of whether the State of Georgia may regulate a narrow segment of agency agreements between in state payday stores and out of state banks or whether the Georgia Act in issue is preempted by § 27(a) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/10/953964P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Appellants Dennis Loehrer and Stephen Brandt are former employees of appellee McDonnell Douglas Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-1035a.html">TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT CO. V. FCC </A> With him on the briefs were Peter Keisler. Joffe and Henk Brands were on the briefs for petitioner Time Warner Entertainment Co. Leanza and Harold Feld were on the briefs for petitioner Consumers Union. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-3089_059.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Is an unlikely place for considering a case involving seven Nigerian citizens suing an eighth Nigerian for acts committed in Nigeria. The path the plaintiffs are pursuing is. Was a member of the junta and was Nigeria's head of state for the last year of the junta's reign. Alleging that he was behind the atrocities. The specific issue which gives rise to this interlocutory appeal is the decision that the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act of 1976 (FSIA). Does not apply to individuals and thus General Abubakar is not immune from suit. That General Abubakar is entitled to common law immunity for the year that he was head of state. The situation in Nigeria at the time of these events was unstable. A number of military rulers were overthrown. A presidential election was held. The highest governmental body was the Provisional Ruling Council (PRC). It was composed of military officials No. 03 3089 3 and a few civilians. Whoever was the current military ruler was the chairman of the PRC. Plaintiff Hafsat Abiola is the daughter of Nigerian prodemocracy activists. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5033.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> With him on the brief was L. With him on the brief were Kelly A. With him on the brief were Robert M. That the United States was not liable to JRS&G under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution for the alleged taking of JRS&G's leasehold interest in a 158 acre tract of land in Lapeer County. Which are not in dispute. Are set forth in John R. JRS&G is entitled to the exclusive use of the property for the purpose of mining sand and gravel. JRS&G's operations are principally located in its plant area in the eastcentral portion of the property. JRS&G's main sand and gravel pit ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971811.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. In November 1994 the property was auctioned at a foreclosure sale. 1 On appeal from an order granting a motion to dismiss under Fed. Frost was vice president and general counsel to the Defendant Driggs Corporation. A corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary are not capable of conspiring in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act. 146 (4th Cir. 1990) (holding two wholly owned subsidiaries of the same parent corporation are legally incapable of conspiring). One thing is clear. The plain language of the complaint alleges that the corporate Defendants were all controlled and/or owned by Driggs. Zachair's own allegations show that the Defendants are related entities incapable of restraining trade withing the meaning of the Sherman Act. A district court's decision to dismiss an action with prejudice is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Zachair never moved for leave to amend its complaint and thus is foreclosed from arguing on appeal that the district court improperly denied leave to amend. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200513240.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Against a class action suit in which the class has not yet been certified by the state court and the only potentially covered claims are by putative class members. I. The relevant facts are these: the appellant. Was the sole shareholder. This opinion will refer to Beaver. The complaint alleged that Ayres resided at one of the nursing homes in 2 The relevant policy provisions provide: 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="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-4330.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A> This is a suit by common shareholders of Cadant. The defendants are two corporate entities that we'll call </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/01/944104P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Idaho residents Novella and Frank Adams were killed in a single engine airplane crash near Naylor. Their five children seek damages for claims that the crash was caused by a defect in the airplane's autopilot. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972735.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Is not the real party in interest in this litigation. I. Appellant BMC is the parent company and the sole shareholder of the corporations of the Bob McLemore Group (BMG). McLemore is the president and sole shareholder of BMC and of all 1 The district court took jurisdiction over this tort suit between two citizens of North Carolina because the matter arose from a core proceeding pending before the federal bankruptcy court in Charlotte. Each of BMC's subsidiary corporations is involved in some aspect of the home building. Appellee Home Federal is a federal savings and loan association. Withdrawal by whom is unclear. Because no signature card was ever signed for the account. There is undisputed evidence in the record that BMC was the only company to which funds were ever released. That BMC was the only company to receive monthly statements of account activity. Funds were withdrawn from the pledge account to pay a BMC debt. BMC maintains that the account was established with the clear understanding between BMC and Home Federal that the pledged funds were to remain the property of the depositor subsidiary corporations. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/01/941353P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> McCoy were sole shareholders of Arkoma. Bob Klein and the royalty owners1 appeal the district court's finding that they are not entitled to recover any portion The named appellants represent a class of approximately 3000 lessors. 1 of funds exchanged in the transaction. I. BACKGROUND The facts of this case are set forth in our opinion in the earlier appeal of this action and need only be briefly repeated here. Jones and McCoy were. The royalty owners were entitled to one eighth of the proceeds from gas produced on the owners' land. Arkla was unable to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTEzNTctY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-1357-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> Plaintiff appellant Norex Petroleum Limited ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3821_021.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> All five physicians were named as defendants in the supplementary proceeding. Was not $878. That is a matter to be straightened out on remand. 000 in assets were fraudulent conveyances of property that belonged to the corporation. Claiming that they were alter egos of APM and therefore personally liable for the corporation's debt to him. Clair was a successor to APM and therefore liable for its debt to him (though there is no </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTM3NzAtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3770-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> The plaintiffs brought an action for declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent enforcement of certain Connecticut banking laws against Wachovia Mortgage on the ground that the state laws are preempted by the National Bank Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200103/94-1035a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> With him on the briefs were Peter Keisler. Joffe and Henk Brands were on the briefs for petitioner Time Warner Entertainment Co. Leanza and Harold Feld were on the briefs for petitioner Consumers Union. With him on the brief were Christopher J. Frederick Beckner III were on the brief for intervenor Time Warner Entertainment Co. The first type is horizontal. Addressing operators' scale: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTU3ODMtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5783-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A> (ii) all parties were performing under implied in fact contracts. (iii) those implied in fact contracts were illegal under § 2807 c. (iv) all parties were equally at fault for non compliance with § 2807 c. The District Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims for unjust enrichment on the ground that it was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2158VOL1.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A> Bicki and </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1996/96a1334p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A> The Commissioner has asked us to review a ruling which allowed a United States taxpayer to deduct interest owed to a related foreign payee when it was accrued rather than paid. Reg. 1.267(a) 3 is invalid to the extent that it requires accrual basis taxpayers to defer deductions for interest owed to a related foreign payee until the year the interest is paid. Also at issue is whether. Reg. 1.267(a) 3 is valid. Reg. 1.267(a) 3 is a valid exercise of the powers delegated to the Secretary under I.R.C. 267(a)(3). We will reverse the decision of the Tax Court. I. The following facts were stipulated by the parties before the United States Tax Court. The taxpayer is an affiliated group of corporations of which Tate and Lyle. (TLI) is the common parent. Is a wholly owned subsidiary. Both TLI and RSI are United States corporations and were included on the taxpayer's consolidated federal income tax returns for the tax years at issue. Tate and Lyle plc (PLC) is a United Kingdom corporation which indirectly owns 100% of TLI and RSI. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5066.html">BANKERS TRUST NEW YORK CORPORATION V. U.S. </A> With him on the brief were Joel V. With him on the brief were Loretta C. Circuit Judge. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5039.html">LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP. V. U.S. </A> With him on the brief was Thomas W. Of counsel on the brief was Daniel J. Of counsel were Mark M. With them on the brief were Loretta C. With him on the brief was David Kasanow. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1584.html">INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL. V. CAT CONTRACTING, INC., ET AL. </A> KG. < </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1466.html">HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE V. INVAMED </A> With him on the brief were Tony V. With him on the brief were Alan H. A defendant then moved the district court (1) to impose sanctions for the plaintiffs alleged violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by filing a baseless suit without a proper investigation and (2) to determine under 35 U.S.C. § 285 that the case was ". Are as follows:</LI></OL> </OL> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1448.html">OHIO CELLULAR PRODUCTS CORP. V. ADAMS USA INC. </A> With him on the brief were Jack A. Of counsel was David W. The plaintiff in this infringement suit which was dismissed after the asserted patents were held invalid. Nelson is the president and sole stockholder of Ohio Cellular. His motion was denied on May 18. This appeal was timely filed. It was submitted for our decision following oral argument on February 3. Because we conclude that under the particular circumstances of this case the district court did not abuse its discretion in adding Nelson as a third party defendant and amending the judgment quantifying the fee award to obligate Nelson individually after post trial proceedings were concluded. The asserted patents were found invalid for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) (1994). The infringement complaint was therefore dismissed. Cir. 1996) (table). After the judgment of invalidity was affirmed. Ohio Cellular's motion for reconsideration was denied on September 25. After an evidentiary hearing was held. Had withheld material prior art from the United States Patent and Trademark Office with the intent to deceive.3 The judgment that Ohio Cellular committed inequitable conduct is not here disputed. After judgment on liability for fees was entered. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1012.html">OPINION/ORDER</A> With him on the brief were Richard S. With him on the brief was Steven E. Of counsel was Henri Frederic Hibon. 496 because these patents were licensed to Cambridge under a cross licensing agreement. All of which are assigned to Institut Pasteur. Are directed to structural components of and methods of detecting the presence of two types of Human Immunodeficiency Virus ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96om471.html">OPINION/ORDER</A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1509.html">SIGMA CORP ET AL V. THE UNITED STATES </A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1317.html">CRUDE COMPANY V. FERC </A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1145.html">COCHRAN CONSULTING V. UWATEC </A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-5022.html">BRANCH V. U.S. </A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1490.html">ADDITIVE CONTROLS V. FLOWDATA, INC. </A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5132.html">VENTURE COAL SALES COMPANY, ET AL. V. U.S. </A> Argued for defendant appellee. With him on the brief were Eileen J. Line height:200%'> The appellants are three <st1:State><st1:place>Pennsylvania</st1:place></st1:State> coal companies in the business of mining and selling coal. 26 U.S.C. § 4121 (1994) ( Coal Sales Tax ). The tax was imposed both on coal sold domestically and on coal that was exported </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1572.html">LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, ET AL. V. CHIRON CORPORATION </A> Argued for plaintiffs appellees. With him on the brief was James W. Were unsuccessful. After LabCorp failed to sign a proposed extension. Mso bidi font family: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1181.html">BANCORP SERVICES, L.L.C., V. HARTFORD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. </A> With him on the brief was David A. Argued for defendants appellees. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1329.html">SILENT DRIVE, INC V. STRONG INDUSTRIES </A> Argued for plaintiff appellant. With her on the brief were Edmund J. Harty. Of counsel was Ronald M. Argued for defendents appellees. With him on the brief was Margaret C </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-5134.html">TALASILA, INC., V. U.S. </A> With her on the brief were David M. At the time the complaint was filed. Plaintiffs were represented by an attorney. That Talasila would have to obtain new representation in order to proceed with its suit. Id.. Was not admitted to practice before the Court of Federal Claims. Talasila. Argued that Mikkilineni was the real party in interest in the case. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § . The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether the Court of Federal Claims must permit Mikkilineni to appear pro se in order to assert the claim of the dissolved corporation of which he is the only successor in interest. This is a question of law which we review de novo. See H.B. Cir. 1998). </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1381.html">TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED V. TESSERA, INC. </A> With him on the brief were Mark N. Newton. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1292.html">INAMED CORP. V. LUBOMYR I. KUZMAK, </A> Argued for plaintiffs appellants. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-5133a.html">USA/LONG RONALD E. V. STATE OF NEW YORK </A> Argued the cause for appellant/cross appellee. With him on the briefs was Peter H. With him on the brief was William H. With him on the briefs were Frank W. Hunger. Dunn was on the notice of joinder in brief for appellant Joseph P. Rotenberg was on the brief for amicus curiae The Regents of the University of Minnesota. Before: Wald. Circuit Judge: The question presented in this appeal is whether states are defendant persons under the False Claims Act. We hold that they are not. I. Ronald Long was the Coordinator of Investigations and Audit for the Bureau of Proprietary School Supervision of the New York State Department of Education. The Bureau's funding depended in substantial part on tuition assessments and fines that SCS paid to the Bureau. Long's theory was that since the Bureau received a share of the federal funds that SCS fraudulently obtained from the United States. Frey and other state officials took actions to limit and subvert his investigation. Long was taken off the investigation and then fired in 1992. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-3023a.html">USA V. DALE DAVID M. </A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-1142a.html">JONES JOSEPH L. REV V. FRS </A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-7211a.html">SABA MOHAMMAD ALI V. CMPG NATL AIR FRANCE </A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5256a.html">UNITED ASSOC JOURNEY V. RENO JANET </A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5088a.html">AKINS JAMES V. FEC </A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5014a.html">COTTON CATHERINE V. ADAMS, ROBERT </A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-1275a.html">CORP TELECOM SVC V. FCC </A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-7167a.html">FOREMOST MCKESSON V. ISLAM REPUB IRAN </A> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-7195a.html">TRIFAX CORP., V. D.C. </A> Argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief was Charles L. The OIG released a highly critical report that was later described in a Washington Post article. According to the OIG report. The only important fact about the OIG's audit is that the OIG never offered Trifax an opportu nity to comment on the unfavorable report before making it public. After the report's release. Summary judgment will not lie ... if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Persons whose future employment pros pects have been impaired by government defamation ". That would have unquestionably constituted a deprivation of liber ty. Conceding that it was not formally debarred. Trifax claims to have suffered ". Did not also constitute a deprivation simply because the harm was reputa tional. For exactly this reason. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-5429a.html">BOCA INVESTERINGS PARTNERSHIP V. U.S. </A> Argued the cause for appellant. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-5223a.html">AMFAC RESORTS, L.L.C V. U.S. DEPT OF INTERIOR </A> Geller argued the cause for appellants. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-5092a.html">JAMES C. WOOD, JR V. AMER INSTITUTE IN TAIWAN </A> II argued the cause for appellant. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-7157b.html">MCKESSON HBOC, INC., ET AL., V. IRAN </A> Jr. argued the cause for appel lant/cross appellee. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-7157a.html">MCKESSON HBOC, V. ISLAMIC REPUBLIC IRAN </A> Jr. argued the cause for appel lant/cross appellee. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5212a.html">U.S. V. MICROSOFT </A> Holley argued the causes for appellant. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept96/95-8187.opa.html">CROSBY V. HOSPITAL AUTH. OF VALDOSTA AND LOWNDES CTY. </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Crosby v. Who was denied staff privileges by the Hospital Authority of Valdosta and Lowndes County ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept96/94-8485.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. PARADIES </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov96/94-4985.opa.html">BANCO INDUSTRIAL DE VENEZUELA V. CREDIT SUISSE </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Banco Industrial de Venezuela v. Senior Circuit Judge: This civil case based on diversity and federal question jurisdiction involves extensive fraud in international banking. A brief factual summary is necessary. Was established and is owned by the government of Venezuela. This was done by instituting a preferential currency exchange rate for U.S. The program was called RECADI.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2000/99-14741.man.html">STEWART V. BOOKER T. WASHINGTON INS. (11/9/2000, NO. 99-14741) </A> Circuit Judge: </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may99/98-2088.man.html">LADY J. LINGERIE V. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE (5/27/1999, NO. 98-2088) </A> The plaintiffs/appellants are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2002/01-15456.opn.html">FISHER V. STATE MUT. INS. CO., N. AM. FIN. SERVICES, INC. (5/7/2002, NO. 01-15456) </A> Yancey III were. Ann Rogers was State Mutual's corporate secretary. Who was neither an officer nor a director of State Mutual.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar99/98-4449.man.html">SINCLAIR V. JAY CORP. (3/23/1999, NO. 98-4449) </A> Ann. § 760.01 760.11.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar98/94-6400.man.html">JEFFERSON COUNTY V. ACKER (3/27/1998, NO. 94-6400) </A> Circuit Judge: The issue presented by this case is whether Jefferson County. Clemon are United States District Judges for the Northern District of Alabama who maintain their principal offices in Birmingham. The motion was denied. The cases subsequently were consolidated. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. Stating that any holding with respect to the Compensation Clause was unnecessary. See Jefferson County v. We concluded that although the privilege tax is measured by the income of the taxed individual. The taxable event is the performance of federal judicial duties in Jefferson County. See id. at 1572. We held that the tax is unconstitutional as applied to the judges. See id. at 1573 76. Jefferson County then filed in the Supreme Court a petition for a writ of certiorari. This is the first time that the issue has been raised in this court. That removal of the case to federal court was therefore improper.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2001/98-4945.man.html">CBS V. PRIMETIME 24 JOINT VENTURE (3/26/2001, NO. 98-4945) </A> Circuit Judge: </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june99/98-4739.man.html">PIAMBA CORTES V. AM. AIRLINES (6/15/1999, NO. 98-4739) </A> The passengers' claims for damages were not limited by Article 25's liability cap. A domiciliary of Colombia who was returning home after studying in the United States. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june99/95-5198.opn.html">AQUAMAR V. DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE (6/30/1999, NO. 95-5198) </A> Plaintiffs/appellees (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june95/94-8621.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. DOUGLAS </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Asserting a legal interest in property which has been ordered forfeited to the United States </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june95/94-8607.opa.html">BARTELS V. ALABAMA COMMERCIAL COLLEGE </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bartels v. Are former students of the now defunct Alabama Commercial College that did business as Riley Training Institute of Savannah. The appellees are: the Secretary of the United States Department of Education. This lawsuit is based upon the appellants' contention that the school fraudulently induced them to enroll in the school and to enter into federally guaranteed student loan contracts. Appellants were left with several thousand dollars in student loan debt. financed their attendance at the school.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july97/96-2068.opa.html">MILLER V. STUART </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Miller v. The State's regulatory scheme prevents Miller from disclosing his CPA license to the public while performing accounting and tax services because he is employed by American Express. After discovery was completed. American Express cross appeals its dismissal. B. Factual Background Appellee Miller holds an active CPA license in the State of Florida and is the Managing Director of American Express in Tampa. As American Express is a wholly owned subsidiary of the publicly traded American Express Company. It is neither a professional service corporation nor owned entirely by CPAs (hereinafter </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2000/99-13824.man.html">FED. RESERVE BANK OF ATLANTA V. THOMAS (7/31/2000, NO. 99-13824) </A> Finding that section 632 was inapplicable because the Federal Reserve's cause of action was statutory and therefore was not a suit </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2003/02-13230.opn.html">WATTS V. BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. (1/3/2003, NO. 02-13230) </A> Circuit Judge: </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2002/00-15055.opn.html">MILLER V. HARCO NAT'L INS. CO. (1/31/2002, NO. 00-15055) </A> (Harco) was in error. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb97/96-3158.opa.html">RETINA ASSOC. V. SOUTHERN BAPTIST HOSP. </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Retina Assoc. v. Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: We affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons set out in its dispositive order which is reproduced in the appendix. AFFIRMED. APPENDIX ORDER This antitrust case is before the Court on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment. Defendants' motions for summary judgment on Count I will be granted. Summary judgment will also be granted on Count II of the complaint. FACTS Retina Associates. Is a Florida professional corporation whose shareholders are Dr. Lambrau and Stewart are board certified ophthalmologists who have specialized in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases of the retina and vitreous. RA's practice is limited to retina related ophthalmology. Defendant Southern Baptist Hospital of Florida. Is a not for profit Florida corporation that owns and operates the Baptist Medical Center. Situated on the Baptist Medical Center campus is a four story building that houses the Baptist Eye Institute ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb96/94-3617.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. MUELLER </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Senior Circuit Judge: Defendant was convicted on one count of tax evasion and two counts of tax perjury based on his failure to report and pay tax on funds he acquired by failing to distribute a liquidating dividend of a corporation he controlled. We determine that there was adequate evidence to sustain those judgments. Defendant was also convicted on one count of bank fraud arising from the liquidation. Defendant was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $654. Was a substantial shareholder in Omni. Depository Trust was granted summary judgment. Asserting that the evidence was insufficient. Sons was the new name given to an English </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2003/01-17249.opn.html">BALLARD V. COMMISSIONER (2/13/2003, NO. 01-17249 </A> Petitioners Appellants have been assessed tax deficiencies (including penalties against Ballard) totaling $1. (2) that the evidence adduced at trial is insufficient to support the Tax Court's findings. We find that the application of Rule 183 did not violate Petitioners Appellants' due process rights and that the evidence is sufficient to support the Tax Court's finding that Ballard received and fraudulently failed to report income. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2001/99-14192.man.html">UNITED STATES V. REGUEIRO (2/6/2001, NO. 99-14192) </A> Regueiro and Perez established more than 100 nursing groups whose ostensible purpose was to provide home health care services to qualified patients. Regueiro and Perez used the nursing groups to bill Medicare for thousands of services that were never performed. Or that were performed on patients who were not eligible to receive Medicare benefits. Both of them were extensively involved in all aspects of the scheme. Regueiro's total offense level was 28. The district court had notified the parties that it was considering imposing an upward departure on Regueiro because her conduct had significantly disrupted a governmental function. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/95-5258.opn.html">LLAMPALLAS V. MINI-CIRCUITS, LAB, INC. (12/28/1998, NO. 95-5258) </A> Blanch would have Llampallas fired. Told Kaylie that she was quitting because she could not work with Llampallas anymore. Claiming that she was unlawfully terminated </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/94-3324.man.html">JOHNSON ENTERPRISES OF JACKSONVILLE, INC. V. FPL GROUP, INC. (12/18/1998, NO. 94-3324) </A> The structure of the opinion is as follows: Part I provides the factual background to the dispute. Part VII offers some concluding thoughts. <CENTER>I.</CENTER> The legislative backdrop against which this controversy arose was the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec97/96-5013.man.html">UNITED STATES V. BARAKAT </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. The district court sentenced him to 21 months in prison. Barakat's challenge to the tax evasion conviction is meritless and requires no discussion. A remand is necessary for clarification of that court's ruling concerning the third enhancement. I. FACTS Barakat was the head of the Broward County Housing Authority ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/95-4979.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/94-9105.opa.html">WILLIAMS V. DRESSER INDUS., INC. </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Williams v. The appellees alleged that the joint venture was harmful to their business because customers feared that the Dresser product would become obsolete. That they would not have bought the distributorship had they known about the pending joint venture. BACKGROUND Dresser was primarily an oil service company that acquired International Harvester's construction equipment business in 1982. Was a lesser player in the heavy construction equipment industry which was dominated by other companies such as Caterpillar and Komatsu. Dresser was one of the companies having difficulty staying competitive in the industry. Joint ventures were increasingly common in the industry as the strategy for survival. The two companies signed a confidentiality agreement restricting information of the discussions about the potential joint venture to their senior executives. The Williams were Georgia residents who were sophisticated business executives. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug96/94-4684.opa.html">FDIC V. STAHL </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>FDIC v. Of the target loans were time barred. These motions were denied. The case proceeded to trial against four directors: Angelique Stahl. Erred in denying summary judgment when claims relating to two of the target loans were time barred. BACKGROUND<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept96/95-8187.opa.html">CROSBY V. HOSPITAL AUTH. OF VALDOSTA AND LOWNDES CTY. </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Crosby v. Who was denied staff privileges by the Hospital Authority of Valdosta and Lowndes County ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept96/94-8485.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. PARADIES </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov96/94-4985.opa.html">BANCO INDUSTRIAL DE VENEZUELA V. CREDIT SUISSE </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Banco Industrial de Venezuela v. Senior Circuit Judge: This civil case based on diversity and federal question jurisdiction involves extensive fraud in international banking. A brief factual summary is necessary. Was established and is owned by the government of Venezuela. This was done by instituting a preferential currency exchange rate for U.S. The program was called RECADI.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2000/99-14741.man.html">STEWART V. BOOKER T. WASHINGTON INS. (11/9/2000, NO. 99-14741) </A> Circuit Judge: </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may99/98-2088.man.html">LADY J. LINGERIE V. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE (5/27/1999, NO. 98-2088) </A> The plaintiffs/appellants are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2002/01-15456.opn.html">FISHER V. STATE MUT. INS. CO., N. AM. FIN. SERVICES, INC. (5/7/2002, NO. 01-15456) </A> Yancey III were. Ann Rogers was State Mutual's corporate secretary. Who was neither an officer nor a director of State Mutual.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar99/98-4449.man.html">SINCLAIR V. JAY CORP. (3/23/1999, NO. 98-4449) </A> Ann. § 760.01 760.11.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar98/94-6400.man.html">JEFFERSON COUNTY V. ACKER (3/27/1998, NO. 94-6400) </A> Circuit Judge: The issue presented by this case is whether Jefferson County. Clemon are United States District Judges for the Northern District of Alabama who maintain their principal offices in Birmingham. The motion was denied. The cases subsequently were consolidated. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. Stating that any holding with respect to the Compensation Clause was unnecessary. See Jefferson County v. We concluded that although the privilege tax is measured by the income of the taxed individual. The taxable event is the performance of federal judicial duties in Jefferson County. See id. at 1572. We held that the tax is unconstitutional as applied to the judges. See id. at 1573 76. Jefferson County then filed in the Supreme Court a petition for a writ of certiorari. This is the first time that the issue has been raised in this court. That removal of the case to federal court was therefore improper.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2001/98-4945.man.html">CBS V. PRIMETIME 24 JOINT VENTURE (3/26/2001, NO. 98-4945) </A> Circuit Judge: </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june99/98-4739.man.html">PIAMBA CORTES V. AM. AIRLINES (6/15/1999, NO. 98-4739) </A> The passengers' claims for damages were not limited by Article 25's liability cap. A domiciliary of Colombia who was returning home after studying in the United States. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june99/95-5198.opn.html">AQUAMAR V. DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE (6/30/1999, NO. 95-5198) </A> Plaintiffs/appellees (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june95/94-8621.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. DOUGLAS </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Asserting a legal interest in property which has been ordered forfeited to the United States </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june95/94-8607.opa.html">BARTELS V. ALABAMA COMMERCIAL COLLEGE </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bartels v. Are former students of the now defunct Alabama Commercial College that did business as Riley Training Institute of Savannah. The appellees are: the Secretary of the United States Department of Education. This lawsuit is based upon the appellants' contention that the school fraudulently induced them to enroll in the school and to enter into federally guaranteed student loan contracts. Appellants were left with several thousand dollars in student loan debt. financed their attendance at the school.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july97/96-2068.opa.html">MILLER V. STUART </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Miller v. The State's regulatory scheme prevents Miller from disclosing his CPA license to the public while performing accounting and tax services because he is employed by American Express. After discovery was completed. American Express cross appeals its dismissal. B. Factual Background Appellee Miller holds an active CPA license in the State of Florida and is the Managing Director of American Express in Tampa. As American Express is a wholly owned subsidiary of the publicly traded American Express Company. It is neither a professional service corporation nor owned entirely by CPAs (hereinafter </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2000/99-13824.man.html">FED. RESERVE BANK OF ATLANTA V. THOMAS (7/31/2000, NO. 99-13824) </A> Finding that section 632 was inapplicable because the Federal Reserve's cause of action was statutory and therefore was not a suit </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2003/02-13230.opn.html">WATTS V. BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. (1/3/2003, NO. 02-13230) </A> Circuit Judge: </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2002/00-15055.opn.html">MILLER V. HARCO NAT'L INS. CO. (1/31/2002, NO. 00-15055) </A> (Harco) was in error. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb97/96-3158.opa.html">RETINA ASSOC. V. SOUTHERN BAPTIST HOSP. </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Retina Assoc. v. Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: We affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons set out in its dispositive order which is reproduced in the appendix. AFFIRMED. APPENDIX ORDER This antitrust case is before the Court on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment. Defendants' motions for summary judgment on Count I will be granted. Summary judgment will also be granted on Count II of the complaint. FACTS Retina Associates. Is a Florida professional corporation whose shareholders are Dr. Lambrau and Stewart are board certified ophthalmologists who have specialized in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases of the retina and vitreous. RA's practice is limited to retina related ophthalmology. Defendant Southern Baptist Hospital of Florida. Is a not for profit Florida corporation that owns and operates the Baptist Medical Center. Situated on the Baptist Medical Center campus is a four story building that houses the Baptist Eye Institute ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb96/94-3617.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. MUELLER </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Senior Circuit Judge: Defendant was convicted on one count of tax evasion and two counts of tax perjury based on his failure to report and pay tax on funds he acquired by failing to distribute a liquidating dividend of a corporation he controlled. We determine that there was adequate evidence to sustain those judgments. Defendant was also convicted on one count of bank fraud arising from the liquidation. Defendant was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $654. Was a substantial shareholder in Omni. Depository Trust was granted summary judgment. Asserting that the evidence was insufficient. Sons was the new name given to an English </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2003/01-17249.opn.html">BALLARD V. COMMISSIONER (2/13/2003, NO. 01-17249 </A> Petitioners Appellants have been assessed tax deficiencies (including penalties against Ballard) totaling $1. (2) that the evidence adduced at trial is insufficient to support the Tax Court's findings. We find that the application of Rule 183 did not violate Petitioners Appellants' due process rights and that the evidence is sufficient to support the Tax Court's finding that Ballard received and fraudulently failed to report income. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2001/99-14192.man.html">UNITED STATES V. REGUEIRO (2/6/2001, NO. 99-14192) </A> Regueiro and Perez established more than 100 nursing groups whose ostensible purpose was to provide home health care services to qualified patients. Regueiro and Perez used the nursing groups to bill Medicare for thousands of services that were never performed. Or that were performed on patients who were not eligible to receive Medicare benefits. Both of them were extensively involved in all aspects of the scheme. Regueiro's total offense level was 28. The district court had notified the parties that it was considering imposing an upward departure on Regueiro because her conduct had significantly disrupted a governmental function. </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/95-5258.opn.html">LLAMPALLAS V. MINI-CIRCUITS, LAB, INC. (12/28/1998, NO. 95-5258) </A> Blanch would have Llampallas fired. Told Kaylie that she was quitting because she could not work with Llampallas anymore. Claiming that she was unlawfully terminated </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/94-3324.man.html">JOHNSON ENTERPRISES OF JACKSONVILLE, INC. V. FPL GROUP, INC. (12/18/1998, NO. 94-3324) </A> The structure of the opinion is as follows: Part I provides the factual background to the dispute. Part VII offers some concluding thoughts. <CENTER>I.</CENTER> The legislative backdrop against which this controversy arose was the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec97/96-5013.man.html">UNITED STATES V. BARAKAT </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. The district court sentenced him to 21 months in prison. Barakat's challenge to the tax evasion conviction is meritless and requires no discussion. A remand is necessary for clarification of that court's ruling concerning the third enhancement. I. FACTS Barakat was the head of the Broward County Housing Authority ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug97/95-4979.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A> 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-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug97/94-9105.opa.html">WILLIAMS V. DRESSER INDUS., INC. </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Williams v. The appellees alleged that the joint venture was harmful to their business because customers feared that the Dresser product would become obsolete. That they would not have bought the distributorship had they known about the pending joint venture. BACKGROUND Dresser was primarily an oil service company that acquired International Harvester's construction equipment business in 1982. Was a lesser player in the heavy construction equipment industry which was dominated by other companies such as Caterpillar and Komatsu. Dresser was one of the companies having difficulty staying competitive in the industry. Joint ventures were increasingly common in the industry as the strategy for survival. The two companies signed a confidentiality agreement restricting information of the discussions about the potential joint venture to their senior executives. The Williams were Georgia residents who were sophisticated business executives. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug96/94-4684.opa.html">FDIC V. STAHL </A> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>FDIC v. Of the target loans were time barred. These motions were denied. The case proceeded to trial against four directors: Angelique Stahl. Erred in denying summary judgment when claims relating to two of the target loans were time barred. BACKGROUND<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="236"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/nov96/95-1357.wpd.html">SONNENFELD V. DENVER </A> Arguing there is no implied private right of action against municipalities under 10(b) or Rule 10(b) 5 and that it was immune under the Eleventh Amendment. We have jurisdiction over the securities law issue under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b). The Eleventh Amendment issue is appealable under the collateral order doctrine. Implied Private Cause of Action Denver contends there is no implied private cause of action against municipalities under 10b and Rule 10b 5. Local governments are subject to actions by the SEC to enforce 10(b) and Rule 10b 5.