/usr/local/projects/usca/indexes/USCA-ALL.index Search the Opinions of the US Circuit Courts
skip navigation


Search the opinions of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal

Search for:
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 damages returned 18703 results.

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

1000 97-6004 -- OKLAND OIL CO. V. CONOCO INC. -- 05/19/1998

When the price of gas was deregulated. Were for production related costs (
1000 OPINION/ORDER
Is withdrawn. An opinion will be filed replacing it. Asserting that the District Court (1) erred by finding that actual damages were not released by the consent decree. (4) erred by determining that the consent decree was fair. We determine that the certification of a mandatory class was violative of the class member's due process rights and that the consent decree was inadequate and fundamentally unfair. 200 gas stations and mini markets in the State of California.1 Each is a
1000 OPINION/ORDER
Were on the brief for amicus curiae Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. We granted en banc review on the question whether the standard of evidence for punitive dam ages under Title VII is. We further hold that no evidence of such behavior was shown at trial in this case. Thus affirm the district court on the issue of punitive damages. * * * ADA is a Chicago based professional organization with an office in Washington. Both Kolstad and Spangler are lawyers. (There is no evidence that the job has not in fact included those elements.). In October 1992 Wheat approved a performance evaluation of Spangler in which Spangler stated that one of his objectives for 1993 was to
1000 OPINION/ORDER
Line 12 the reference to
1000 OPINION/ORDER
McDermott Will & Emery LLP. With them on the brief were Paul Devinsky and Natalia V. Also on the brief were Terrence P. With her on the brief were James T. Of counsel on the brief were Albert L. With him on the brief was Pankaj Venugopal. Also on the brief were Constantine L. With her on the brief were William L. With him on the brief was Steven C. Of counsel on the brief was Judith M. With him on the brief were Jay R. Of counsel on the brief was Keith A. With her on the brief was Peter J. Of counsel on the brief were Robert C. Of counsel on the brief were Scott A.M. With him on the brief were Steven C. With her on the brief were Harold J. Also on the brief were Charles S. With him on the brief was Richard J. With him on the brief were Kenneth W. Also on the brief were Marc S. Of counsel was Herbert C Wamsley. With him on the brief was Monica Mucchetti Eno. With him on the brief was Simon J. Of counsel on the brief was Vicki G. With him on the brief was Philip J. Of counsel on the brief were Peter J. LLC (
1000 OPINION/ORDER
Although much of what happened here was characterized as
1000 OPINION/ORDER
P.C. and Elizabeth Bartholet were on brief for defendants. Fiore and Sulloway & Hollis were on brief for Genevieve A. P.A. were on brief for Brian Miller. The plaintiffs Genevieve Scarfo and Brian Miller are former employees of defendant Cabletron Systems. Were also defendants in the district court. Each party opposing a claim of error asserts that no timely objection or request was made in the trial court. Is to ask: Should we hold that the appellant (or cross appellant) on each claim of error now before us is not entitled to be heard on the merits of that contention in the circumstances of this appeal? The search requires also that we take account of Supreme Court and circuit decisions handed down after this case was argued. Commentators and opinion writers have invoked imagery of the almost impenetrable. They have spoken. Dissenting) (
1000 OPINION/ORDER
The Perry plant is divided into three sections: the kill floor. Where hogs are killed. The sections are organized into numerous production lines. Each of which is responsible for a different facet of hog processing. The lines are composed of line workers. A utility position is usually the first step towards promotion to such management support jobs as trainer. The lines are managed by front line supervisors and general supervisors. Supervisors are managed by plant superintendents. Who are responsible for all production functions. Who is the highest level manager in the plant. The Perry plant also employs a personnel director who is responsible for addressing employee grievances. The authority to terminate employees is vested in the plant manager and the personnel director. She was dating James Madison. An African American man who was also employed at the Perry plant. The couple married in 1996 and have two children. Was a reliable worker. 3 Madison presented a great deal of evidence at trial to show that she was subjected to a continuing pattern of racial and sexual harassment during her employment and that supervisors and managers failed to take action in response to her complaints.
1000 OPINION/ORDER
Remit to an amount for each defendant to pay to each plaintiff that does not exceed the constitutional These parties are: Advocates for Life Ministries (ALM). Charles Wysong. 2 Other reported decisions in this case are: Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette. The facts are fully described in the district court's post trial opinion. The
1000 OPINION/ORDER
Was on brief for appellant.

1000 UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMM'N V. W&O, INC. (5/30/2000, NO. 98-5515)

Circuit Judge:

1000 OPINION/ORDER
IN RE: THE EXXON VALDEZ 6039 ORDER IT IS ORDERED THAT: The opinion in In re Exxon Valdez. 472 F.3d 600 (9th Cir. 2006) is amended as follows: On page 621. Delete the first full paragraph commencing with
1000 OPINION/ORDER
Are
1000 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief was Keith H. Of counsel was Catherine L. Jackson may not collaterally challenge the district court's previous judgment that he is entitled to only $2.65 million rather than $12 million in damages for the manufacture. Which was affirmed in a previous appeal. Jackson is not entitled to a second trial as a matter of right simply because the district court stayed his counterclaims of indirect infringement. Jackson argued that the jury's damages award was reasonable based on the evidence that he adduced at trial showing the benefits Glenayre's customers enjoyed by infringing the '900 patent. Or conveying
1000 OPINION/ORDER
Contending that he was retaliated against and ultimately fired due to his Chinese ethnicity and nationality. A Zhang's name is found in the record as both Zhang Wei. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The factual recitation herein is taken from the evidence presented to the jury. Zhang was hired to join American Gem after the takeover. Which was signed by Al Reitzer. Zhang's position was vice president of American Gem and general manager of its Pacific Gem division. Zhang testified that although his division was integral to the new company's operations. He was initially offered a lower salary than the Caucasian vice presidents of the acquired companies. Zhang was promoted to president of the Pacific Gem division. Appellant Harry Lees was hired as president and CEO of MCMI. Jim Hilger was hired as the Chief Financial Officer of American Gem. Zhang presented evidence that he was discriminated against by American Gem's management. Witnesses testified that Lees told them that he distrusted Zhang because he was Chinese. That Lees suspected that Zhang was
1000 DJ MANUFACTURING V. U.S.
1000 OPINION/ORDER
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.
1000 SNAPP V. UNLIMITED CONCEPTS, INC. (4/5/2000, NO. 98-2936)

Was
1000 OPINION/ORDER
Tidyman's argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying Tidyman's' motion for a new trial on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient. That the size of the jury verdict was excessive. Tidyman's argues that the Washington state law is intended to cover only accrued wages that are not paid. Arguing that we should not apply the Title VII damages cap to these awards because it is unconstitutional. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We reverse the district court's determination that the plaintiffs were not entitled to punitive damages. We conclude that Title VII's cap on punitive damages is constitutional. Was promoted to officer manager. Hemmings was promoted to controller in 1987. Hemmings was concerned about the lack of women in management positions at Tidyman's and what she perceived as roadblocks to their promotions. Was promoted to Chief Operating Officer and the CFO position opened. Trial witnesses testified that Hemmings was wellqualified for the CFO position. Hemmings was interviewed for the position along with another woman and one man.
1000 KING INSTRUMENTS V. PEREGO AND TAPEMATIC
1000 UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMM'N V. W&O, INC. (5/30/2000, NO. 98-5515)

Circuit Judge:

1000 OPINION/ORDER
Inc. (
1000 OPINION/ORDER
Claiming that it was entitled to these funds as liquidated damages because of Hutton's delays. 500.00 in liquidated damages to which the City was entitled. (2) that the contract's liquidated damages provision was enforceable. (4) that Hutton was not entitled to prejudgment interest on its damages. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm. Contract and Performance The contract between Hutton and the City is dated March 28. The engineer designated for the project was Allgeier. Rather than specifying when construction was to begin. In no event will the Commencement Date be later than * (See Special Conditions) calendar days after date of approval of the Contract by the [City]. That [Hutton] will not be required to perform any construction on such days when in the judgment of the Engineer snow. The time of completion set out above will be extended if [Hutton] makes a written request therefor to the [City] . . . . Provided that it submitted requests for extensions in writing:
The time for Completion of Construction shall be extended for the period of any reasonable delay which is due exclusively to causes beyond the control and without the fault of [Hutton].
1000 OPINION/ORDER
Garcia & Fernandez were on brief. Sidley & Austin were on brief. We did so because the antitrust verdict may have included damages for the monopolization claim. There was a reasonable possibility the jury had awarded plaintiff too much. Because we were remanding for a new trial on damages. The entire price discrimination damages case was retried and the second jury returned a verdict on the price discrimination claim which was three times larger ($4.5 million before trebling) than the initial verdict. $2 million was for going concern damages. As the parties have agreed. CAPECO's refinery was the only one nearby. CAPECO was the only local source of bunker fuel. CAPECO was. Coastal was a new entrant to the bunker fuel market in San Juan. Coastal was not profitable during this period. Was between 2.5 and 4.0 million barrels per year. The actual average price advantage given by CAPECO to Coastal's competitors was $.48 per barrel in favor of Harbor and $.37 per barrel in favor of Caribbean. The tax was repealed in December 1993.
1000 02-4174 -- UTAH ANIMAL RIGHTS COALITION V. SALT LAKE CITY CORP. -- 06/16/2004

One of those groups was Appellant. Are Salt Lake City and certain officials who had the responsibility of determining when and where various groups would be permitted to demonstrate. The question is whether the slow pace of the permit process violated the First Amendment.

Almost a year before the Olympics

1000 OPINION/ORDER
Asserting that the District Court (1) erred by finding that actual damages were not released by the consent decree. (4) erred by determining that the consent decree was fair. We determine that the certification of a mandatory class was violative of the class member's due process rights and that the consent decree was inadequate and fundamentally unfair. 200 gas stations and mini markets in the State of California.1 Each is a
1000 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: These consolidated appeals arise from the district court's final judgment resolving a series of cases that were filed after a passenger train of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (
1000 OPINION/ORDER
We will affirm the District Court's order for a new trial. Because the issues of liability and damages were so intertwined as to make a fair trial on damages alone impossible. We will reverse and remand for a new trial on all issues. S 1983 alleging that he was subjected to excessive use of for ce on September 15 and 27. Pryer was in the prison exercise yard when he began arguing and fighting with another inmate. Then transferred him to the Restricted Housing Unit (
1000 OPINION/ORDER
Is exempt from liquidated damages. (c) Gregory Warren's liability was premised solely on the New York Human Rights Law. To the extent the judgment is at all ambiguous in appearing to award damages against all defendants. The error is easily corrected. Background At issue in this case are the circumstances in 1998 99 under which plaintiffs Keith Cross. Contended at trial that their demotions were based on race and age. The jury found that plaintiffs' demotions were discriminatory. We are obliged to review the trial evidence in some detail. After the last qualified Maintainer candidate on the civil service eligibility list was hired. Warren agreed to send notices to all Helpers asking them to indicate in writing whether they were interested in provisional appointments as Maintainers. Cross and Francis were not only the oldest but also the two most senior Helpers in the communications 4 maintenance department. The Plaintiffs' Inferior Training Cross and Francis were apparently not trained together with other new Maintainer hires.
1000 OPINION/ORDER
I. This case is before us for the second time. Marvin is a family owned company that manufactures. The genesis of this lawsuit was Marvin's use. Marvin had used Penta products successfully for years until environmental concerns were raised about the active ingredient. The four month jury trial was bifurcated. The jury found that PPG had given Marvin a warranty of future performance and that such warranty formed part of the basis of the bargain between the parties and was incorporated into their agreement. The jury found the warranty was breached and awarded damages: $53.6 million for out of pocket costs. A
1000 OPINION/ORDER
Although much of what happened here was characterized as
1000 NAT'L R.R. PASSENGER CORP. V. ROUNTREE TRANSP. AND RIGGING, INC.(3/26/2002, NO. 00-13811)

Circuit Judge:

1000 OPINION/ORDER
We are precluded. As the jury was. From punishing Exxon for befouling the beautiful region where the oil was spilled. The plaintiffs' punitive damages case was saved from preemption and res judicata because the award
1000 SNAPP V. UNLIMITED CONCEPTS, INC. (4/5/2000, NO. 98-2936)

Was
1000 97-1095 -- MORRISON KNUDSEN CORP. V. FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE CO. -- 05/11/1999

GIT's evidence of several of its categories of damages was insufficient. Its claims on behalf of its lower tier subcontractors were premature. This court cannot determine whether any parts of the jury's award were for allowable categories of damages supported by sufficient evidence. The contract price was roughly $9.3 million. GIT's central theory is that its plan to complete the project before the deadline displeased MK. The contract allowed MK to do so if GIT was not prosecuting the work with a diligence that would ensure its timely completion. The subs were demanding payment from GIT. GIT was still involved in litigation with Robinson and had not settled with or paid Bogue or GA Western. Arguing that GIT had changed its damage theory just weeks before trial and was using previously undisclosed documentation.

Twelve days before trial. GIT's Alleged Discovery Violation

MK argues that GIT's supplemental damage disclosure was subject to mandatory exclusion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1).

1000 OPINION/ORDER
The statute at issue is the Driver's Privacy Protection Act. A state could release or sell an individual's driver's license information without the individual's permission so long as the individual was given an opportunity to opt out by requesting that the information not be released. The effective date of this amendment was June 1. Florida was the only state that did not immediately comply. Fidelity is a publicly owned and locally operated savings bank. The gravamen of Kehoe's complaint is that Fidelity purchased his personal information from the Florida DMV without his consent. The interpretation of a statute is a question of law subject to de novo review. The DPPA's Remedies Provision The main issue in this case is whether a plaintiff must prove actual damages before he may recover a liquidated damages award under the DPPA. This is an The district court granted summary judgment without addressing the other statutory remedies that Kehoe requested in his complaint. Even if we were to conclude that proof of actual damages was necessary to be awarded liquidated damages.
1000 OPINION/ORDER
In this interlocutory appeal we are asked to determine whether persons who claim to have been injured by radiation from a nuclear reactor can recover punitive damages under state law. For the reasons that follow we conclude that plaintiffs here may recover punitive damages under Pennsylvania law and we will therefore affirm the decision of the district court. I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY These actions were begun in the aftermath of the March 28. Or supplied materials or services to TMI are the defendants in personal injury actions brought by (or on behalf of) more than 2. They are
1000 NAT'L R.R. PASSENGER CORP. V. ROUNTREE TRANSP. AND RIGGING, INC.(3/26/2002, NO. 00-13811)

Circuit Judge:

1000 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Before this court are two consolidated appeals arising from the Pregnancy Discrimination Act case brought by Plaintiff Appellee United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (
1000 OPINION/ORDER
Sitting by designation. * Before this court are two consolidated appeals arising from the Pregnancy Discrimination Act case brought by Plaintiff Appellee United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (
1000 OPINION/ORDER
Part II (Adverse Employment Action) of the majority opinion was joined by BOGGS. Part IV (Punitive Damages) was joined by MARTIN. In which he was joined by MARTIN. In which he was joined by BOGGS. We decide that a thirty seven day suspension without pay constitutes an adverse employment action regardless of whether the suspension is followed by a reinstatement with back pay. In which position Ellis earned more pay than he would have if he had continued working in the forklift position. White was the only female working in the Maintenance of Way department at the Tennessee Yard. White's immediate supervisor was foreman Bill Joiner. He also admitted that he did not believe that the Maintenance of Way department was an appropriate place for women to work. Joiner repeatedly expressed this belief to her while she was working under his supervision. Another Burlington Northern employee agreed at trial that there was
1000 OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows. The petition for rehearing is denied. There is not much dispute. Where there is. The facts are of course taken favorably to the verdict.3 On October 9. The driveway is sloped. The truck was parked on the slope pointing downhill. The Whites' three year old son Walter was playing outside. The Whites' theory of the case was that Walter pulled or kicked it out of first gear into neutral. The gearshift lever is a long stalk sticking up from the floor. So Walter may have been clambering after his lost piggy bank. The parking brake didn't hold the truck after it was shifted from first to neutral. The plaintiffs' theory of the case was that the parking brake let go despite being set. Ford knew the parking brake was prone to failure. He wouldn't have parked his truck on a slope. He would have brought the truck in immediately to be fixed. Ford offered alternative theories of how the accident could have occurred. One was that Mr. If this is how the accident occurred. That the parking brake sometimes allowed trucks to roll despite being engaged and that Ford should have warned its customers.
1000 02-2050 -- SLOAN V. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY -- 03/04/2004

Reverse the judgment insofar as damages and remand for a new trial on compensatory and punitive damages.

Background

The insured and his family were traveling eastbound on I 40 near Grants. Shelton was seriously injured. The claims of the insured's two children were settled (for $35. Shelton were tried to a jury. 000 of coverage was available to compensate Mrs. That policy form is shown as # 9805.3 and is different from what the insurer now relies upon. The Haney court concluded that the per accident limits were not subject to the per person limits. Was actually issued. Whether the change was the correction of an inadvertent error or an attempt to prevent the insured from exercising his contractual rights was the subject of the federal court trial. It is clear. That the insurer was well aware of the potential for an excess judgment against its insured.

On appeal. Because (2) the evidence supported compensatory damages and (3) there was sufficient evidence for punitive damages.

1000 OPINION/ORDER
After the discussions reached an impasse over terms covering the consequences in the event settlement payments were not timely. Dow Corning suggested a clause requiring payments of $100 per day to each plaintiff for any time during which settlement payments were late. Held that the clause was a penalty unenforceable under Texas law. Arguing that the condition precedent was in fact met. That Dow Corning should be estopped from asserting that the clause is a penalty. Because the clause is a penalty unenforceable under Texas law. I. Following revelations that many of Dow Corning's silicone based breast implants were faulty. Numerous suits were filed against Defendant Appellee Dow Corning Corp. (
1000 OPINION/ORDER
There is not much dispute. Where there is. The facts are of course taken favorably to the verdict.3 On October 9. The driveway is sloped. The truck was parked on the slope This decision had to await the Supreme Court's decision in Cooper Industries. The Whites' three year old son Walter was playing outside. The Whites' theory of the case was that Walter pulled or kicked it out of first gear into neutral. The gearshift lever is a long stalk sticking up from the floor. So Walter may have been clambering after his lost piggy bank. The parking brake didn't hold the truck after it was shifted from first to neutral. The plaintiffs' theory of the case was that the parking brake let go despite being set. Ford knew the parking brake was prone to failure. He wouldn't have parked his truck on a slope. He would have brought the truck in immediately to be fixed. FORD MOTOR CO. 7 Ford offered alternative theories of how the accident could have occurred. One was that Mr. If this is how the accident occurred. That the parking brake sometimes allowed trucks to roll despite being engaged and that Ford should have warned its customers.
1000 OPINION/ORDER
Alleging that female corrections officers have been treated differently from similarly situated male corrections officers and accordingly have been denied promotions. Though they did not specify the conduct they sought to have enjoined. Because Title VII cases in which plaintiffs seek individual compensatory damages are not appropriately brought as class actions under Rule 23(b)(2) because such individual claims for money damages will always predominate over requested injunctive or declaratory relief. I. Factual and Procedural Background The facts of this case have been stated in the two prior district court opinions and the prior decision of this court. We therefore adopt the background as set forth in the opinion of the first panel of this court to deal with this case: [Belmont] is a prison operated by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections. Some of whose positions are covered by Ohio's civil service laws while others are covered by collective bargaining agreements with three distinct unions.
1000 OPINION/ORDER
While the decision was pending. Judge Schroeder was drawn to replace him. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal of a $5 billion punitive damages award arising out of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. This is not a case about befouling the environment. This is a case about commercial fishing. The jury was specifically instructed that it could not award damages for environmental harm. The reason is that under a stipulation with the United States and Alaska. Exxon had already been punished for environmental harm.1 The verdict in this case was for damage to economic expectations for commercial fishermen. The plaintiffs here were almost entirely compensated for their damages years ago. The punitive damages at issue were awarded to punish Exxon. Among the issues are whether punitive damages should have been barred as a matter of law and whether the award was excessive. Important aspects of this opinion are controlled by a 1 See Eyak Native Village v. Inc. 3 Facts Bligh Island and Bligh Reef have been known to navigators for a long time.
1000 OPINION/ORDER
While the decision was pending. Judge Schroeder was drawn to replace him. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal of a $5 billion punitive damages award arising out of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. This is not a case about befouling the environment. This is a case about commercial fishing. The jury was specifically instructed that it could not award damages for environmental harm. The reason is that under a stipulation with the United States and Alaska. Exxon had already been punished for environmental harm.1 The verdict in this case was for damage to economic expectations for commercial fishermen. The plaintiffs here were almost entirely compensated for their damages years ago. The punitive damages at issue were awarded to punish Exxon. Among the issues are whether punitive damages should have been barred as a matter of law and whether the award was excessive. Important aspects of this opinion are controlled by a 1 See Eyak Native Village v. Inc. 3 Facts Bligh Island and Bligh Reef have been known to navigators for a long time.
1000 OPINION/ORDER
Because we conclude that the punitive damage award is constitutionally excessive. Charles Clark was fatally injured in an automobile accident while driving a 1992 Dodge Ram club cab pickup truck. Who was not wearing a seat belt. Was ejected from his vehicle and died a short time later. Claiming that its pickup truck was defectively and negligently designed. Clark were each 50% at fault and returned a verdict of $471. Chrysler argued that because there was no evidence of
1000 DR. RAYMOND G. TRONZO V. BIOMET, INC

With him on the brief were Jeffrey I. Of counsel on the brief were Robert S. With him on the brief were Don O. Of counsel on the brief was L. Of counsel was Edwin G. Biomet was to pay him for his invention if he could successfully obtain a patent on his invention. 262 patent was valid and willfully infringed by Biomet and that Biomet was liable under state law for breach of a confidential relationship. 262 patent were invalid and that the other claims asserted were not infringed. Holding that some of the asserted claims were invalid and the other claims were not infringed. We concluded that this was an incorrect measure of Dr. 47 USPQ2d at 1835.

1000 OPINION/ORDER
Was the Auction in this Case Permissibl e? 111 D. INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY These are consolidated appeals from the District Court's approval of a $3.2 billion settlement of a securities fraud class action brought against Cendant Corporation and its auditors. Both the settlement and the fee award are challenged in these appeals. The enormous size of both the settlement and the fee award presages a new generation of
995 OPINION/ORDER
ORDER Judges Canby and Berzon have voted to grant the petition for panel rehearing in part and to deny it in part. The petition of Nycomed for panel rehearing is granted in part and denied in part. Are withdrawn and the attached majority and dissenting opinions are ordered filed herewith. 15222 FREUND v. The attached opinion have been circulated to the full court. The petition for rehearing en banc is denied. We affirm the judgment for compensatory damages and reverse the order overturning the punitive damages as a matter of law.2 We remand for the district court to The defendants against whom judgment was entered were Nycomed Amersham.
993 JOHANSEN V. COMBUSTION ENG'G, INC. (4/1/1999, NO. 97-8726)

All parties have appealed.

I.

In the 1920's. Graves Mountain was essentially a big. One of the minerals in the tailings was pyrite. The two suits were consolidated. Property owners' claim was that the streams looked and smelled bad. Or any other economic loss.

993 JOHANSEN V. COMBUSTION ENG'G, INC. (4/1/1999, NO. 97-8726)

All parties have appealed.

I.

In the 1920's. Graves Mountain was essentially a big. One of the minerals in the tailings was pyrite. The two suits were consolidated. Property owners' claim was that the streams looked and smelled bad. Or any other economic loss.

991 PIAMBA CORTES V. AM. AIRLINES (6/15/1999, NO. 98-4739)

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. (
991 PIAMBA CORTES V. AM. AIRLINES (6/15/1999, NO. 98-4739)

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. (
989 MONSANTO COMPANY V. MCFARLING

Argued for plaintiff appellee.  Also on the brief was Joseph C. The district court held that a liquidated damages provision in the Technology Agreement was valid and enforceable under Missouri law and entered a judgment in the amount of $780. ).  EPSPS is necessary for the conversion of sugars into amino acids and thus for growth in many plants and weeds. 

Monsanto also markets ROUNDUP READY® genetic modification technology.  In soybean seeds. The ROUNDUP READY® technology operates by inserting the gene sequence for a variant of EPSPS that is not affected by the presence of glyphosate but that still performs the sugar conversion function required for cell growth.  Thus. Version of EPSPS that is rendered ineffective in the presence of the glyphosate in ROUNDUP® herbicide.

989 OPINION/ORDER
Nash Finch argues the district court erred in holding (1) Kim's claim that he was unlawfully denied a promotion from leadman to foreman in November 1990 was actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. (2) there was sufficient evidence of intentional discrimination. (3) there was sufficient evidence of retaliation. (4) there was sufficient evidence of malice or reckless indifference to support punitive damages. (5) the jury verdict awarding damages for lost wages and compensatory damages was supported by sufficient evidence or. Was not excessive. BACKGROUND FACTS Nash Finch is a wholesale and retail food distributor. During the period of time at issue Bill Mund was the warehouse superintendent. Transportation are each supervised by a salaried
989 OPINION/ORDER
Dang prevailed in a jury trial on his excessive force claim against Officer Gilbert Cross of the City of Compton Police Department and was awarded compensatory damages. We hold that the district court erred in failing to instruct the jury that it could award punitive damages if it found that Cross acted in an oppressive manner and we conclude that this error was not harmless. Dang was the shop manager of the Compton Jewelry Exchange. Who was waiting outside the store with two other officers. Dang was in the office. Which was separated from the salesroom where the officers stood by a bulletproof window and a steel security door. The officers informed Dang that he was under arrest.1 Without patting down or searching Dang. Dang informed the officers that the ring was in a safe. Knocking him to the floor.2 As Dang was pushed to the floor. When Dang was told he was under arrest. Dang testified that Officer Cross turned the camcorder off and removed it after Dang was handcuffed. 2 Dang testified that he reached into the safe to place the rings that he was wearing in the safe for safekeeping.
986 OPINION/ORDER
Certified under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure the following class:5 1 The Plaintiffs are: Major A.M. Section 1981 provides in pertinent part:
986 98-2340 -- SMITH V. INGERSOLL-RAND CO. -- 06/07/2000

We disagree and affirm.
  1. BACKGROUND

At the center of this case is a large piece of construction equipment known as a milling machine. Ron Smith was a groundsman for a road crew operating an Ingersoll Rand milling machine in Las Cruces. Smith was using a short sledgehammer to dislodge a jammed ski while the machine backed up. The Smiths alleged the milling machine was dangerously defective because of the lack of mirrors which would enable the driver to see the sides and rear of the machine. Ingersoll Rand now raises a superfluity of issues on appeal.

  1. JURY EXPOSURE TO EXTRINSIC MATERIAL

We begin with Ingersoll Rand's claim that a new trial is necessitated by the jury's exposure to extrinsic materials during deliberations. The jurors were given an easel and large notepad which. When the notepad was discovered in the jury room after deliberations. The district court notified counsel and held two evidentiary hearings to determine whether the jurors were exposed to the pages.

986 OPINION/ORDER
1 The Plaintiffs are: Major A.M. Section 1981 provides in pertinent part:
982 CRAWFORD V. BABBITT (8/6/1998, NO. 97-8299)

Was sexually harassed by her supervisors and then retaliated against when she complained about it. The decision was silent with regard to compensatory damages.
982 CRAWFORD V. BABBITT (8/6/1998, NO. 97-8299)

Was sexually harassed by her supervisors and then retaliated against when she complained about it. The decision was silent with regard to compensatory damages.
982 OPINION/ORDER
Plaintiffs relied almost exclusively on Medicaid (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Their private clinics were among many publicly funded facilities that offered such services. Which are typically paid more than private providers for the same services. Dana Brown (
982 OPINION/ORDER
I. C.H.L.R. is a corporation that operates Stanford's Comedy House in Little Rock. Glazer Cass County Music are officers. Jones was dayto day manager of the Comedy House in Little Rock. Are members of the American Society of Composers. Authors and Publishers (ASCAP). rights of its members.1 ASCAP is a performing rights society. ASCAP contacted Jones to advise him of the need for an ASCAP license if ASCAP sound recordings were to be played at the club. That is. A list of ASCAP music was obtained. Music tapes were made that included no ASCAP recordings. The staff was instructed to play only the recorded non ASCAP tapes when the club was open for business. Is not a party to this suit. As will be seen. ASCAP was a key player in the events leading up to the lawsuit. 2 1 action on a copyright infringement claim. The music companies that are appellees here. that any copyright infringements were the result C.H.L.R. contends of its employees' inadvertence and were unknown to management. Another performing rights society) or
980 OPINION/ORDER
Riga's conduct was not
980 OPINION/ORDER
We hold that the order certifying this punitive damages class must be vacated because there is no evidence by which the district court could ascertain the limits of either the fund or the aggregate value of punitive claims against it. Thus plaintiffs have failed to satisfy one of the presumptively necessary conditions for limited fund treatment under Ortiz v. While we expressly limit our holding to the conclusion that class certification is incompatible with Ortiz. The circumstances warrant some discussion of whether the order is incompatible with the Supreme Court's intervening decision in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Are published together at In re Simon II Litigation. Will be referred to collectively as the
978 OPINION/ORDER
Asensio maintains that it specializes in identifying companies in which fraud or hype have assertedly inflated the stock's prospects or price. CCSI was in the
978 OPINION/ORDER
000 of the punitive damages were allocated to Oregon's Criminal Injuries Com ENGQUIST v. Contending that the constitutional claims are invalid as a matter of law. Contending that a jury verdict from a coworker's similar trial in state court should have been given preclusive effect. Or that it should have been admitted into evidence. We have jurisdiction over the appeal and cross appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We hold that Engquist's constitutional claims are invalid as a matter of law. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Engquist was hired in 1992 as an international food standards specialist for the Export Service Center (
971 OPINION/ORDER
P. 59(e) is ever available to alter or amend a default judgment entered under Fed. The judgment was based on statutory damages for sixteen albums that each included at least one of two infringed songs. The court at the default judgment hearing found that such damages and profits were not proven. To amend the judgment to reduce the damages award.

Sonolux's attempt to remove the default and the entry at all of a default judgment was heard and rejected by a second judge. The statutory damages award for the copyright infringement was reduced from $1. 000 on the ground that the larger amount was based on an incorrect reading of the statutory damages provision of the Copyright Act. We vacate the amount of that judgment and remand the amount determination to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

971 OPINION/ORDER
This appeal raises two FIRREA issues: (1) whether FIRREA bars the enforcement of severance pay agreements because they are
969 OPINION/ORDER
Hankins and Bingham Dana LLP were on brief. P.A. were on brief. Chief Judge.
967 MCA TELEVISION LTD. V. PUBLIC INTEREST CORP. (4/6/1999, NO. 98-2006)

PIC was a Florida corporation that owned and operated television station WTMV TV in Lakeland. Although it would not have chosen to license Harry if it did not have to do so in order to secure the licenses for the other shows. This document shall constitute a valid and binding Agreement and shall be deemed to include the standard terms and conditions known as
967 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: A jury in district court found that defendant Nycomed Amersham1 had wrongfully terminated the employment of plaintiff 1 The defendants against whom judgment was entered were Nycomed Amersham.
967 OPINION/ORDER
Amana is a
967 MCA TELEVISION LTD. V. PUBLIC INTEREST CORP. (4/6/1999, NO. 98-2006)

PIC was a Florida corporation that owned and operated television station WTMV TV in Lakeland. Although it would not have chosen to license Harry if it did not have to do so in order to secure the licenses for the other shows. This document shall constitute a valid and binding Agreement and shall be deemed to include the standard terms and conditions known as
963 WELLS FARGO BANK V. U.S.
960 98-3222 -- UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD. V. MIDLAND FUMIGANT INC. -- 03/06/2000

Which is used to fumigate grains. Which was granted in September of the same year.

On April 19. The case was settled in late October 1991. (5) not sell any further product labeled Quick Phos unless the product was manufactured by United. The cases were consolidated for trial. Fox was liable for fraud in the breach of the settlement agreement. Improper Jury Instructions

Midland's first assigned error is somewhat confused. Midland states

956 COHEN V. OFFICE DEPOT, INC. (2/24/2000, NO. 98-4787)
956 COHEN V. OFFICE DEPOT, INC. (2/24/2000, NO. 98-4787)
956 OPINION/ORDER
Who was killed when Mr. The case is before us for the second time following a remand for a new trial on punitive damages.
956 CONTINENTAL TREND RESOURCES, INC. V. OXY USA INC.

I This matter is before us on remand from the United States Supreme Court. Sitting by designation. before us on remand to be whether the $30 million punitive damages award in the instant case is grossly excessive in violation of the federal constitution.(1) In BMW. Was
954 OPINION/ORDER
The CPA was set to expire on December 31. Neither party shall have any liability for damages to or lost profits of the other.
954 OPINION/ORDER
Class members were entitled to opt out at various stages. Those who chose to opt out initially were freed to pursue their remedies elsewhere. Those who did not opt out at the beginning were afforded opportunities to opt out
954 OPINION/ORDER
The resulting product is smoke that includes both carbon black and waste gases. The carbon black is separated from the gases. Formed into small CSRC's relationship with CCC was the subject of some dispute during this litigation. CSRC does not challenge the district court's finding that it is CCC's parent corporation. The separating process occurs in stages using filters located in what is known in the industry as bagfilter compartments. If everything is working perfectly. The remaining gasses are expelled through exhaust towers. Continental installed a thermal oxidizer for the purpose of combusting any carbon black particles that escape either production unit before the air emanating from the bagfilter compartments is expelled. All of whom are Georgia citizens. Emotional distress in connection with carbon black contamination of both of his properties. 2 Some of the properties are only approximately a ½ mile from Continental's Phenix City 4 plant. Action Marine alleges that the carbon black damaged its inventory of boats to such an extent that the company was forced to sell those it could at a loss.
954 MORSEY V. CHEVRON, USA, INC.

At issue is whether the court erred in (1) entering judgment as a matter of law against Morsey on grounds that he failed to present sufficient evidence of temporary damages to his leasehold. The facts of this case are. They are well set out in the pertinent decisions of the district court. It is a common source of oil supply subject to numerous leases. Section 20 was first developed by Conoco in the 1950's. The average monthly production of oil on Section 20 was only about 3. Water was injected through pipes into the field to raise the pressure and make recoverable otherwise unrecoverable reserves. Which was operated with the approval of the Kansas Corporation Commission (
954 OPINION/ORDER
We hold that plaintiffs' possessory land claim is subject to the defense of laches and conclude that the claim must be barred on that basis. Circuit Judge: We are here confronted by land claims of historic vintage the wrongs alleged occurred over two hundred years ago. This action is itself twenty five years old which we must adjudicate against a legal backdrop that has evolved since the District Court's rulings. Determined (1) that treaties between the Cayuga Nation and the State of New York in 1795 and 1807 were not properly ratified by the federal government and were thus invalid under the Nonintercourse Act. That plaintiffs were entitled to about $211 million in prejudgment interest. We conclude that the possessory land claim alleged here is the type of claim to which a laches defense can be applied. We further conclude that plaintiffs' claim is barred by laches. The Cayuga Nation owned and occupied approximately three million acres of land in what is now New York State. Successive versions of the Act have been continuously in force from that time to the present day.
954 OPINION/ORDER
We hold that plaintiffs' possessory land claim is subject to the defense of laches and conclude that the claim must be barred on that basis. Circuit Judge: We are here confronted by land claims of historic vintage the wrongs alleged occurred over two hundred years ago. This action is itself twenty five years old which we must adjudicate against a legal backdrop that has evolved since the District Court's rulings. Determined (1) that treaties between the Cayuga Nation and the State of New York in 1795 and 1807 were not properly ratified by the federal government and were thus invalid under the Nonintercourse Act. That plaintiffs were entitled to about $211 million in prejudgment interest. We conclude that the possessory land claim alleged here is the type of claim to which a laches defense can be applied. We further conclude that plaintiffs' claim is barred by laches. Historical Background Plaintiffs allege that from time immemorial until the late eighteenth century the Cayuga Nation owned and occupied approximately three million acres of land in what is now New York State.
954 OPINION/ORDER
Before us are cross appeals arising from the reduction of a $30 million punitive damages verdict to $2 million. The District Court ordered the reduction on the ground that the verdict was constitutionally excessive.
954 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were William H. With him on the brief were Kara F. The total damages award was based on the jury's finding that Aero was entitled to recover $2.95 million as patent infringement damages. The aspect of the invention that is the focus of this appeal is the claimed valve assembly. It is by means of the valve assembly that the air mattress is inflated and remains inflated. The specification states that
952 O'GILVIE V. UNITED STATES

The substantive issue raised in these consolidated appeals is whether punitive damages recovered in a case involving physical injury are excluded from gross income under 104(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.). I The punitive damages that are the subject of these appeals were awarded in a products liability action filed after Betty O'Gilvie died of toxic shock syndrome. After attorney's fees and expenses the net proceeds were $4. Asserting that punitive damages were excluded from gross income under I.R.C. 104(a)(2) as damages received
950 OPINION/ORDER
With whom Goldman Antonetti & C¢rdova was on brief. With whom Jos‚ Enrique Otero was on joint brief. Before the Court is plaintiff appellant Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority's (
950 BROWN V. PRESBYTERIAN HEALTH CARE SERVS.

The defendants'
950 OPINION/ORDER
Was awarded attorney fees in the amount of $1.50. The dispute was referred for final disposition to the Honorable Ross A. Royal contends he is entitled to more than nominal damages. Is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. We are not the first court to confront whether section 1997e(e) applies to First Amendment violations. Other courts have not agreed on a uniform interpretation of section 1997e(e). Some courts have charted a different course. Royal's second argument is his claim does not involve mental or emotional injury. Royal apparently contends other types of recovery are available to him. Injunctive and declaratory relief are available to him. 56 (1983) (holding punitive damages are authorized for violations of constitutional rights). Royal was free to seek nominal damages. Congress is well within its authority to balance the interests and reasonably limit a prisoner's relief. 5 The district court awarded $1.00 in nominal damages to Royal. Are the appropriate means of `vindicating' rights whose deprivation has not caused actual.
950 OPINION/ORDER
This is the question that prompted us to go en banc in Gilbertson v. Both opinions have been vacated. Was a land surveyor whose Oregon license to survey was revoked and not reinstated by the State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying (the Board). We conclude that Younger principles apply to actions at law as well as for injunctive or declaratory relief because a determination that the federal plaintiff's constitutional rights have been violated would have the same practical effect as a 1 Younger v. Federal courts should not dismiss actions where damages are at issue. Damages actions should be stayed until the state proceedings are completed. That direct interference is a threshold requirement. Indicate that Younger principles apply here because the state proceeding was pending at the time Gilbertson filed his federal action. It was in the nature of a judicial proceeding that implicates important state interests. The district court should have deferred to the Oregon proceeding unless that proceeding was conducted in bad faith or some other exception to Younger exists.
950 OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: At slip op. 3781. The Court will not entertain further Petitions for Rehearing. Circuit Judge: We hold today that when nominal damages are awarded in a civil rights class action. CONNELL constitutional rights were violated is entitled to nominal damages. The district court is not authorized to award attorney's fees for an appeal unless we transfer the fee request to the district court for consideration. I. Facts This is the second time this case has been on appeal. A detailed description of the facts underlying this case is set out in Cummings v. AFL CIO CLC is the exclusive representative for nine bargaining units of California state employees. The seven named plaintiffs are nonunion employees of the State of California. Although the plaintiffs have no affiliation with the Union. 000 nonunion members alleging that the Union was improperly withholding the agency fees without providing the procedural safeguards mandated by the Because all employees benefit from a union's representation during the collective bargaining process.
950 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: We hold today that when nominal damages are awarded in a civil rights class action. Every member of the class whose constitutional rights were violated is entitled to nominal damages. The district court is not authorized to award attorney's fees for an appeal unless we transfer the fee request to the district court for consideration. I. Facts This is the second time this case has been on appeal. A detailed description of the facts underlying this case is set out in Cummings v. AFL CIO CLC is the exclusive representative for nine bargaining units of California state employees. The seven named plaintiffs are nonunion employees of the State of California. Although the plaintiffs have no affiliation with the Union. 000 nonunion members alleging that the Union was improperly withholding the agency fees without providing the procedural safeguards mandated by the Supreme Court in Chicago Teachers Union v. 475 U.S. 292 (1986).2 The district court certified the class3 and ultimately determined that the notices were indeed deficient under Hudson.
950 01-1228 -- QUIGLEY V. ROSENTHAL -- 04/22/2003

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs William and Dorothy

950 OPINION/ORDER
We affirm the district court's ruling that the compensatory damage award was not excessive. Because the punitive damages awarded in this case were unconstitutionally excessive. Bach is a seventy seven year old retired widow who resides in West Carrollton. Bach's name was added to the checking account. Funds were wired from Bach's accounts to the FUNB checking account. The account eventually became overdrawn and was closed. A credit card account was opened with FUNB in Bach's name but listing Heidi Bake's address. The credit card was issued by FUNB pursuant to a phone application based on Bach's clean credit history. The balance on the card was $20. Most of which was never paid. Bach's application was denied due to her credit report. Bach sent letters to FUNB and American Express seeking to inform them that the accounts in her name were opened fraudulently and without her consent. Bach stated that the address listed on the account was that of her granddaughter. These phone calls were harassing in nature.
945 MCI TELECOM CORP V. FCC
945 MCMILLIAN V. FDIC

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > McMillian v. This appeal raises two FIRREA issues: (1) whether FIRREA bars the enforcement of severance pay agreements because they are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="945"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr96/94-5045.opa.html">MCMILLIAN V. FDIC<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>McMillian v. This appeal raises two FIRREA issues: (1) whether FIRREA bars the enforcement of severance pay agreements because they are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="943"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5036.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief was Monica A. Of counsel was Lesley A. Of counsel on the brief were Richard C. Of counsel on the brief were Melvin C. With her on the brief were Stuart E. Of counsel on the brief were Kenneth M. Because the Court of Federal Claims erred in holding that the Individual Plaintiffs have standing to sue for breach of contract. Although we agree that the Institutional Plaintiffs are entitled to the categories of damages awarded to them. There are issues with the calculation of those damages that require further fact finding to fully resolve. A. BACKGROUND Overview of Winstar Litigation This is a Winstar related case involving claims against the government stemming from Congress' enactment of the Financial Institutions Reform. FIRREA was passed as part of the government's response to the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s. The circumstances surrounding the crisis in the savings and loan industry are well documented elsewhere. An understanding of the government's response to that crisis and the resulting litigation is. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="943"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-3306.html">JANICE R. BOHAC V. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE<BR></A><BR> On the brief were <U>David M. Of counsel was <U>Sean P. Injury to family life are recoverable under section 1221 of the Whistleblower Protection Act. 5 U.S.C. § 1221(g)(1)(A)(ii). We hold that non pecuniary damages are not recoverable and that the government has not waived its sovereign immunity with respect to such claims. Where the Board held that it does not have authority under 5 U.S.C. § 1221(g)(1)(A)(ii) to award non pecuniary damages. <U>Bohac v. Bohac then sought review in this court.</P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="943"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199801/96-1268a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Galeota and Jan Amundson were on brief. Were on brief. A damage 1 A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="943"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/july97/94-3344.wpd.html">TYLER V. CITY OF MANHATTAN<BR></A><BR> The district court ruled that compensatory damages for mental and emotional injury were not available under the ADA absent intentional discrimination. The district court further concluded that Tyler had not claimed he was subjected to intentional discrimination. No cause exists for this court to resolve an issue raised not by Tyler but by the United States as amicus: whether compensatory damages are recoverable for unintentional violations of the ADA. Is disabled within the meaning of the ADA.(2) He is partially paralyzed and essentially unable to read. Sitting by designation. (1) The City suggests that the district court's judgment was not a final. Appealable judgment because it ordered only injunctive relief and the district court necessarily retains jurisdiction over the parties until they have complied with the terms of the injunction. An order or judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it resolves all substantive issues on the merits and effectively ends the litigation. There was thus a final. Tyler was free to appeal from anything in that judgment or the court's prior. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="941"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0248p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case was tried before a jury beginning on May 9. Numerous incidents of racial slurs such as having his supervisors profess to Plaintiff that he was a problem because of his race African American. Plaintiff claimed that he was demeaned and harassed by co workers without objection from supervisors. For example a Klu Klux Klan symbol and membership card solicitation were placed on Plaintiff's locker. Plaintiff was abruptly and inappropriately terminated for what Plaintiff characterized as minor and false reasons. Plaintiff claimed that the termination was actually in retaliation for his filing of the discrimination complaints. It was ruled Nos. 00 4316/4431 Hall v. Consolidated Freightways Nos. 00 4316/4431 that Plaintiff's termination was improper and he was ordered reinstated to his job. Plaintiff was issued his right to sue letter on September 22. As these are jury functions. A dismissal pursuant to Rule 50(a) is improper where the nonmovant presented sufficient evidence to raise a material issue of fact for the jury. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="941"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991412.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was to end on July 1. That the termination 2 was malicious. P. 50(a) and move for judgment before the case was submitted to the jury limits the relief it can seek on appeal. In light of this failure the only relief it can obtain is a new trial. Never objected to the jury instruction that it now claims is erroneous. Held that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="941"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/06/03-4086.htm">03-4086 -- LIFEWISE MASTER FUNDING V. TELEBANK -- 06/29/2004<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="939"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972492.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Some of the video footage was used by ABC in a PrimeTime Live broadcast that was sharply critical of Food Lion. 402 was entered on the various claims. I. In early 1992 producers of ABC's PrimeTime Live program received a report alleging that Food Lion stores were engaging in unsanitary meat handling practices. The allegations were that Food Lion employees ground out of date beef together with new beef. ABC reporters Lynne Dale (Lynne Litt at the time) and Susan Barnett concluded that they would have a better 5 chance of investigating the allegations if they could become Food Lion employees. Some of the videotape was eventually used in a November 5. The truth of the PrimeTime Live broadcast was not an issue in the litigation we now describe. Food Lion sought to recover (1) administrative costs and wages paid in connection with the employment of Dale and Barnett and (2) broadcast (publication) damages for matters such as loss of good will. Punitive damages were also requested by Food Lion. Diminished stock value or anything of that nature </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="934"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200608/05-5139a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Stephen M. Dunham was on the brief for amicus curiae No Fear Coalition in support of appellant. With him on the brief were Kenneth L. Chief Judge: Marrita Murphy brought this suit to recover income taxes she paid on the compensatory damages for emotional distress and loss of reputation she was awarded in an adminstrative action she brought against her former employer. Her award should have been excluded from her gross income because it was compensation received </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="934"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1300.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Associates</U> were on brief for appellants. </FONT> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="934"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/33DAA86C85AF72D08825723E005EE5E6/$file/0455396.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: First Alliance Mortgage Company was driven into bankruptcy and subsequent liquidation by well publicized and justified allegations of fraudulent lending practices. One is a class action on behalf of First Alliance's borrowers seeking to impose liability for aiding and abetting the fraudulent scheme engaged in by First Alliance. (This group of unsecured creditors is essentially the same as the group of borrowers asserting their claims of fraud against First Alliance. As is explained in more detail below. These two separate actions were handled together by the same district court and have been consolidated for purposes of this appeal. First Alliance Mortgage Company First Alliance was a lender in the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="934"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/03-2001.htm">03-2001 -- HARDEMAN V. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE -- 08/05/2004<BR></A><BR> Hardeman alleged 1) that she was terminated from her employment as a Department Director of the Albuquerque Convention Center because of her race and/or because she exercised her First Amendment free speech rights. 2) that she was subjected to disparaging public comments and/or denied a post termination contract in retaliation for her association with African American groups. 3) that her due process liberty interests were violated. <p> The district court dismissed Ms. All other claims were submitted to a jury. Except the claim that she was discharged because of her race. Who is African American. Was appointed to the position of Department Director of the Albuquerque Convention Center by the newly elected Mayor Jim Baca. She was a cabinet level. Hardeman was involved in three incidents that led her to criticize or question the actions of the Baca Administration and her supervisor. Hardeman claims that she was later subjected to disparaging public comments and denied a post termination contract that was promised to her because of her perceived association with African American groups. <p> The first speech related incident leading to Ms. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="934"></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)<BR></A><BR> The structure of the opinion is as follows: Part I provides the factual background to the dispute. Part VII offers some concluding thoughts.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> 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-9.gif" ALT="934"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2403.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Character generation is the process of placing text over video and audio. Only portions of the 1995 agreement are relevant to this case. Are compatible only with a video component called a PCI bus. The programming language for Macintosh and Windows machines was similarly incompatible. It soon became clear that the personal computing market was going the way of Windows. That all other intellectual property rights not licensed by the agreement were deemed held exclusively by MSI. Then [Media 100] shall have a paid up license to (1) modify the CG Option 2.0 source code. This new product line was named </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="934"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1806.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="934"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0FBA9B95AE4480E488256F380059B07C/$file/0335188.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended. Polar Bear is not entitled to any recovery under 17 U.S.C. § 504. Nor is Polar Bear entitled to a new trial on damages under § 504. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="934"></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)<BR></A><BR> The structure of the opinion is as follows: Part I provides the factual background to the dispute. Part VII offers some concluding thoughts.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> 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-9.gif" ALT="932"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2163.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Brill & Kusinitz were on brief for appellant. Kelly & Murphy was on brief for appellees Enrico Maccarone. Plaintiff Richard Davet was arrested in Providence. Davet is the president of Ringco. While DiMeo is the president of Plating. The jewelry was shipped C.O.D. and not as agreed under the terms of the purchase order. The Ohio police department informed Levine that Rhode Island was the proper jurisdiction to prosecute the action. Davet continued to maintain that this was a business dispute and that. It was within his right to withhold payment for non conforming goods. A notice was sent to Davet by Investigator Enrico Maccarone. The next contact that Davet had with law enforcement officials was on March 14. He was taken to the Cranston police station where he spent the night. He was arraigned and posted bail. Since jurisdiction was found to be in Ohio. Davet then commenced this federal suit and trial was held before Judge Raymond J. The trial was bifurcated. Their motions for a directed verdict on the issue of liability were renewed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="932"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/30443BDD97F95D3A882570A4005595EC/$file/0335058.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> To partially enjoin entry of the judgment on the ground that the state court award was inconsistent with the settlement reached in a prior nationwide class action involving L P and over which the court retained jurisdiction. Settled shortly after it was filed. Class claims related to the failure of Inner Seal Siding were released.1 L P also agreed to The settlement agreement required L P to make a minimum payment of $275. Qualified claims were paid from that fund and class members were barred from litigating any claim related to the failure of Inner Seal Siding for a period of four years from the date of the final order and judgment. At which time the claims administrator was ordered to notify L P if the settlement fund proved insufficient to satisfy all approved claims filed before January 1. L P was directed to advise class counsel whether it intended to satisfy the unfunded claims. It was required to make additional payments </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="930"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2001/00-13481.man.html">MILAN EXPRESS V. AVERITT EXPRESS (6/19/2001, NO. 00-13481)<BR></A><BR> Have been involved in protracted litigation. The opposing companies argued that the proposed transfer was merely a pretense for avoiding the jurisdiction of the Alabama Public Service Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="930"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2001/99-14962.man.html">MAIZ V. VIRANI (6/8/2001, NO. 99-14962)<BR></A><BR> 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.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="930"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2373.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is corrected as follows: 1. Pritzker could have exercised the buy out option as late as 10 years after the formation of the contract (withholding any payment until then). There is evidence in the record. The expert testified that this reduction to present value could have brought the present value of the redemption price as of December 3. Palcu & Miranda were on brief. Gonzalez & Rodriguez were on brief. Circuit Judge. remedial phase of a protracted dispute in which the main protagonists are a pair of erstwhile partners. Was either excessive. Or too 1The three appeals with which we are concerned today were consolidated for oral argument with three other appeals arising out of the same case. For the apparent purpose of funding Dopp's litigatory efforts we will address them in a separate and subsequent opinion. 4 niggardly. We write somewhat sparingly because the background of the litigation is already well documented. Were the majority shareholder. 6 seller canceled the letter of credit. We then remanded for 3Resolution is a remedy that. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="930"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2001/00-13481.man.html">MILAN EXPRESS V. AVERITT EXPRESS (6/19/2001, NO. 00-13481)<BR></A><BR> Have been involved in protracted litigation. The opposing companies argued that the proposed transfer was merely a pretense for avoiding the jurisdiction of the Alabama Public Service Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="930"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9D63F3B877F6632D88256F0400567419/$file/0335188.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The promotion was so popular with Timex that it just kept on ticking1 and continued using the footage well beyond any permission to do so. The result is a lawsuit that has taken on a life far beyond a simple copyright and trademark case. The consequence of this appeal is a series of rulings resulting in yet another round in the trial court. Arguing that Polar Bear's infringement claim is time barred. Even if it is not. The jury award is invalid because the evidence does not demonstrate a sufficient causal nexus between the infringement and the amount awarded. Because the evidence at trial was insufficient to support a finding that the lost and indirect profits resulted from Timex's infringeThe phrase </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="930"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2001/99-14962.man.html">MAIZ V. VIRANI (6/8/2001, NO. 99-14962)<BR></A><BR> 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.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="926"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTA4ODgtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-0888-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is an African American who was employed as a Corrections Officer by the Oneida County Sheriff's Department (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="926"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1462.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1995 is corrected as follows: On page 11. Tinkle was on brief for appellants. Are as follows. 857 of which were grouped off shore in arrangements referred to as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="926"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032837p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Willow Inn received the final payment on its property damage claim over two years after the building was damaged by a tornado. 000 was less than 45% of the one prepared by Assured Adjustment a month earlier. 000 deductible was the same as that agreed upon by 5 Assured Adjustment and McShea. Stating that it did not have a sworn Proof of Loss statement from Willow Inn and that it could not go forward with an appraisal because it was no longer established that a dispute in fact existed. PSM relied on materially identical documents it originally averred were insufficient to document 6 the existence of a dispute. The court may take all of the following actions: (1) Award interest on the amount of the claim from the date the claim was made by the insured in an amount equal to the prime rate of 7 must be proven by </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="926"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-1505_014.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Compensatory damages were awarded against all defendants and punitive damages were awarded against each of the individual defendants. Facts The plaintiffs in this action are seventeen police officers who. Defendant Arthur Jones was the Chief of the Milwaukee Police Department. The governing statute required that he select candidates </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="926"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041568np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse. I. FACTS Inasmuch as we are writing primarily for the parties. We will only briefly summarize the background of this dispute. When this case was argued. She was still employed by Norfolk Southern as a locomotive engineer. She was subjected to sexually harassing conduct on the part of several of her fellow Conrail employees. Interviewing the employees Austin believed were responsible for the offensive conduct. Conrail claimed that it was unable to identify the employees responsible for the offensive conduct. Austin further claimed that she was subjected to displays of photographs of nude women as well as instances of offensive graffiti while an employee of Norfolk Southern. Was actually illegal retaliation for her attempts to end the sexual harassment. There is insufficient evidence from which a jury could find liability. In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain liability. A scintilla of evidence is not enough to sustain a verdict of liability. The question is not whether there is literally no evidence supporting the party against whom the motion is directed but whether there is evidence upon which the jury could properly find a verdict for that party. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="926"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTA4ODgtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-0888-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is an African American who was employed as a Corrections Officer by the Oneida County Sheriff's Department (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="926"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTA4ODgtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-0888-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is an African American who was employed as a Corrections Officer by the Oneida County Sheriff's Department (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="924"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0068p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The relief available once a violation is established. (2) whether a plaintiff can recover damages to goodwill or disgorgement of profits upon showing that an advertisement is literally false or deliberately false. Individual corporate officers who were personally involved in a Lanham Act violation are immune 26 Balance Dynamics Corp. v. Schmitt Industries 3 While it is true that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="924"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2513.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLP</SPAN> were on brief. O'Loughlin</SPAN> was on brief. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="924"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1920VOL1.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. Middleton</SPAN> were on brief. Were on brief. The Blind Vendors' claim is that New Hampshire did not give proper </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="924"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1261.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Figa & Will P.C. Of the Homeowners were awarded damages against Goodyear only. Believing that the Entran II hose was causing the leaks. Heatway filed a counterclaim alleging that the Entran II hose was defective. Between 1998 and 2000 a number of suits were filed in Colorado state and federal courts by homeowners against Goodyear. Eight of these cases were consolidated. Homeowners claimed that Goodyear was liable for the costs of removing and replacing the Entran II hose installed in their homes. Reasoning that her damages were too speculative. Damages were not appropriately apportioned to it as a nonparty at fault. Goodyear argued that the Holzwarths and Sutterley/Kilgore presented evidence and were awarded damages for future repair costs that they had not incurred and would never incur because they had already sold their homes. The district court held that Homeowners were entitled to prejudgment interest from the date on which the hydronic heating systems. Were originally installed in the Homeowners' respective homes. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="924"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0176p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the punitive damages award was excessive and in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. I. The facts of this case are fully set forth in our original decision in Bach v. That the punitive damages award was unconstitutionally excessive. Will govern our consideration of the issues in this second appeal. That is. Whether the harm caused was physical as opposed to economic. The conduct involved repeated actions or was an isolated incident. The harm was the result of intentional malice. That is. Was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="924"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/08/964043P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The remaining equity in the company was owned by Mary Beth's then husband Steven and by trusts benefitting their children. Who were beginning divorce proceedings. Judy Breeding (who was also a director of CHCC). Who was well known in Missouri as a successful manager of nursing homes. Gourley explained to the Userys that his assets were tied up because of continuing litigation relating to his divorce. The Userys and Breeding (who is not a party to this case) assured Gourley that. Even though 1988 financial results were not yet available. The homes' cash flow in 1988 was substantially the same as the 1987 cash flow. He was told that they totaled about $75. 000 and were current. The resulting drain on cash was exacerbated by Mary Beth's insistence. The Userys also represented that all of the long term debt that Gourley agreed to assume was business related debt. As the deal was structured. The amount of the note was to be adjusted after the closing to account for the difference between payables and Medicaid receivables. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="924"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1703.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. Saldana Sanchez et al. (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="919"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1558.html">CRYSTAL SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION V. TRITECH MICROELECTRONICS INTERNATIONAL, INC<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="919"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1306.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="919"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200309/02-5045a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="917"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200414228.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are satisfied that a sufficient evidential foundation supports the jury's substantial award. Background The essential facts are these: the appellant. Is a chemical company that manufactures. Safety Plus 1 is manufactured essentially by sandwiching resin and a thin film between two pieces of glass. The edges of the film are anchored to the 2 window frame. Complained that the resin was discoloring and the glass was delaminating. When Glasslam asked Reichhold whether it was using .2 percent Tinuvin 328 to manufacture the resin. Glasslam discovered that Reichhold was not manufacturing the glass according to the detailed specifications they had agreed upon. The remaining claims were tried to a jury. Willard testified that the resin Reichhold supplied to Glasslam </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="917"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2000/99-10592.man.html">SLICKER V. JACKSON (6/21/2000, NO. 99-10592)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> This is an appeal of a district court order granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of defendants. The central issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in entering judgment as a matter of law on the grounds that Slicker failed to produce evidence that he suffered a monetary loss as a result of the officers' conduct.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="917"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A4313399CF3303B688256DE2005C6CBF/$file/0136113.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Advising them that a civil enforcement action for violations of several state statutes was imminent. Before the state proceedings were complete. Plaintiffs seek both damages and a declaration that the state statutes they allegedly violated are unconstitutional. We hold that Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs' claim for damages for defamation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We hold that the remainder of Plaintiffs' claims properly were dismissed under the principles of Younger abstention. We hold that Younger abstention principles are properly invoked when. Although in many cases the proper method of applying Younger to § 1983 claims for damages is to order a stay. Dismissal is warranted when an award of damages would require a declaration that 16232 AMERICAN CONSUMER PUBLISHING v. MARGOSIAN a state statute or judgment is unconstitutional and § 1983 damages are available in the pending state court proceeding. Consumers complained that the solicitations appeared to be bills and misleadingly implied that Plaintiffs were associated with the publishers of the magazines. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="917"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-1498.html">JURGENS V. CBK<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="917"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2000/99-10592.man.html">SLICKER V. JACKSON (6/21/2000, NO. 99-10592)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> This is an appeal of a district court order granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of defendants. The central issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in entering judgment as a matter of law on the grounds that Slicker failed to produce evidence that he suffered a monetary loss as a result of the officers' conduct.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="917"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2314.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Cavanagh & Cooney were on brief for defendants. Decof & Grimm were on brief for plaintiff. Arthur LaPlante was rendered quadriplegic from a fall sustained while riding an all terrain vehicle (ATV) designed. This amount was reduced to $8. If Honda is found liable on retrial. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. The course of Arthur LaPlante's life was dramatically and irreversibly altered. This ATV is a three wheeled motorized vehicle intended for off road use. Was the third to ride after Kallhoff and Leib. When plaintiff was unable to negotiate a left hand turn onto a twelve foot wide dirt road. The trial was bifurcated so that the issue of punitive damages could be tried after the issues of liability and compensatory damages. The jury also found that plaintiff was comparatively negligent. Or damage was a subsequent alteration or modification. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="917"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/09/98-6134.htm">98-6134 -- CENTRA, INC. V. CHANDLER INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. -- 09/07/2000<BR></A><BR> 1291. <p> Plaintiffs are involved in the trucking business and Defendants are involved in the insurance business. Their relationship was close and symbiotic until they had a falling out. The parties </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="913"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/08/97-3050.htm">97-3050 -- AUDIOTEXT COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK, INC. V. U.S. TELECOM, INC. -- 08/06/1998<BR></A><BR> We affirm as to everything but attorney's fees. <p> Audiotext and Connections are known. The consumer placing calls is known as the end user. Was obliged under the contracts to carry Plaintiffs' 900 calls over its long distance network. Except for insignificant rural pockets where Plaintiffs were not advertising anyway. That Sprint was not remitting payment to the IPs for a significant volume of calls the IPs serviced. Showing where it did and did not have the ability to bill and collect for 900 calls. Although it could have opened up 900 access to its long distance network only in areas in which it could bill for calls directly or had contracted with a LEC and RBOC for billing services. Although its inability to collect and bill for unequal access calls was well known to Sprint. Sprint responded with surprise and assured Audiotext and Connections that the problem was not caused by any deficiency on its part. Audiotext installed equipment which allowed it to recognize whether incoming 900 number calls were accompanied by complete billing information. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="913"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1173.html">NIKE, INC. V. WAL-MART<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="913"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1597.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Smith & Lancaster were on brief for Charissa McKinnon and Beatrice Poulin. Plaintiff McKinnon further alleged that they subjected her to additional discrimination because she was pregnant while employed at Kwong Wah. McKinnon testified that one of the restaurant owners tried to force her to sign a release exempting the Kwong Wah from liability if she was injured on the job. The plaintiffs alleged that they were constructively discharged in July 1992. Kwong Wah's Answer was due on August 18. One week after the answer was due. Holding that Title VII's charging requirements were nonjurisdictional. 112 (1st Cir. 1990) (motions to set aside default judgments are left to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="913"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1998/98a1853p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. The material facts underlying this appeal are not in dispute. Which is in the business of. Some changes were made. The lease contained a stipulation from TWA that the liquidated damages provision contained in the original lease was valid. Authorizing TWA to make whatever payments were necessary to cure its past default and to continue to meet its obligations coming due under the lease on or after March 31. The order made clear that TWA was not assuming the lease pursuant to section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code. Was retaining its right to petition the court for an order authorizing either the assumption or rejection of the lease in the future. TWA concedes that the planes were returned in worse mechanical condition than required under the lease. Its efforts were unavailing. Interface was forced to place the two L 1011s in long term or </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="913"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/09/01-4131.htm">01-4131 -- YOUREN V. TINTIC SCHOOL DISTRICT -- 09/10/2003<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="911"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3829_022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who are licensed merchant marine officers. 98 Stat. 2863 (1984) (current version at 46 U.S.C. § 2114 (2002)).2 The plaintiffs claim that they were discharged in retaliation for engaging in statutorily protected correspondence with the United States Coast Guard ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="911"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1625.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: Page 50. Was on brief for Ankers White. Was on brief for appellants defendants. appellants defendants. Procter & Hoar were on brief for plaintiff appellee. Hoar were on brief for plaintiff appellee. 3 3 CYR. The inmate was given no hearing prior to the AFP placement. AFP status was reviewed every five days by the prison official who recommended the particular placement. Domegan sought to establish that the AFP was viola tive of the Eighth Amendment. (iii) turned off his water supply. 3The ten defendants named in the final amended complaint were Joseph J. Three other defendants were named in earlier complaints but were 5 5 Domegan was granted summary judgment on the procedural due process claim. Judgment was entered in the amount of $1.00 against Ponte. Although the district court determined that Domegan was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="911"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/jan96/94-1591.wpd.html">BRABSON V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> We must determine whether statutorily mandated prejudgment interest awarded in a personal injury suit is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="911"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200115410.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We decide whether damages are available under the Railway Labor Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="911"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011833.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Against Storage Technology Corporation (StorageTek) for gender based employment discrimination after she was demoted. Adrienne Corti was hired by StorageTek as a Financial Services Manager (FSM) in its Silver Spring. StorageTek is a Colorado based company that manufactures. Worked towards a quota that was based in part on sales revenue. She met her quota and was ranked the number one FSM in the Mid Atlantic region. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="911"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/05/99-3076.htm">99-3076 -- SEARLES V. VANBEBBER -- 05/14/2001<BR></A><BR> Who were the warden and the deputy warden at HCF. <p> <center><strong>I</strong></center> <p> <center><strong>A</strong></center> <p> Plaintiff Searles had been in the Kansas prison system since 1989 and had originally listed his religious preference as Baptist. Plaintiff was transferred from HCF to the facility in El Dorado. Plaintiff's requests were immediately granted by the El Dorado chaplain. An inmate wishing to join a religious group other than that which was his original preference may be required to participate in the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="911"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/04/043386P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Claiming that the action was collaterally estopped. Seeking recovery for the workers' compensation benefits that were paid and payable (i.e. Determined the amount of subrogation damages to which Conwed was entitled: the lesser of (1) the amount of benefits actually paid and payable through workers' compensation. The amount of workers' compensation benefits paid and payable was less than the tort damages attributable to Union Carbide. The tort damages attributable to Union Carbide were less than the benefits paid. The remaining 118 asbestosis claims were stayed pending the appeal. Conwed argues that the court instead should have applied the allocation of fault only to the common law damages determined by the jury. Arguing that the second jury trial was barred by collateral estoppel. Because the issue of whether Union Carbide's warnings regarding its asbestos were adequate already had been conclusively established in the first trial concerning mesothelioma. If the action was not barred. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="911"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992349.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 000 was entered against only one of the defendants Jill Mullineaux. Mullineaux contends that she was entitled to qualified immunity. We conclude that Mullineaux was not entitled to qualified immunity. We find that the award of damages was excessive. Knussman learned that his wife Kimberly was pregnant. Kim's pregnancy was difficult and ultimately resulted in her confinement to bed rest in the latter stages prior to delivery. Knussman was informed by the MSP Director of Flight Operations. That there was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="906"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DD1D64C89DB4D64188256D8800793C2D/$file/0256956.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Salvaty and Vanessa Koury were on the brief. I The copyrighted works at issue here ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="906"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1781.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chaffin and Hare & Chaffin were on brief. Burpee and Burpee & DeMoura were on brief. There was a damages verdict of over $7 million. We believe there was error in the striking of post judgment motions and that the claims were timely filed under the Massachusetts discovery rule. I. Background 3 We recite the facts as the jury and district court could have found them. The wastewater was fed through pipes. The polymers were to attach to the 4 contaminants and then aggregate them to form larger particles. The floc was to settle out of the water and form sludge at the bottom of a clarifying tank. Was absolutely critical to the success of the wastewater treatment system. One mechanism designed to create the necessary turbulence is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="906"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D0D65EE63181974B88256DB7007AFAA0/$file/0256956.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Salvaty and Vanessa Koury were on the brief. Is hereby ordered amended as follows: Slip Op. at 11878: In the first sentence of the first paragraph. The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are denied. I The copyrighted works at issue here ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="906"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2218.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Foley</SPAN> was on brief. Turnbull</SPAN> were on brief. Alexander argues that the court's specific factual determinations underlying the award of punitive damages are clearly erroneous and that the evidence in its totality does not meet the legal standard for such an award. Alexander argues that punitive damages are unavailable against her in any event because neither Powell's complaint nor the course of subsequent proceedings adequately put her on notice that she was being sued in her individual capacity and was therefore subject to personal liability for punitive damages. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="906"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/602A940D6F210D7188256FE7007CAC41/$file/0235906.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is a punitive damages case involving nominal compensatory damages brought by a corporation for racial discrimination. So we state the facts and interpret the evidence most favorably to the party that was successful at trial.1 The facts are well laid out in the published decision of the district court.2 In 1999 an Olympic Pipeline Company petroleum pipeline ruptured. Deep Bains are American citizens who were born in the Punjab region of India. They were the first Sikh family in the area. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="906"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2000/991378.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Admiralty law is considered one of the most complex areas of American law. We are now asked to resolve some of the problems arising from the Supreme Court's holding problems that the Court itself recognized by ruling upon two distinct questions that the Court expressly declined to decide. Ltd. will be defined. Calhoun: Is Yamaha a Cry by the Judiciary for Legislative Action in State Territorial Waters? We will affirm in part and reverse in part. Holding instead that federal maritime law must govern the standards by which Yamaha's liability will be evaluated. Natalie died when the Yamaha1 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="906"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-4089.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ludmilla Zurba sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act after she was struck by an automobile driven by an FBI agent. Arguing that Zurba's damages should have been capped at $300. Ludmilla Zurba was standing at the corner of Michigan Avenue and Ohio Street in downtown Chicago. She was struck by an automobile driven by a member of the FBI's Violent Crimes Task Force. The car was propelled into her after colliding with two other automobiles. Zurba was taken to the hospital by an ambulance. Zurba was bedridden for six weeks. Zurba was diagnosed with an obstructed bile duct. Zurba was again away from work for six weeks. She was diagnosed with irritable bowel syndrome. That suit was settled for $100. A few days before discovery was set to close. Reasoning that Zurba's psychological damages were newly discovered and/or based on intervening facts. The sole issue on appeal is whether Zurba's damages are capped at the $300. The plaintiff must have first presented the claim to the appropriate federal agency and have been denied compensation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="904"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962189.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The four plaintiffs were vice presidents at Salem. Jensen ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="904"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/08/961768P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 000 of the $1.5 million was not excludable and asserted a deficiency in the Bagleys' 1987 income tax. 000 of the settlement was not excludable. The facts of the case are recounted in that opinion. There is no need to detail them here. What is important for purposes of this appeal is that a jury in 1982 found IBP liable to Bagley on four separate claims and awarded compensatory damages in the amount of $1.5 million and punitive damages in the amount of $7.25 million. The breakdown was as follows: Claim Tortious interference with present employment Tortious interference with future employment Libel Invasion of Privacy Total Compensatory $ 150. Finding that the jury's award was duplicative of the libel award. The District Court should then determine the extent to which the tortious interference with future employment damages were duplicative of the libel award. Less than two months before a new trial on the libel claim was scheduled to begin. The settlement agreement stated that the award was paid </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="904"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19956055.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. * requirement was satisfied by aggregating punitive damages and diversity of citizenship was not defeated by a fraudulent joinder. One of which is an Alabama resident. Have been dismissed by Appellants. Lowe's is the sole remaining defendant added by the second amended complaint. Appellants Davis and West are the only plaintiffs who assert claims against Lowe's. Appellants' joinder of these co defendants was accomplished exclusively through Rule 20. Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is identical to Rule 20 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. 1 sales of service contracts in connection with the sale of automobiles. 2 Davis and West are the putative plaintiff class and Lowe's is the putative defendant class representative for a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="900"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-5018.html">ENERGY CAPITAL CORP V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="900"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2095.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Even though Harley Davidson was seeking the equitable remedy of rescission rather than tort damages. Its misrepresentation claim was barred under Wisconsin's economic loss doctrine. This system is designed to enhance customer satisfaction with ownership. A failure to respond is deemed an approval. Then PowerSports would have had 60 days following that rejection to file with the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to determine if the rejection violated Florida law. No. 02 2095 3 dealers are required to have an on site owner operator. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="900"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1139A.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ortiz Alvarez</SPAN> were on brief for the Municipality of Adjuntas. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="900"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1139REVOPN.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ortiz Alvarez</SPAN> were on brief for the Municipality of Adjuntas. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="900"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/11/99-2308.htm">99-2308 -- CITY OF HOBBS V. NUTMEG INSURANCE CO. -- 11/30/2000<BR></A><BR> The district court granted Nutmeg's motion for judgment as a matter of law on the ground that there was insufficient evidence of bad faith. That earlier ruling was law of the case and precluded a claim for punitive damages on remand. On the theory that this case is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="900"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/97-1421.htm">97-1421 -- UNITED INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS INC. V. WHARF (HOLDINGS) LIMITED -- 04/28/2000<BR></A><BR> NYNEX devoted its resources to this early phase of the project with the tacit understanding that if Wharf received the award and both Wharf and NYNEX were comfortable with the relationship and the project. NYNEX would have an opportunity to invest in the communications company or possibly garner an operations and maintenance contract for its efforts. <p> Mark Schneider. UIH is based in Denver. UIH representatives made it clear they were not interested in serving as a consultant on the project for a fee. Would commit their resources in exchange for a right to invest in CNCL if Wharf was awarded the license. In response to UIH overtures that it was interested in obtaining a greater ownership interest. A foreign company is not permitted to own more than 10% in the cable operator. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="898"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0429p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The remarkable facts of this case make it indisputable that a substantial punitive damages award is warranted. Defendants' conduct was particularly egregious and a higher award to deter the casino from sanctioning such conduct in the future was appropriate. 000 will just as adequately serve the interests of punishment and deterrence and fits more comfortably in the ballpark of punitive awards that have been upheld in similar cases. Romanski then noticed there were also three female casino employees. One of these plain clothed security officers was Defendant Marlene Brown. Began to explain it was the casino's policy not to permit patrons to pick up tokens. Romanski could not have known this at the time because the casino does not post the so called policy anywhere. It is undisputed. That Romanski did not have ­ and could not have had ­ notice of the casino's purported policy on slot walking. It is undisputed that Brown and her colleagues escorted Romanski to what Defendants alternately call the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="898"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1425.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Greenfield were on brief. Littman & Peppard was on brief. Lester Olsen was convicted of the first degree murder of Harold Fernandes and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. A ruling that was based on the investigating police officers' failure to disclose an audiotaped interview with the prosecution's chief witness. Olsen was released from prison on bail pending the new trial. Olsen pled nolo contendere to a charge of manslaughter and was convicted of that crime. Although the state judge questioned whether this sentence was sufficiently severe. Olsen was sentenced to the time he had already served for the original conviction. The balance of the ten to fifteen year manslaughter sentence was suspended. He was placed on probation for five years. His complaint was primarily focused on obtaining damages for his imprisonment. Evidence of injury arising from Olsen's incarceration was excluded. Evidence of other damages associated with his murder trial and conviction was permitted. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="898"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1512.html">CELERITAS V. ROCKWELL<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="898"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/01/033557P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Lung cancer was identified in the 1930s and its incidence rose sharply in that same decade. Concluding that the latter was due mostly to the former. He also noted that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="898"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/11/053636P.pdf">N:\DOCS\E-DOS\11-8\05-3636 SNIDER V. USA FINAL OPN 11.3.06.WPD<BR></A><BR> The case was submitted for oral argument to Judges Heaney. The IRS opened a criminal administrative investigation against Snider and Turley after receiving a tip that they were not paying income and employment taxes. Jackson told many third parties that the Taxpayers were being investigated for criminal tax violations and accused the Taxpayers of several crimes. All of which constituted return information: (1) Turley had a large increase in income from 1999 to 2000 that was questionable. (3) Turley was avoiding paying employer taxes. (4) Turley and Snider were involved in money laundering. Which was the first time she had seen it. Jackson 4 stated to the interviewees that he was conducting a criminal investigation of Taxpayers. Were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="898"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0258p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is a civil action brought by the estate of Melva Dee Parrott (represented by Donald Blaty) against Eagle Village. The second appeal in this case is brought by Blaty. I. Melva Dee Parrott was born on May 4. Parrott and her three siblings were removed from their parents' home and placed in the custody of Eagle Village. The civil action underlying these appeals was filed by Donald Blaty. Frontier Insurance was placed on rehabilitation1 by the New York Supreme Court. The New York court ordered that parties to all actions in which Frontier is obligated to defend a party 1 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="898"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2002/003691.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was a consultant to appellee. Holding that the County was not amenable to suit under the FCA due to its mandatory punitive damages scheme. We will affirm the Order of the District Court. We must first determine whether the treble damages mandated by the Act are punitive. We note in passing that we agree with the District Court that an employee of a local governmental unit is not subject to suit under the Act when the employee does not personally benefit from the transaction constituting a violation of the Act. We conclude that no extended discussion is necessary with respect to this issue. The intended use of the Penza tract was to expand a pre existing park. The County decided that it would put the proceeds from the sales of Penza tract land into an interest bearing account under the assumption that if Penn DOT was unable to use its newly acquired lands for highway construction the County would repurchase the land. Dunleavy contends that this was improper. The funds in the account were HUD program funds subject to various reporting requirements with which the County failed to comply. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="893"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept2000/995079.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Judge) that the defendants are jointly and severally liable. Arguing that FACE is a violation of Congress's authority under the U.S. We conclude that damages under FACE are properly awarded jointly and severally among defendants and that FACE is constitutional. Were an ongoing threat to the Metropolitan Medical Associates ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="893"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/05/062481P.pdf">N:\DOCS\E-DOS\5-11\06-2481 ONEPOINT SOLUTIONS V. BORCHERT.OPN 5.7.WPD<BR></A><BR> Was formed by appellees Borchert and Catuzzi. Reilly served on OnePoint's Board of Governors and individually owned separate corporations that were members of OnePoint. Contending that the payments were invalid. Claiming that the payments were legitimate reimbursements. That case was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants. 000 of Borchert's and Catuzzi's attorneys' fees because the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="893"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1385.html">TRANSMATIC V. GULTON INDUSTRIES<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were Andrew M. Interest from the district court's initial judgment date to the remand judgment date should have been awarded at the postjudgment interest rate. The district court held that claim 1 was not proved to be invalid and was not literally infringed. That Gulton was liable for damages of approximately three million dollars in lost profits. Why certain expenses were fixed. The prejudgment interest rate awarded by the district court was several percentage points higher than the statutory postjudgment interest rate provided for under 28 U.S.C. 1961. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1295(a)(1) (1994).<p> <p> DISCUSSION<p> Gulton contends that Transmatic should have been awarded postjudgment interest for the interim period. Gulton asserts that the determination of the dividing line between pre and postjudgment interest is a procedural matter that requires us to follow Sixth Circuit law. The time when damages were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="893"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0358p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nos. 01 6541/6582 ASCO is engaged in the manufacture of stamped metal products. Stamtec is engaged in the sale. (Chin Fong) is a manufacturer of large scale presses. Stamtec is a wholly owned subsidiary of Chin Fong. Which were to be specially manufactured for ASCO. Chin Fong notified ASCO that it would discontinue manufacturing the presses until and unless a down payment was made. Which was to be applied to the purchase price of the first ASCO press. Chin Fong was able to use many. The district court's disposition of a summary judgment motion is reviewed de novo. Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Material facts are those facts defined by the substantive law and that are necessary to apply it. ASCO argues that the district court's determination that Stamtec was entitled to $264. 880 in damages due to lost profits resulting from ASCO's breach was error because the district court did not make any findings as to whether Stamtec actually experienced any lost profits. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="893"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/04/04-1098.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="891"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BD0E3C0B69C465FA88256F6600014423/$file/0216903.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The main question in this case is whether a debtor may recover damages for emotional distress under 11 U.S.C. § 362(h) when a creditor violates the automatic stay that follows from the filing of a bankruptcy petition. We are persuaded that we erred and now answer </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="891"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2001/00-10520.man.html">OLIVER V. FALLA (7/27/2001, NO. 00-10520)<BR></A><BR> Roger Rauno ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="891"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/02/954219P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This action is the basis of Kimzey's crossWe affirm in part and reverse in part. One incident occurred when Kimzey was bending over a box to process Michael Mais. Who was then an assistant store manager. When she told him that was enough. You breasts touched a stack of boxes while she was moving freight. Mais There Mais continued as an assistant store manager until he became store manager was testimony that Brewer and Mais treated women differently from men and kicked the legs of Kimzey and other female employees when he walked by and once shook a ladder on which Kimzey was standing and laughed when she almost fell. Even commented on the women's anatomy and called one female employee a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="891"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2001/00-10520.man.html">OLIVER V. FALLA (7/27/2001, NO. 00-10520)<BR></A><BR> Roger Rauno ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="891"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/99-1420.htm">99-1420 -- WHATLEY V. CRAWFORD & CO. -- 07/03/2001<BR></A><BR> The award was made on claims of negligent misrepresentation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="891"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-5005.html">COMMERCIAL V. US<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="891"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/11/974373P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Charles Denesha was 55 years old and had been employed by Farmers as a Claims Representative (CR) for seventeen years. Had stated that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="891"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/36F241E6EF9CAD5988257015004E3218/$file/0135028.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows. Is deleted. Judge Berzon's opinion dissenting in part is amended as follows. Footnote 1 of the dissenting opinion is revised to read as follows: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="891"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E28ADDED7F9C051388256FBE0077758F/$file/0135028.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Held that the district court should have dismissed the treaty based claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Thereby breaching its fiduciary responsibilities to the Tribe under the Treaty. [1] These claims are not properly brought under the FTCA. Would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1) (emphasis added).2 The Tribe's claims against the United States are properly characterized not as tort claims. The claims are thus quite different from those in cases like Berkovitz v. Which was rejected on November 20. The Coast Guard acted negligently in its operation of a lighthouse because it did not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="887"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2001/991590.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The primary issue is whether US W ATS improperly denied Mark Scully the right to exer cise his stock option following his wrongful ter mination. (3) Parker and Brown were individually liable under theories of conspiracy or </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="887"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5122.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Jay E. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were John C. Of counsel was Scott Damelin. Of counsel on the brief was Jane K. With him on the brief were Martin P. With him on the brief was Robert L. With him on the brief was Timothy R. With him on the brief was David Jimenez Ekman. 2Joseph M. Background This action is one of several filed by the nation's nuclear electric utilities in the Court of Federal Claims seeking damages arising from the government's failure to accept and dispose of spent nuclear fuel ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="887"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CA5816AB8007027C88256A53005D2396/$file/9956917.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 439 was against the clear weight of the evidence. Because we conclude that it was not. We must also decide whether plaintiffs who have established a defendant's liability under the Fair Housing Act must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of future violations of the Act in order to be entitled to injunctive relief under the Act. Ltd. (the partnership or Silver Sage) is a partnership organized to purchase and develop lowincome housing at a mobile home park in the City of Desert Hot Springs. Paul Saben and Richard Earlix were the partnership's principals. Which was located in the city.1 The partnership initially sought to finance the project with bonds to be issued by Riverside County. The partnership was able to obtain a commitment for a favorable fifty five year mortgage in the amount of $4. That provision requires local voter approval of any low rent housing projects that are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="887"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/02-3274.htm">02-3274 -- EMPLOYERS REINSURANCE CORP. V. MID-CONTINENT CASUALTY CO. -- 02/17/2004<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="887"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept2000/981385.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Frackville is being violated because Al Hafeez is not a member of the Nation of Islam and engages in teachings that contradict the teachings of Elijah Muhammad. Those claims are not at issue in this appeal. 2. The complaint is signed by 21 members of the Nation of Islam at S.C.I. Frackville and is accompanied by affidavits of members of the Nation of Islam at S.C.I. Included in the affidavits were affidavits of Rabiq V. Who were also named as plaintiffs in the action. Muhammad was dismissed by order entered July 29. Apparently those 26 additional defendants were never served with the amended complaint. They were not added to the docket. Allah was transferred from S.C.I. They argued that Allah's complaint against them should be dismissed because his claim for injunctive relief was rendered moot by his transfer and because his claims for damages were barred under the PLRA. The District Court also stated in its order that Allah's claims against defendants Al Hafeez and Ennis were dismissed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="887"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DD2D2E7C46A9545C88256E5A00707B54/$file/9956917.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 439 was against the clear weight of the evidence. Because we conclude that it was not. We must also decide whether plaintiffs who have established a defendant's liability under the Fair Housing Act must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of future violations of the Act in order to be entitled to injunctive relief under the Act. Ltd. (the partnership or Silver Sage) is a partnership organized to purchase and develop lowincome housing at a mobile home park in the City of Desert Hot Springs. Paul Saben and Richard Earlix were the partnership's principals. Which was located in the city.1 The partnership initially sought to finance the project with bonds to be issued by Riverside County. The partnership was able to obtain a commitment for a favorable fifty five year mortgage in the amount of $4. That provision requires local voter approval of any low rent housing projects that are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="887"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-5005.html">LASALLE TALMAN V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Will &. Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>John H. Wallman</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="887"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991018.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1291. I. UHP is a company that cleans tanks and holds for ocean vessels with ultra high pressure water jets. Was moored at Cargill South Terminal in Chesapeake. The pump and hoses used to operate the ballast tank were owned by UHP. Chisholm was aboard the ULTRAMAX as a first assistant engineer. As UHP employees were preparing to begin cleaning one of the ballast tanks. The loose hose veered and struck Chisholm who was standing approximately 10 to 15 feet away from the ballast tank. This amount was $200. This exact amount was then tendered by UHP to Sealift as indemnity on or about December 11. The district court concluded that Chisholm did not have a right to a jury trial but impaneled a jury anyway to function as an advisory body.1 See id. at 929 30. The admiralty claim pro 1 The fact that the district court ruled that Chisholm did not have a right to a jury because he presented no viable negligence claim rebuts the dissent's assertion that UHP's liability was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="887"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1140.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Cuprill Hernandez were on joint brief for defendants Ricardo Gonzalez Navarro. Daniel Harris and Law Offices of Daniel Harris were on brief for plaintiffs Luis Bonilla. Is a companion to our decision in Bonilla v. This opinion is directed to the merits appeal of the defendants other than Volvo. Whether and to what extent Trebol and the Gonzalez defendants may have monitored the Volvo trial is unclear. They were not invited to participate in the damage phase of the Volvotrial. That phase was itself abbreviated because despite the original bifurcation order the plaintiffs and Volvo relied entirely on liability phase evidence and simply presented arguments to the jury. The damage verdict against Volvo was delivered by the jury on August 1. These defendants were given telephone notice that a hearing on the matter was scheduled for August 29. This order was not entered until August 27. Neither motion was acted upon prior to August 29. Was this: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="887"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1007.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> <U>Craig and Macauley Professional Corporation</U> were on brief. LLP</U> were on brief. <U>Circuit Judge</U>.</STRONG></FONT><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="887"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022129.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: After it was determined that Lightning Oil Company. A jury trial was held to determine Hess' damages under the Virginia Uniform Commercial Code. After having been instructed by the district court that the measure of damages is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="887"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0154n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is located on abutting property owned by defendant Central Florida Capital Enterprises. That amount was offset by an award of $1. Petersilie argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish liability to plaintiffs for outrageous conduct or to support the award of compensatory and punitive damages. I. All of the property at issue in this case was once part of a single tract of land owned by Betty Managoff located in Johnson County. A portion of that land was permanently flooded after the TVA constructed a dam across the Watauga River pursuant to a Flowage Easement dated March 11. Do such other work as is desirable in connection with the needs of navigation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="887"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/95/12/944001P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1974. when he was 48 years old. Judged his work to be satisfactory and noted that he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="882"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FCFDACD987CCC03C88256A5E0057C745/$file/9956917.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2001 is withdrawn. 439 was against the clear weight of the evidence. Because we conclude that it was not. We must also decide whether plaintiffs who have established a defendant's liability under the Fair Housing Act must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of future violations of the Act in order to be entitled to injunctive relief under the Act. Ltd. (the partnership or Silver Sage) is a partnership organized to purchase and develop lowincome housing at a mobile home park in the City of Desert Hot Springs. Paul Saben and Richard Earlix were the partnership's principals. Which was located in the city.1 The partnership initially sought to finance the project with bonds to be issued by Riverside County. The partnership was able to obtain a commitment for a favorable fifty five year mortgage in the amount of $4. That provision requires local voter approval of any low rent housing projects that are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="882"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2D3D92C93F0B5E9088256C2B004F61E0/$file/9816545.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Part of which is still pending. Were eligible for Hawaii's QUEST medical coverage. Have concluded after bench trials with awards of compensatory damages and are the subject of the current consolidated appeal. CHANDLER 13123 conclusion that the class plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory damages. We hold that we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Group members also had to have an income no greater than 100% of the federal poverty level and assets not in excess of $2. The State extended medical and dental benefits to a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="882"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1995/95a1037p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the district court's denial of Westinghouse's post trial motions. The record is not critically deficient of evidence from which a jury might have reasonably found that Westinghouse discriminated against Starceski because of age. We will vacate the district court's order denying Starceski's motion for pre judgment interest and remand for the purpose of calculating the interest due and adding it to his judgment. We will affirm the district court's refusal to grant him reinstatement. An award of pre judgment interest together with an award of liquidated damages is not a double recovery. We hold that the district court did not err in concluding that reinstatement is inappropriate under the circumstances. Starceski was about one month short of his sixty fourth birthday. There he was responsible. Starceski stated that once these orders were given. He was not given any new assignments and work was also taken away from other older colleagues. Starceski and five other engineers were informed that their services were no longer needed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="882"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-2104.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.A.</U> was on brief for plaintiffs.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="882"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200010520.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Roger Rauno ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="882"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2721.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. All public elementary schools are run by the Commonwealth's Department of Education. 2002 is described below.</P> <P> On August 14. He was twelve years old at the time and did not know how to read.</P> <P> In the summer before Joshua started second grade. Requested a certified sign language interpreter to assist Joshua in the classroom.<STRONG> </STRONG>Joshua's mother is a special education teacher. The administrative judge found that Joshua's need for a certified sign language interpreter was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="882"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200010520.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Roger Rauno ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="882"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1998/98a1959p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The first question is whether the parties entered into a legally enforceable </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="882"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/84F07390CFB4A9BA88256FA1005E4869/$file/0335071.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from a jury verdict awarding the plaintiff in a wrongful death and survivorship action $6. The manner in which the punitivedamages phase of the trial was conducted. We agree that the district court should have granted the defendant's motion for a new trial in light of various trial errors. A truck traveling west on the gravel road across Burlington's tracks was struck by a southbound train. Burlington was provided with the opinion of a consultant. The consultant opined that the cause of the accident was the truck driver's inability to see far enough up the tracks at such a sharp angle to detect the oncoming train in time to avoid a collision. Larry Dorn was driving a grain truck along the gravel road from Highway 87 toward the Cenex facility as a southbound Burlington train approached the crossing. There is conflicting evidence as to whether Dorn approached the tracks at a 45 degree angle. There is also some question as to whether he came to a complete stop at the tracks before starting across them. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="882"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/347395952971D5AE88256E5A00707B6E/$file/9956917.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2001 is withdrawn. 439 was against the clear weight of the evidence. Because we conclude that it was not. We must also decide whether plaintiffs who have established a defendant's liability under the Fair Housing Act must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of future violations of the Act in order to be entitled to injunctive relief under the Act. Ltd. (the partnership or Silver Sage) is a partnership organized to purchase and develop lowincome housing at a mobile home park in the City of Desert Hot Springs. Paul Saben and Richard Earlix were the partnership's principals. Which was located in the city.1 The partnership initially sought to finance the project with bonds to be issued by Riverside County. The partnership was able to obtain a commitment for a favorable fifty five year mortgage in the amount of $4. That provision requires local voter approval of any low rent housing projects that are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="882"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1998/98a1838p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Waldorf suffered injuries rendering him a quadriplegic in a motor vehicle accident in 1982 when he was 24 years old. Waldorf appeals from the denial of his motion for a new trial on damages and the refusal of the district court to grant him an additur as he contends that the verdict was inadequate and against the weight of the evidence. That we do not have jurisdiction over Waldorf 's appeal. We hold that we have jurisdiction over this appeal and cross appeal and will affirm the district court's orders. 4 This appeal is the third occasion that this case has been before us during the over 13 years that it has been litigated in the federal courts. Waldorf was involved in a two car accident at the four way intersection of Monroe Avenue and North 14th Street in the Borough. He was a passenger in a van driven by Kenneth C. Was riding on a seat that was not bolted down. Instead was secured only by elastic straps. Waldorf was not wearing a seat belt at the time of the accident. Corporal Victor Smith of the Kenilworth Police Department discovered at approximately 11:00 p.m. that the red light was not working. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="880"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0494n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we find that an award under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 is not an award of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="880"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200515900.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BTI seeks to recover certain standby letter of credit proceeds that were drawn down and retained by The CIT Group/Business Credit. Which was the assignee of BTI's lessor. Whose two general partners are David C. The standby letter of credit was created to secure BTI's obligations to Two Trees under a lease agreement that was part of a sale leaseback transaction. Factual Background Most of the facts in this case are undisputed. We largely adopt the bankruptcy court's statement of the facts in its 30 September 2002 order: BTI was in the trucking business. The bonds were paid. BTI was entitled to purchase the property for $1. BTI's primary lender was CIT. Which was thereafter amended from time to time. Dinstein was an officer and director of BTI's parent company. Was apparently the architect of the sale and leaseback plan involving Two Trees. That is. David Walentas was a general partner in Two Trees and Chairman of the Board of BTI Parent. That it is in the best interest of [BTI] to obtain a letter of credit in the amount of up to $1.6 million in favor of Two Trees . . . securing [BTI's] lease obligations to Two Trees. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="880"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2223.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nevares and Associates P.S.C.</SPAN> were on brief. For appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="880"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3B8434AA2CA0F32C88256C590053196C/$file/0135823.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This appeal requires us to decide whether a plaintiff who seeks only money damages is required to exhaust administrative remedies before instituting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 predicated on a violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Exhaustion of those remedies is required. Robb was in the fourth grade. The tutoring occurred on the floor of a dim hallway where there was no chair or desk for her to use. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that the plaintiffs were barred from pursuing a judicial remedy before they exhausted their administrative remedies under the IDEA. The principal purpose of the Act is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="880"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1533.html">VULCAN ENGINEERING CO., INC V. FATA ALUMINIUM, INC<BR></A><BR> Argued for defendants appellants.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="880"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2470.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc.</SPAN> were on brief. Hovani</SPAN> and <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="880"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2001/99-10165.man.html">MIDDLEBROOKS V. HILLCREST FOODS (7/11/2001, NO. 99-10165)<BR></A><BR> Appeals from a judgment entered against it on a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress brought by Reginald Middlebrooks and seven other plaintiffs.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="880"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTcwOTBfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7090_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A jury verdict once broken is difficult to put together again. It is difficult to refashion the verdict in a way that accords each party substantial justice. The jury may have made an error favoring defendant. We ordinarily will not consider the argument on appeal. Whose parent is United Technologies. The Fabris warranted and represented to UTI that [n]one of such commissions nor any other money or thing of value has been or will be paid. Including when </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="880"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D12BAFD84138E886882572790082A486/$file/0416688.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> McDermott Will & Emery LLP. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(e). Plaintiffs alleged that women employed in Wal Mart stores: (1) are paid less than men in comparable positions. That the policies and practices underlying this discriminatory treatment are consistent throughout WalMart stores. That this discrimination is common to all women who work or have worked in Wal Mart stores. Which is estimated to include more than 1.5 million women. Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a nationwide class of women who have been subjected to WalMart's allegedly discriminatory pay and promotions policies. Who have been or may be subjected to Wal Mart's challenged pay and management track promotions policies and practices. While the class size was large. The issues were not unusual. INC. 1341 court clearly stated that its decision would be limited to procedural questions because an adjudication of the merits was not appropriate at that early stage. The court's finding was mixed. The court denied Plaintiffs' request for certification with respect to backpay because data relating to challenged promotions were not available for all class members. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="880"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971372.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Vacated the award of punitive damages in favor of each on the ground that the record contained insufficient evidence </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="880"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/02/011360P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jurisdiction in the district court was proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Jurisdiction in this court is proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. Background The following is a brief summary of the relevant procedural history. Arguing that CCC was collaterally estopped from denying liability for fraud in light of a jury verdict against CCC on a similar fraud claim brought by another CCC graduate in a separate civil action. Holding that the facts of the prior case were not sufficiently identical to the facts of the present case for collateral estoppel to apply. CCC made an offer of proof on the record as to the evidence it otherwise would have introduced at trial. Plaintiffs were promised. The number of clinical patients they saw was inadequate. The variety of clinical patients they saw was inadequate. A significant portion of the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="880"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2001/99-10165.man.html">MIDDLEBROOKS V. HILLCREST FOODS (7/11/2001, NO. 99-10165)<BR></A><BR> Appeals from a judgment entered against it on a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress brought by Reginald Middlebrooks and seven other plaintiffs.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="876"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQ5MDktY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-4909-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (2) rejected a demand for trial by jury on the ground that all remaining claims were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="876"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july95/93-4585.opa.html">DAVIS V. PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Davis v. Arguing that the district court erred in confirming the arbitrators' ruling that each party was to bear its own attorneys' fees. The panel's award also stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="876"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-7082a.html">HENDRY ANNE P. V. PELLAND FRANCIS J.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="876"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199906/98-7068a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were David E. Were on the brief for amicus curiae Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Fannie Mae claims that Martini's Title VII suit was untimely because she initiated it less than 180 days after she filed discrimina tion charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Com mission. Since Martini's claims on cross appeal are fully briefed and likely to arise again in a new trial. Holding first that frontpay is not subject to Title VII's cap on compensatory damages. Second that the district court should have reallocated the portion of Title VII damages above the statutory cap to Martini's recovery under D.C. law. She was earning $71. Excluding her from meetings to which she should have been invited. Kobayashi was asked by Knight to reorganize his department. That [an appropriate Commission official] has determined that it is probable that the Commis sion will be unable to complete its administrative processing of the charge within 180 days from the filing of the charge. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="876"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5321a.html">OLDHAM NAN M. V. KOREAN AIRLN CO LTD<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="876"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july95/93-4585.opa.html">DAVIS V. PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Davis v. Arguing that the district court erred in confirming the arbitrators' ruling that each party was to bear its own attorneys' fees. The panel's award also stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="876"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/july97/96-6104.wpd.html">FDIC V. HAMILTON<BR></A><BR> This case is before us a second time. The facts of this case are set forth in that opinion and need not be restated here except to the extent necessary to our discussion of the issues. 000 in expenditures on the Hamiltons' fraud claim under the law of Oklahoma . . . even though the issue as to whether the Hamiltons are entitled to recover on their fraud claim was clearly presented. 000 in expenditures to which we referred in our prior opinion were not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="876"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3156.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="876"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/12/96-1478.htm">96-1478 -- KARNES V. SCI COLORADO FUNERAL SERVICES INC. -- 12/17/1998<BR></A><BR> 2000e17.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="871"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTMyOTItY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3292-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Town is located in Orange County. Meyers was Town Supervisor. Was chairman of its governing body. The Ambulance Corps is a New York not for profit corporation organized to. Many of the events prior to February 2004 are not in dispute and are set forth below as found by the district court in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law dated April 20. The Ambulance Corps was initially funded through contributions from members of the community. The contract covering calendar year 1974 also stated that the Town </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="871"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0184p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Chicago Title and First American are competitors in the title insurance industry. Magnuson is an individual with many years of experience in a variety of positions for companies in this industry. Contractual expiration of the non compete period was delayed until the end of 2006. Magnuson was appointed Division Vice President of another one of Fidelity's title insurance brands and no longer worked for Chicago Title. Attracting employees who possessed established relationships with customers and employees was critical to generating business growth. As the title insurance business is highly competitive with minimal product differentiation among competitors. Magnuson was based out of an office located in Columbus. Magnuson and First American challenge the following rulings of the district court: (1) finding that the Covenant was reasonable and therefore enforceable. (4) granting judgment as a matter of law on the issue that Chicago Title was a lost volume seller. (5) instructing the jury that the Covenant was reasonable for the full five year period. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="871"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061493np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> L.P. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="871"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200411931.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That HGI was entitled to accrued lost profits but no future lost profits caused by the breach. That HGI was entitled to punitive damages due to the knowingly fraudulent actions Wetmore undertook when forming and later breaching those contracts. HGI is a reseller of computer software and hardware that purchases software in the secondary market because the costs of obtaining software through authorized 2 distribution channels are prohibitive. Has worked for HGI since 1993 and is responsible for all of HGI's acquisition and distribution of software. Wetmore was an authorized replicator ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="871"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1994/94a0875p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These consolidated interlocutory cross appeals before us pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (1993) present an interesting and important question of maritime law: whether state wrongful death and survival statutes are displaced by a federal maritime rule of decision concerning the remedies available for the death of a recreational boater occurring within state territorial waters. [fn1] which are explicitly excluded from the reach of the Death on the High Seas Act. The remedies at issue are loss of society. Was killed in a boating accident in the waters off Puerto Rico. Fashioned a federal common law rule applicable to cases involving the death of a non seaman in territorial waters under which future earnings and punitive damages are not recoverable but damages for loss of society or support are. Each party sought certification to appeal the portion of the court's ruling that was unfavorable. Our analysis of the Supreme Court's maritime wrongful death jurisprudence reveals that there is no federal substantive policy with which state wrongful death or survival statutes conflict here. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="871"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/09/021684P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We consider whether three Minnesota nonprofit health maintenance organizations (HMOs) have presented sufficient evidence of causation of harm and damages to recoup certain health care costs of their members that resulted from tobacco use. We have the advantage of some recent guidance from the Minnesota Supreme Court on the question. Only the second question is currently relevant. The Minnesota Supreme Court responded that although proof of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="871"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec2000/99-13381.man.html">TURNER V. BENEFICIAL CORP. (12/21/2000, NO. 99-13381)<BR></A><BR> The financing of the dish and the monthly service was to be provided through an agreement between Beneficial National Bank and Star Vision by way of an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="871"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4E4AC35D7D39C98288256B83001A860D/$file/0055709.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It refused to award nominal damages for Schneider's due process claim. 4616 We must decide whether Schneider is entitled to prejudgment interest as part of the constitutionally required </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="871"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971409A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Morgans contend that Interstate's claim for money damages should not have been presented to the jury. The panel decision was vacated and rehearing en banc granted on November 9. Because the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to decide the case. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and do not address the Morgans' damages argument or Interstate's cross appeal for attorney's fees. This last chance was embodied in a letter contract. Alleged federal question subject matter jurisdiction under 28 The letter agreement is referred to in the Special Verdict as a Termination Agreement. 2 Interstate sought injunctive relief to enjoin the Morgans from displaying the BP logo and also sought damages. The Supreme Court has stated that it is the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="871"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199913381.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The financing of the dish and the monthly service was to be provided through an agreement between Beneficial National Bank and Star Vision by way of an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="871"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/02/973684P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The property was eventually forfeited. The Watkins' action was brought in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Where it was referred for early mediation. Terry Lundell was also required to obtain a life insurance policy naming the Watkins as beneficiaries. The life insurance policy was never obtained. This action was brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The Lundells were personally served and read and understood the summons and complaint. Being informed that an answer was due. An answer was never filed. While doing so were contacted by an Arizona attorney representing the Lundells. The Arizona attorney indicated that the Lundells were contemplating bankruptcy and were prepared to offer the Watkins a quitclaim deed to some property. This offer was to be in settlement of all the Watkins' claims. Default was entered against the Lundells. The action was referred to a magistrate judge for a determination of damages. At which the Lundells were not present. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="871"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199913381.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The financing of the dish and the monthly service was to be provided through an agreement between Beneficial National Bank and Star Vision by way of an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="871"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec2000/99-13381.man.html">TURNER V. BENEFICIAL CORP. (12/21/2000, NO. 99-13381)<BR></A><BR> The financing of the dish and the monthly service was to be provided through an agreement between Beneficial National Bank and Star Vision by way of an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="867"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/98/98-2894.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Calhoun contends that he was forced to remove his clothing even after informing the guards that such a search. As well as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="867"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1683.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 000 or 5 percent of PacSci's sales of products utilizing the patented technology whichever amount was greater annually from 1995 through 2000. Which was the core of XCO's business. The parties further agreed that PacSci would be </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="867"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/01/963700P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing that a new trial on damages is warranted because the district court failed to properly instruct the jury on damages and because the one dollar damage award is inadequate as a matter of law. The dollar award is inadequate as a matter of law. The facts of this case are set forth in our previous opinions.2 Because of the limited issues in this appeal. It is unnecessary that we repeat them here. I. Westcott contends that she is entitled to a new trial on damages because of the district court's jury instructions. 68 F.3d 1073 (8th Cir. 1995). 22 Westcott's argument about the ability of recover for their own loss of consortium in a action is beside the point. Westcott's characterization of her suit as a wrongful death action is not supported by the record. The court emphasized during trial that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="867"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-7129a.html">RED SAGE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP V. DESPA DEUTSCHE SPARKASSEN<BR></A><BR> Kline argued the cause for appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="867"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/08/984007P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The retaliation claim and the damages portion of the overtime claim were then set for a jury trial. Defendant argued that the amount already paid to plaintiffs was the correct figure. The court did not award liquidated damages on the full amount of back wages the jury determined was owing to plaintiffs. An award of liquidated damages is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="867"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/00/00-3979.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2001 OE For purposes of this opinion we are using the current name of the bank. Which is JPMorgan Chase & Co. We have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Those appeals are submitted on the briefs and the record. Which we have consolidated for purposes of this opinion. Who have sued for violations of the Sherman Act. The district court dismissed the claims of each of the plaintiffs either on the ground that their claims were barred by the indirect purchaser rule of Illinois Brick Co. v. Or on the ground that their injuries were too remote and speculative under Associated General Contractors of Cal. We find that Illinois Brick presents no obstacle to any of the plaintiffs' claims but that the claims of the scrap copper dealers are precluded under AGC. We conclude that the purchasers of copper cathode and rod have suffered a direct and independent injury and are the best situated participants in the physical copper market to bring a lawsuit. Which are approximately 90% copper. The anode is refined electrolytically to create sheets of cathode. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="867"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5077.html">HI-SHEAR TECHNOLOGY CORP. V. US<BR></A><BR> For defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Peter D. Because that method is not inconsistent with our decision in <u>Applied Cos.</u>. 100 of which were managed by CECOM in the procurement at issue in this case.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span><u>Hi Shear</u>. CECOM identified the particular spare parts that were appropriate for multi year contracts.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>It then grouped those parts into acquisition packages based on similarity of materials and components.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span><u>Id.</u> at 424.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Once the parts were allotted between acquisition packages. Each part was assigned one of three quantity ranges for each year of the contract.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span><u>Id.</u><span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Because of well recognized economies of scale. Bidders were to provide unit prices for each of the quantity ranges for each of the five possible ordering </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="863"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/05/03-5124.htm">03-5124 -- MILLSAP V. MCDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP. -- 05/21/2004<BR></A><BR> Any other damages based upon backpay) are available as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="863"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200101/00-7008a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Kevin C. Was on the brief for amicus curiae District of Columbia Financial Responsibility & Management Assistance Authority. On the brief were Brendan V. The District of Columbia contends that the officers are enti tled to qualified immunity because. It was not clearly established prior to Eric Butera's death that the officers' conduct would violate these rights. The appeal presents two questions of first impression in this circuit: (1) whether the District of Columbia can be held constitutionally liable for failing to protect an individual who is not in custody from harm inflicted by a third party. Through which Eric Butera might have succeeded in proving a constitutional violation. Was not clearly established prior to his death. The officers were entitled to qualified immu nity. We also hold that there is no parental due process right to the company of an adult child who is independent. The officers were entitled to summary judgment on all claims brought under 42 U.S.C. s 1983. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="863"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5020.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With on the brief was Debra L. Of counsel on the brief were Steven S. With him on the brief was Stuart E. Of counsel on the brief were Jeanne E. FSB ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="863"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1085.html">UNISPLAY V. AMERICAN ELECTRONIC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="863"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5136.html">GLENDALE FEDERAL BANK, FSB V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff cross appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Carter G. Of counsel on the brief were <u>Ronald W. DC.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel was <u>Jonathan F. Argued for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief was <u>Stuart E. Deputy Assistant Attorney General.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Jeanne E. Trial Attorneys.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel was <u>Jane M.E. Mso bidi font family: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="863"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-7008a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With </P> <P>him on the briefs were Kevin C. Was on the brief for </P> <P>amicus curiae District of Columbia Financial Responsibility </P> <P>&. On the brief </P> <P>were Brendan V. </P> <P>the District of Columbia contends that the officers are enti </P> <P>tled to qualified immunity because. It was not </P> <P>clearly established prior to Eric Butera's death that the </P> <P>officers' conduct would violate these rights. </P> <P>the appeal presents two questions of first impression in this </P> <P>circuit: (1) whether the District of Columbia can be held </P> <P>constitutionally liable for failing to protect an individual who </P> <P>is not in custody from harm inflicted by a third party. </P> <P>through which Eric Butera might have succeeded in proving a </P> <P>constitutional violation. Was not clearly established prior to </P> <P>his death. The officers were entitled to qualified immu </P> <P>nity. We also hold that there is no parental due process right </P> <P>to the company of an adult child who is independent. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="863"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2003/021533.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Much of which is not implicated by this appeal. The relevant events are as follows. Rodale informed WCI that it was terminating the contract on this ground. Rodale's sexual harassment counterclaim was submitted to the jury. There was pretrial wrangling. Responses were due one month later. One and a half months after the response was due. The case was reassigned to Judge Herbert J. Documents that are relevant to Plaintiff 's calculation are in the possession of Defendant. Plaintiff will seek to obtain the documents through discovery. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="863"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0421p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. The facts underlying this case are undisputed and uncomplicated. Mario Andretti was a successful and well known race car driver before he retired from automobile racing. Andretti is now a corporate spokesman for companies that contract with Andretti for the exclusive right to utilize his name. Borla's attorney attached his own declaration to the notice of removal stating that Andretti's pre suit demands to Borla were about $200. His claims were moot due to Borla's offer to enter a permanent injunction. The Judgment was in favor of Andretti and M.A. 500. The permanent injunction was worded identically to the preliminary injunction. The district court ruled that Andretti was a prevailing party and therefore that Borla was not entitled to costs or attorney fees as provided in Rule 54(d) and the Lanham Act. The court also determined that Borla was not entitled to attorney fees under the Copyright Act because. Even though Borla had argued that several of plaintiffs' claims were preempted by the Copyright Act. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="863"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200107/00-7129a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Jeffrey L. With him on the brief was Paige A. Was not an unreasonable estimate of the damages likely to result from a breach of the exclusive covenant. The building was owned by 607 14th Street Associates Limited Partnership. The original lease was not negotiated at arm's length. The provisions of this Section 34 shall be enforceable only so long as Tenant is operating a bar and/or a restaurant in the Leased Premises. ... (e) In the event that a Competing Use is operated in the Building at any time during the Term and Landlord has violated its covenants under this Section 34. Then (i) one half (1/2) of the Base Rent payable hereunder shall be abated during the period that the Competing Use is operated in the Building. The provisions of this subsection (e) shall not limit ... any other remedies which Tenant may have against Landlord for violating its obligations under this Section. The parties do not dis pute that this lease was executed at arm's length. Stating that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="861"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/01/943666P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Two 1930 era Mercedes Benz Roadsters (of which a total of 114 were ever manufactured). There were thousands of loose parts. Which were no longer manufactured and which were themselves extraordinarily rare. One of the automobiles and some of the parts repossessed from Gohlike were allegedly owned by the Estate of Herman Quante (Quante Estate). By late 1987 or early 1988 the vehicles and parts were worth over three million dollars. Finding that because a condition precedent was not satisfied. The sellers were not obligated by the contract. The trial was conducted from February 28. The court permitted the fraud claim to be tried to the jury to forestall the necessity for a later trial in the event the 3 fraud dismissal was reversed on appeal. First Bank contends the relevant market was the market of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="861"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/11/00-1024.htm">00-1024 -- BANGERT BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO. INC. V. KIEWIT WESTERN CO. -- 11/13/2002<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="861"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1318.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. With whom Mary Jo Mendez Vilella was on brief. Their lackadaisical approach to appellate advocacy proves once again that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="861"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1637.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellees. Grumman's most intriguing argument presented below as both a defense and a counterclaim is that DG illegally maintained its monopoly in the market for service of DG computers by unilaterally refusing to license ADEX to Grumman and other competitors. The antitrust claims are intriguing because they present a curious conflict. Must tolerate short term harm to the competitive process when such harm is caused by the otherwise lawful exercise of an economically potent </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="861"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1138.html">OINESS V. WALGREEN CO. (CORRECTED 7/10)<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="861"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1048.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C. were on brief for plaintiff. Learned that she was being paid less than the male heads of the organization's other departments. Defendant MSPCA is a charitable. Was its chief of staff from 1966 until 1989. Marjorie McMillan was first employed by Angell in 1969 and thereafter was employed in various capacities until she left in 1977 to work in private practice. All of the departments were headed by veterinarians. Thornton was responsible for negotiating veterinarians' initial salaries and for setting discretionary annual increases from a fixed amount of funds. Although the department directors were responsible for such tasks as purchasing equipment. When she learned that the salary of a newly hired radiologist was $38. Whose salary at that time was $41. Her salary was $58. Were earning $73. He began by creating job descriptions for each of the department heads in which the list of duties for the head of radiology was substantially the same as those for the other department head positions. Which was substantially larger than that received by any of the other department heads. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="861"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2001/99-13381.ma3.html">TURNER V. BENEFICIAL CORP. (2/22/2001, NO. 99-13381)<BR></A><BR> Also committed common law fraud in transactions related to its financing of Turner's purchase of a satellite dish.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="861"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2001/99-13381.ma3.html">TURNER V. BENEFICIAL CORP. (2/22/2001, NO. 99-13381)<BR></A><BR> Also committed common law fraud in transactions related to its financing of Turner's purchase of a satellite dish.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="861"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1155.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nevares</U> was on brief. PSC</U> was on brief. <U>Chief Judge</U>.</STRONG></FONT><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="861"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F75C846040C51E0688256EBE004D32BB/$file/0217423.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Paul Revere paid Hangarter benefits for an eleven month period and then terminated her benefits based upon the opinion of its medical examiners and claim investigators that Hangarter was not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="861"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-30286.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Jerry Doyle attempted to hide from Schultz community assets that were subject to a property settlement by. It was at this time that the Doyles received notice of the March 9 Order enforcing the Texas judgment in Louisiana. Who was also unaware of the March 9 Order prior to seizure. Finding that the Court of Appeal's result was correct.6 The Doyles filed suit against Schultz. Jr. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="861"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19958459.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Survivors of three naval aircraft crewmembers who were killed after ejecting from a crashing Lockheed manufactured aircraft. Were killed and Air Warfare Technician Second Class (AW2) Tracy Mann was injured when they ejected from a S 3 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="856"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/01-1229.htm">01-1229 -- LEANIN' TREE INC. V. THIELE TECHNOLOGIES INC. -- 08/01/2002<BR></A><BR> Asserting that (1) it was entitled to judgment based upon its defense of commercial impracticability. The machine was to be completed and shipped to Leanin' Tree on June 30. Thiele was unable to get the cartoner to operate properly. Which was designed to take stacks of flat unfolded cartons (essentially individual sheets of shaped and scored plastic) and allow cards to be inserted inside. Was not functioning effectively. Even though the carton set up portion of the machine was still not functioning properly. The cartoner was finished and its obligations under the agreement were fulfilled. Thiele further informed Leanin' Tree that any problems with the cartoner were the result of Leanin' Tree's failure to provide an acceptable carton design and were Leanin' Tree's responsibility. Thiele's costs in designing and producing the machine were in the neighborhood of $750. After sending a representative to observe the cartoner at Thiele's facility (and confirming that the cartoner was not working properly). The case was tried to the district court in February 2001. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="856"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199913381.OP3.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court determined that detrimental reliance was a necessary element to each of Turner's claims and. 1369 (11th Cir. 1993) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="856"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1490.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: The second sentence of the first full paragraph on page 25 should be deleted. The following two sentences should be inserted in its place: And the only other evidence of a representation regarding commercialization levels at KOVR introduced by Anchor at the second trial was the so called July/August 1988 day part summary. The July/August 1988 day part summary allegedly misrepresented that KOVR was undercommercialized in July and August 1988 and understated commercial generated income during this same period. Goldenberg & Muri were on brief for appellants. Were on brief for defendants appellees Narragansett Capital. It will be reiterated here only to the extent necessary to resolve the issues before us. Anchor was awarded the station after submitting the high bid at a closed auction held in late September 1988. The sale price eventually agreed upon by the parties was $162 million. The deal was structured as a merger of an Anchor subsidiary into the corporate owner of KOVR. The terms of the 2 2 merger were memorialized in a merger agreement ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="856"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/09/00-6081.htm">00-6081 -- CITY OF PHILADELPHIA V. FLEMING CO. INC. -- 09/07/2001<BR></A><BR> 78u 4(b)(1)(2). <p> This court has not yet ruled on what is required to plead scienter in a securities fraud case that falls under the PSLRA. We find that they have not pled facts giving rise to a strong inference that Defendants intentionally or recklessly failed to disclose the pending litigation in a manner that would give rise to liability for securities fraud. Because we find that Plaintiffs have not sufficiently pled a primary violation of the securities laws. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="856"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1997/97a1513p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Cohen appeals from the order of the New Jersey District Court affirming the bankruptcy judge's determination that certain debts were nondischargeable in bankruptcy because they were obtained by fraud. We will affirm. The Hoboken Rent Leveling Act (The Act) is a comprehensive rent control ordinance which governed the Monroe Street property. The rents set by the Cohens were approximately double what they could legally charge under the Act. Most of the tenants in the Monroe Street units were non native speakers of English with little education. The Cohens were ordered to refund amounts totaling $31. The amounts were not refunded and the Cohens failed to perfect an appeal from the determination of the Administrator. They claimed that the debts owed to them were procured by fraud and were thus nondischargeable in bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). Most were unaware that any rent control ordinance governed the property. He was aware that the rent control ordinance existed. That he never inquired about the requirements of the ordinance nor was he advised of its provisions. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="856"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199913381.MA3.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court determined that detrimental reliance was a necessary element to each of Turner's claims and. 1369 (11th Cir.1993) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="856"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/10/013031P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chrysler contends that the evidence was not sufficient to support the retaliation claim or the award of punitive damages. Because the parts were returned in small quantities. So the work was not as repetitive as other jobs he had tried. Or climbing was required. Salitros and Chrysler were in regular conflict over what duties Salitros could perform without exceeding his medical restrictions. The ongoing dispute about Salitros's restrictions was accompanied by personal animosity. Who was sometimes reduced to tears. Who looked </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="856"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2000/993822.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before this court on an appeal by Esther and William Bein from an order of the district court entered August 18. That the court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the Beins' Rule 41(e) motion to the extent that it sought compensatory damages. We will vacate the order of the district court entered July 9. Inasmuch as the district court did not have jurisdiction to award damages. We will affirm the order of August 18. Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation arrested the Beins who then were charged with conspiracy and interstate transportation of stolen merchandise. The Government executed search warrants at their home and at their wholesale toiletries and pharmaceutical products business. 1 The Government maintained an inventory of all items that were seized. There is no dispute that the Government returned certain items to the Beins. Internal Revenue Service agents and a number of local police officers who were deputized as United States Marshals executed the warrants as part of an investigation called Operation </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="856"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/10/96-6022.htm">96-6022 -- HERTZ CORP. V. GADDIS-WALKER ELECTRIC INC. -- 10/02/1997<BR></A><BR> Gaddis Walker claims that Hertz's attorneys' fees for its lost profits claims are not recoverable as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="856"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1404.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a breach of BOWNES. This time around he was awarded $20. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND The following facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict winner. All reasonable inferences are drawn in his favor. The plaintiffs appellants in this case are the conjugal partnership comprising Joseph Jones and his wife Vernetta. The defendants appellees are the conjugal partnership comprising Arthur Pineda and his wife Toni. The position was offered for a one year term. Judge Acosta was the presiding judge in the San Juan Dupont Hotel Fire Litigation. Who was not a court reporter but aided her husband in producing the transcripts. Which was reluctantly given. Judge Acosta was not impressed with his reporting skills. Pineda never informed Jones that Judge Acosta's authorization was a condition precedent to the oral contract. The Dupont trial was scheduled to proceed in discrete </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="852"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-7020a.html">NASHVILLE LDG CO V. RESOL TRST CORP<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="852"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar96/95-6055.opa.html">TAPSCOTT V. MS DEALER SERV. CORP.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Tapscott v. The district court held the amount in controversy requirement was satisfied by aggregating punitive damages and diversity of citizenship was not defeated by a fraudulent joinder. One of which is an Alabama resident. A North Carolina resident.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="852"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/06/011146P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was temporarily promoted to the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="852"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2287.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Klickstein & Levy were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. Roche was a general shipper trainee. The claim was tried by the court over five days in May 1993. The total amount awarded to Richardson was $104. The court found that Roche was not discharged for his own protected activity. The court found that he was terminated because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="852"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2003/01-15124.opn.html">NAT'L FIRE INS. CO. OF HARTFORD V. FORTUNE CONSTR. CO. (2/7/2003, NO. 01-15124)<BR></A><BR> District Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="852"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2003/01-15124.opn.html">NAT'L FIRE INS. CO. OF HARTFORD V. FORTUNE CONSTR. CO. (2/7/2003, NO. 01-15124)<BR></A><BR> District Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="852"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/12/042603P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jose Alonzo Corpus was stopped by a Minnesota State Patrol Officer for speeding. Corpus was arrested and transported to the LeSueur County Jail. Corpus was seated at the desk of Jailer Tony Bennett for the booking process. Corpus was held at the jail until a court appearance on Monday. Corpus was taken to a local clinic for a medical examination. Stated: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="852"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200115124.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> District Judge: The primary issue presented by this appeal is whether a surety on construction contract performance and payment bonds issued on behalf of a subcontractor has superior rights to retained contract balances in the possession of the general contractor when the general contractor completed the performance and has unsatisfied claims against the defaulting subcontractor. The performance bond and payment bond documents for the Winston Park project were standard forms issued by the American Institute of Honorable Roger Vinson. Sitting by designation. 2 * Architects.1 The performance bond and payment bond documents for the West Brickell project were drafted by National Fire with language that materially differed from the Winston Park bonds. Both projects were behind schedule by this time. There was some discussion about National Fire procuring a completion contractor and about the possibility that Fortune could complete construction. The West Brickell project was near completion. Negotiations were still ongoing when. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="852"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2191.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a case in which the Attorney General for the State of New Mexico (AG) seeks unrestricted money damages exclusively under state law for groundwater contamination in Albuquerque's South Valley. The South Valley is located in a largely industrial area east of the Rio Grande River and west of the Albuquerque International Sunport. The property from which the chemical contamination involved in this case originated is located on the western portion of the site. As it is commonly known. The EPA's first task was to determine if initial remedial measures were necessary to mitigate potential threats to human health and/or the environment connected with the shutdown of SJ 6. The EPA noted certain contaminants detected during 1984 well sampling were suspected carcinogens with recommended maximum contaminant levels of zero in drinking water. The EPA concluded the water quality of SJ 6 was unfit for human consumption. Were therefore necessary to limit exposure to both health and environmental hazards in the South Valley. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="852"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar96/95-6055.opa.html">TAPSCOTT V. MS DEALER SERV. CORP.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Tapscott v. The district court held the amount in controversy requirement was satisfied by aggregating punitive damages and diversity of citizenship was not defeated by a fraudulent joinder. One of which is an Alabama resident. A North Carolina resident.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="852"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/06/033166P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was the senior female in marketing and the only female among the three Business Segment Directors ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="852"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0355p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Smith was transported to Botsford. That Smith's rapid deterioration could not have been anticipated. That no material deterioration of the condition is likely to result from or occur during the transfer of the individual from a facility. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="852"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1371_014.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Believing that Cummins was not making </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="852"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012194.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 5 the word </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="852"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0511n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a consolidated appeal involving two cases. Because under the proper interpretation of that provision plaintiffs are left without a MVISCA claim. It is undisputed that the RISC contained all the disclosures mandated by the federal TILA and state MVISCA. It is also undisputed that Daenzer did not receive her own copy of her RISC on the day she signed it. That its policy was to provide a copy of the RISC to the buyer upon execution in accordance with state and federal law. That Daenzer's TILA claim should be dismissed because statutory damages are unavailable under § 1638(b) of TILA (and Daenzer was not claiming any actual damages). Even though Wayland argued that § 1640(a) only provided for statutory damages under certain enumerated subsections and that § 1638(b) was not one of them. The district court also interpreted the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="852"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkzMDdfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9307_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> J.) entering judgment in favor of defendant appellee on the ground that first party insurance policy proceeds are exempted from reimbursement to the workers' compensation carrier under the plain meaning of Vt. We now vacate the judgment entered by the District Court and remand the case for further findings consistent with that answer. 15 BACKGROUND The facts in this case are not disputed. Defendant appellee John Henry was severely injured in a car accident in December 1999 while driving a truck for his employer. Who was solely responsible for his accident. Suits by an injured employee to enforce the liability of a third party such as Herrick are specifically authorized by the Vermont statute. This policy was worth $400. Henry I Travelers filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont seeking a declaratory judgment that Travelers was entitled to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="848"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/01/99-5136.htm">99-5136 -- WEBCO INDUSTRIES INC. V. THERMATOOL CORP. -- 01/18/2002<BR></A><BR> That these claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The claim for breach of the performance guarantee was tried to a jury. Contending the court erred in ruling that the contract and UCC claims were barred. Asserting that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Webco's claim to enforce the performance guarantee and. That Webco's damages on that claim should have been limited to the purchase price of the machine. Remand for further proceedings. <p> <p> <center><strong>I</strong></center> <p> <center><strong>BACKGROUND</center> </strong> <p> <strong> </strong>The background facts set out here are relevant to Thermatool's argument on appeal that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Webco's claim under the performance guarantee. <em>See </em>Part III.A. Webco was at full capacity and wanted a new mill to broaden its production line and customer base. Who was vice president for technical services with Webco at the time. Obermark that Thermatool was interested and anxious to build the machine and that the Thermatool engineering department was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="848"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962680.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was employed by Appellant. Until he was demoted to the position of night maintenance worker following his return from a lengthy medical leave. Cline was fired for allegedly </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="848"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/00-5015.htm">00-5015 -- BARBER V. T.D. WILLIAMSON, INC. -- 07/02/2001<BR></A><BR> Who is half African American and half Native American. The case was tried before a jury but on the Title VII claims only. Because the focus of this appeal is the hostile work environment claim. Barber was fired on June 2. His termination was discriminatory because a white employee. Barber also asserted that his discharge was retaliatory because. There was testimony at trial that co workers referred to him as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="848"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/04/021834P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Background SPFD is organized into three shifts at each fire station. Each shift is on duty for twenty four hours at a time. Brown were parties to the suit. Was chosen to serve in the newly created Assistant Chief position. The settlement released the City from all claims that these Appellants might have had against the City arising before June 17. When the settlement was announced. Smith was filling in for an A shift firefighter. A shift Captain Rodney Bergstrom would often conduct a white glove inspection of the fire department when the B shift was coming off duty and the A shift was coming on duty. B shift Captain John Dubois testified that these housekeeping issues were common disputes among shifts. These housekeeping complaints were never 3 contemporaneously reported to Captain Dubois. Members of the A shift complained that members of the B shift were staying at the station after the B shift ended. The B shift was directed to be out of the station by 8:00 a.m. This was the first order of this kind at station 20. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="848"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7AA6D3093EC7E40F88256E5A00707C37/$file/9936112.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Asserting that many of the jury's verdicts were unsupported by the evidence and that the verdict form was flawed. It was a winter boot. This was the beginning of a fruitful relationship. Granville eventually became a Director of Project Development for Deckers. 10381 Link called Strong in September 1993 and told her that Deckers was looking for winter footwear products. Many letters were exchanged in an attempt to finalize terms. Strong and Yeti by Molly accepted what they believed was an oral agreement to do business with Deckers. Telling Strong that they would have to renegotiate. The two sides were never able to come to terms. It found that Deckers was liable to Yeti by Molly for $1. Plaintiff Strong is a citizen and resident of Montana. Plaintiff Yeti by Molly is a corporation incorporated under the laws of Montana with a principal place of business in Montana. Defendant Granville is a citizen and resident of California and defendant Deckers is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in California. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="848"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkwMjZfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9026_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> TVT was not entitled to assert a copyright claim. Because we also conclude that punitive damages were not recoverable for the breach of contract proved at trial. The facts are undisputed. IDJ and TVT are both major players in the recording industry. Is the nation's largest independent record label. IDJ is a division of Universal Music Group Recordings. Is one of the industry's most successful hip hop producers. CMC's members were Christopher Bristole. All were relatively obscure at that time. Most of which were not released. No albums incorporating the songs were produced. Ja Rule was released from his contractual obligations to TVT in 1994 and eventually followed Gotti to IDJ. It still owned the rights to old CMC masters that had been made while Ja Rule was under contract to TVT. Ja Rule's relationship with IDJ was highly successful. Was reluctant to give IDJ's consent to a new CMC album produced by TVT. Who were in the midst of renegotiating both the Murder. Cohen was concerned that a failure to accommodate Ja Rule's request to do the CMC project might. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="848"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2001/99-12833.man.html">SMITH V. GTE CORP. (1/4/2001, NO. 99-12833)<BR></A><BR> GTE argued APSC has primary jurisdiction over the claims and that the district court should abstain until the plaintiffs' claims were presented to and reviewed by the APSC. The plaintiffs appealed.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="848"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2001/99-12833.man.html">SMITH V. GTE CORP. (1/4/2001, NO. 99-12833)<BR></A><BR> GTE argued APSC has primary jurisdiction over the claims and that the district court should abstain until the plaintiffs' claims were presented to and reviewed by the APSC. The plaintiffs appealed.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="848"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-5016.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Michael J. Of counsel on the brief was I. With him on the brief were Stuart E. Of counsel was F. The plaintiffs have filed a conditional cross appeal. I This is one in a stream of cases arising out of the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="848"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may97/94-2638.man.html">ADLER V. DUVAL COUNTY SCH. BD.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Adler v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> Appellants are four former high school students<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="848"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2001/003195.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The primary issue raised by this appeal is whether Centre County violated the appellants' civil rights by excluding them from participation in the County's foster care program because their son has HIV and AIDS. Names have been changed to preserve confidentiality. 3 Foster Child Program. County officials responded by adopting a policy providing that foster families whose members have </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="848"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/94A3A232EF028C75882572920002E846/$file/0416911.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Placed the corporation into bankruptcy without considering other alternatives that may have yielded greater value for the corporation and its shareholders. Who were minority shareholders. The equity of the minority shareholders was wiped out and the assets of the corporation were sold to one of defendant Yageo Corp.'s subsidiaries. Defendants argue that plaintiffs lack standing to sue as assignees of the corporate claim and that their breach of fiduciary duty claims are preempted by federal bankruptcy law and barred by res judicata. The district court held that plaintiffs have standing and that their claims are neither preempted nor barred by res judicata. Plaintiffs cross appeal the district court's damages calculations and its determination that they did not have standing to assert the claims of minority shareholders. Was formed in 1996 by George Chen and George </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="848"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/10C8F157580FD95988256AA2000205EE/$file/9936112.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Asserting that many of the jury's verdicts were unsupported by the evidence and that the verdict form was flawed. It was a winter boot. This was the beginning of a fruitful relationship. Granville eventually became a Director of Project Development for Deckers. 10381 Link called Strong in September 1993 and told her that Deckers was looking for winter footwear products. Many letters were exchanged in an attempt to finalize terms. Strong and Yeti by Molly accepted what they believed was an oral agreement to do business with Deckers. Telling Strong that they would have to renegotiate. The two sides were never able to come to terms. It found that Deckers was liable to Yeti by Molly for $1. Plaintiff Strong is a citizen and resident of Montana. Plaintiff Yeti by Molly is a corporation incorporated under the laws of Montana with a principal place of business in Montana. Defendant Granville is a citizen and resident of California and defendant Deckers is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in California. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="848"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1820.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Corey was on brief for Roy R. Phelan and Fitzhugh & Associates were on brief for Sun Company. Was on the property after the leak was discovered. Monitoring wells were installed and samples of groundwater were taken and analyzed. Whose name was given on the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="848"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr97/95-6250.wpd.html">SHUGART V. CENT. RURAL ELEC. COOP.<BR></A><BR> Which had fallen to the ground after its support pole footing was eroded by flood waters. Was waiting for a backhoe to extract his service truck from deep sand. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. should have been more cautious of his movements in its vicinity. Assumed the transformer was de energized. Although it was suggested at trial that Mr. Shugart might actually have been tampering with the transformer when he was injured. It was undisputed that the transformer was energized for several months after it fell to the ground. It was also undisputed that CREC had notice the transformer was down before Mr. Failed to follow its own procedures which would have alerted it to the transformer's energized state and permitted it to repair its pole before Mr. He was hospitalized for over a month and required several debridement and skin graft operations. The trial was bifurcated on the issue of damages. Our role is to ascertain and apply [state] law </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="848"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0497n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Price which she filed on behalf of her husband Chad Boggess's estate against several defendants allegedly liable for assaulting him while he was being held in the custody of Kentucky authorities. Concluding that any interest the proposed intervenors may have in the lawsuit will be adequately represented by the current parties and will not be impeded by continuation of the litigation with the parties as they now stand. Chad Boggess was seriously injured in an altercation with officers at the Boyd County (Kentucky) Detention Center. Was appointed to administer his estate and. The action was filed in the Southern District of West Virginia. They contended that Wanda had </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="848"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may97/94-2638.man.html">ADLER V. DUVAL COUNTY SCH. BD.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Adler v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> Appellants are four former high school students<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="848"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2114.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 500 (a portion of this amount was paid directly to the funeral home to which Smith assigned her claim) and was told that her original policy had lapsed and was substituted by a policy that carried higher 2 No. 02 2114 premiums and half the benefit. Smith was eventually paid an additional $7. The case was then dismissed on the court's motion. At oral argument we expressed concern that Smith's claim might not meet the amount in controversy requirement that is necessary to support federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a) and asked the parties to file supplemental briefs on this question. After reviewing these filings we have concluded that the district court lacked jurisdiction over Smith's claim. Which indicated that her total premium was $23.18 rather than $18.79. Higher premium was for a second policy that Smith supposedly purchased in August 1994. She was not able to get a copy of the policy from American General. Despite concerns over the accuracy of her monthly premium charges and which policy was in effect. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="848"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0298p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (2) the denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law on the grounds that the administrative remedy was unexhausted. Tisdale was employed as a handler and ramp transport driver ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200316094.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> For a violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (Wiretap Act) is mandatory or discretionary. DTV appeals and contends that an award of liquidated damages under section 2520(c)(2) is mandatory and. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY DTV is a California company that provides satellite television programming to millions of customers. DISCUSSION DTV contends that an award of damages under section 2520(c)(2) is mandatory. The issue whether liquidated damages under section 2520(c)(2) are mandatory is purely a matter of statutory interpretation subject to de novo review. If this Court concludes that liquidated damages are not mandatory and then reaches the alternative argument that damages should have been awarded. The review is for abuse of discretion. B. Whether Liquidated Damages Are Mandatory The Wiretap Act creates the following civil remedy: [A]ny person who intentionally intercepts. Or electronic communication is intercepted. The court may assess as damages whichever is the greater of­ (A) the sum of the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff and any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5065.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Michael W. Of counsel on the brief were Michael A. With him on the brief were Stuart E. Of counsel on the brief were Delfa Castillo. We hold that the Court of Federal Claims improperly granted summary judgment for the government on the claim that the acquirer could have sold the acquired thrifts for a higher price if the thrifts had been allowed to continue treating their </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/08/032976P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an employment discrimination case in which George Williams. Who is black. Judgment was entered for Mr. Refusing to remit punitive damages that are unconstitutionally high. Williams was fired for fighting with the co worker. Williams believed that his firing was racially motivated and that he had been subjected to a hostile work environment. Williams's firing was racially motivated and that he suffered from a hostile work environment. Although it is not clear from the record. We assume that these awards were made under § 1981. They were given the longer breaks typically allowed white employees. They were required to take the shorter breaks allowed black employees. Williams's testimony indicates that he was aware of any of these activities. The Supreme Court has stated that an 3 actionable harassment claim requires a showing that the workplace was subjectively hostile. Because a subjectively hostile environment is one that by definition the plaintiff is aware of. A plaintiff cannot recover for harassment of which he or she is unaware. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011130.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is a named defendant in four lawsuits. The plaintiffs are California municipalities who allege that Ellett's marketing of handguns creates public and private nuisances and violates the California Business and Professions Code. Ellett argues that the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/05/042035P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND Nebraska Plastics is a producer of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) products. Nebraska Plastics' customers and dealers began to complain that the colored fencing was weathering abnormally. Nebraska Plastics was obligated by its product warranty. Calcium carbonate is a common ingredient in white PVC products. It was known in the industry that calcium carbonate is an unsuitable ingredient for outdoor colored PVC products. HCA chose not to inform Nebraska Plastics that calcium carbonate was causing the abnormal weathering. HCA was fully aware that. The abnormal weathering would continue as long as calcium carbonate was included in Nebraska Plastics' PVC formula. Nebraska Plastics sought information from other consultants and learned that calcium carbonate was causing the problem. HCA initially was evasive. Visiting HCA technical personnel finally </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7143BA2AF101AC5488256DE6000198C4/$file/0235077.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is limited to $200. Rabkin is a liver transplant surgeon who contends that after he raised concerns about patient well being under a fellow physician's care. Rabkin was originally recruited to serve as director of OHSU's Liver Transplant Program in 1991. Who did not have confidence in Dr. Trunkey's decision was based on Dr. Rabkin was reinstated as director under the supervision of John Barry. Orloff was still unhappy with the new arrange RABKIN v. OREGON HEALTH SCIENCES 16611 ment and was exploring other opportunities. His recommendation was followed. Before he was placed on the tenure track. Orloff's patient mortality rate was double his own. Rabkin was informed that he was no longer director of the Liver Transplant Program and that a third transplant surgeon would be recruited as the new director. We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/03/041497P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whichever is greater. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B). Universal presented numerous arguments against coverage that depended upon the policy's definitions of the terms </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1357.html">KNORR-BREMSE SYSTEME FUER NUTZFAHRZEUGE GMBH V. DANA CORPORATION, ET AL.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff cross appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Michael I. Cantor</u> and <u>Karen Canaan</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel were <u>John C. Defendant appellant Dana Corporation.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief for Haldex were <u>Wesley W. Of counsel were <u>James P. Copyright Section.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief was <u>Lynn E. For amicus curiae New York Intellectual Property Law Association.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief was <u>F. Christopher Mizzo</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Melvin C. Inc.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief was <u>Emily A. Evans</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel were <u>Michael A. For amicus curiae American Intellectual Property Law Association.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief was <u>Jeffrey I.D. New York.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Also on the brief was <u>David G. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0078n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Including those who would have applied but for the City's pre employment residency requirement(s). Whose applications have since April 17. The district court stated that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/06/001029P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have twice before heard appeals in this case. Jeffrey Gorman now appeals the district court's posttrial ruling that punitive damages are not available under the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disability Act. Gorman and a friend were in the Westport area of Kansas City. The officers were off duty and working as private security for Westport. Was told to wait until he got to the station. Which would have permitted Gorman's transportation in his chair. The officers were unable to fold the wheelchair. Gorman testified that his body swayed with every turn Almost every element of what happened that night was contested by the defendants. Whose testimony was that Gorman did not instruct the officers how to transport him. Was thoroughly drunk and belligerent. Gorman admitted that he released his seatbelt out of concern over the pressure it was placing on his urine bag. Gorman was booked. He was subsequently convicted of misdemeanor trespass. Expert testimony suggested that these injuries and the resulting pain are permanent. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-7207a.html">SUNDAY DASKALEA V. DC<BR></A><BR> With him on the briefs were Jo Anne Robinson. </p> <p>Interim Corporation Counsel at the time appellants' main </p> <p>brief was filed. </p> <p>sel at the time appellants' reply brief was filed. Is precisely how any reasonable </p> <p>person would describe the District's attitude toward its wom </p> <p>en prisoners. We are unable. Plaintiff must look </p> <p>to the District alone for payment of compensation.</p> <p>I</p> <p>This is not the first time the federal courts have reviewed </p> <p>charges of sexual abuse by D.C. correctional officers against </p> <p>female inmates. A class action was filed on behalf of </p> <p>all women prisoners under the care of the District of Colum </p> <p>bia correctional system. That the harassment was obvious and widely </p> <p>known. That the District was therefore liable </p> <p>under 42 U.S.C. s 1983 for the violation of the inmates' </p> <p>constitutional rights. Officers admitted that the </p> <p>policy was never posted. There was no evidence that the </p> <p>training requirements were implemented nor that any signifi </p> <p>cant corrective intervention occurred.</p> <p>Against this background. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1995/95a1036p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to decide. No such forfeiture has occurred and we will thus affirm the district court's judgment. Francis Deisler is a seaman who is a member of International Union of Operating Engineers. Deisler injured his back while he was working on a dredge and he was disabled for about six months. While Deisler was working as a dredgeman for another boating company. That application included the following question: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/67F77ED13FE54E3A88256CE700821978/$file/0156319.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dyer and Jeanie owned a house together when they were married ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1760.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Urmy LLP</SPAN> were on brief for appellant.</SPAN> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200611477.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The undisputed facts of this case are these. KH Outdoor is a Georgia limited liability company in the business of buying or leasing land upon which to erect signs that display both commercial and noncommercial messages. Section 20.0 states that billboard signs are permitted only on interstate highways and provides numerous size. Sold or offered for sale at a location other than the premises on which said sign is located. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/04/97-3299.htm">97-3299 -- BATY V. WILLAMETTE INDUSTRIES INC. -- 04/07/1999<BR></A><BR> Her hostile work environment and retaliation claims were tried to a jury. Her supervisors were plant manager Dale McGinnis and his brother. Baty was in his office. Baty that there was graffiti on the men's bathroom wall suggesting that Mr. Baty were having a sexual affair. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200008/98-7207a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Jo Anne Robinson. Interim Corporation Counsel at the time appellants' main brief was filed. Interim Corporation Coun sel at the time appellants' reply brief was filed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0041n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were parties to a supply agreement by which Ferndale sold a prescription cream to R & C. That the court's calculation of damages for Block's contractual breach was clearly erroneous. Among the supply agreement's provisions was an anti assignment clause. The defaulting party shall have sixty (60) days from the date of such notice to cure such Default. If the Default is not cured during such period. We will reference the cream at issue in the parties' supply agreement as Analpram throughout the 3 1 Nos. 02 2256. Ferndale's complaint alleged that Block breached its supply contract with Ferndale by contracting with Schwarz and that Schwarz was unjustly enriched by this arrangement. It is around this period ­ three years after the closing of the asset purchase opinion. 4 Nos. 02 2256. The district court found that Block's de facto assignment materially breached the supply agreement and that Ferndale was entitled to lost profits damages from Block and unjust enrichment damages from Schwarz. Summary judgment is appropriate </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1268.html">TRANSCLEAN CORPORATION, V. BRIDEGWOOD SERVICES<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/032652P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> $4.335 million in punitive LeeBoy is the tradename of the products manufactured by B.R. I DMI is a construction equipment dealer in South Dakota. The agreement also indicated either party could terminate the agreement with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2532.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2000/99-14141.man.html">MORRISON V. ALLSTATE INDEM. CO. (9/26/2000, NO. 99-14141)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3327.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concluding that the arbitration award was entitled to preclusive effect and thus barred B S Steel's claims for damages. BACKGROUND B S Steel is an independent distributor of wide flange steel beams ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/08/032366P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I Stanley and Patricia are husband and wife and live near Kansas City. Which was in default. EMC's motion to lift the automatic stay was granted and it proceeded with foreclosure. The Starks were represented throughout the foreclosure and bankruptcy proceedings by attorney Roy True who notified EMC's attorney. The order compelling arbitration is not at issue in this appeal. Telephone or in person at least ten times after being advised they were represented by counsel. 2 After these incidents. The Starks contended the limitation on punitive damages was unconscionable and unenforceable. The arbitrator concluded the limitation was ambiguous and construed the language against EMC. In at least three places the Stark's [sic] are promised that they can seek all damages allowed by law. Then that promise is taken away. This is the keystone of an ambiguous contract. The Agreement is to be interpreted in their favor. As a matter of law they are not prohibited from seeking punitive damages from EMC. Id. app. at 17.1 The arbitrator indicated the award of punitive damages was calculated as one percent of EMC's shareholder equity. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan2001/005096.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The date that the District Court first stated that she was entitled to such an award </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0391p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant was not liable for statutory damages. Defendant informed Plaintiffs that they would each have to sign a second contract. It is undisputed that Plaintiffs were given the actual RISC document for review prior to signing it and that the actual RISC accurately disclosed all of the transactions' credit terms. Nor do they claim that any of the disclosures that were made before they signed the RISC were inaccurate. Denied the motion for class certification because the Plaintiffs were not typical of their proposed class and because the class definition was inadequate. Summary judgment is appropriate where </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199914141.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This putative diversity class action suit arises out of a dispute over insurance coverage for the diminished value of a vehicle after it sustains physical damage and is repaired. We remand the case to the district court to allow the plaintiffs an opportunity to prove that jurisdiction is present. Listed below are the named plaintiffs and their respective insurers: Plaintiff Defendant Rex T. Who are all citizens of Florida. The policy for Allstate Indemnity Company involved in this case provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199914141.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This putative diversity class action suit arises out of a dispute over insurance coverage for the diminished value of a vehicle after it sustains physical damage and is repaired. We remand the case to the district court to allow the plaintiffs an opportunity to prove that jurisdiction is present. Listed below are the named plaintiffs and their respective insurers: Plaintiff Rex T. Who are all citizens of Florida. The policy for Allstate Indemnity Company involved in this case provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6040339211A3ADB2882572CD005A9D01/$file/0535609opn.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Chase Jarvis is a professional photographer who created several thousand photographic slides over a three year period for K2. The district court agreed that K2 was liable under each of these theories and awarded damages to Jarvis. The district court found that 24 of Jarvis' images contained in four K2 collage advertisements that combined Jarvis' images with other images and graphics were not infringed because the ads were covered by the collective works privilege of 17 U.S.C. § 201(c).1 Jarvis now appeals the district court's damages awards and its ruling as to the collage ads' privileged status. That the 24 images in the collage ads were privileged under § 201(c). The collage ads were derivative rather than collective works because they transformed Jarvis' original images into new promotional posters.2 The collective works privilege therefore did not apply to the ads. Factual History BACKGROUND Jarvis is a professional photographer who specializes in outdoor sports images. K2 is a corporation that sells outdoor Unless otherwise noted. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2000/99-14141.man.html">MORRISON V. ALLSTATE INDEM. CO. (9/26/2000, NO. 99-14141)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/09/01-2281.htm">01-2281 -- O'TOOLE V. NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION -- 09/26/2002<BR></A><BR> O'Toole was employed by Grumman Aerospace when. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0274p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although other less significant issues are raised. The primary issues before us on this second appeal are whether the Court erred in concluding 1 Nos. 03 6611/6612 Pollard v. DuPont de Nemours Page 2 that DuPont was liable for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress under Tennessee law and whether the Court erred in its punitive damages award on this claim. We have previously set out in great detail the unusual facts concerning the persecution and discrimination plaintiff suffered over a period of a year and a half at the hands of DuPont employees and managers before she was discharged. Plus additional facts which have occurred since that earlier opinion. Are included here. In 1978 she was promoted to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/07/992141P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No appeal was taken. 1 I. Find another supplier for) Porous' product unless Porous delivered low quality items or was late on a shipment.3 Porous drafted This term was codified in ¶ 6 of the Agreement. Which states: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="835"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1630.html">DONALD H. RUMSFELD V. APPLIED COMPANIES<BR></A><BR> Filed a response to the petition for the appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the response were <u>Robert D. Assistant Director.<span style='ms </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="835"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2057.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Procter & Hoar LLP were on brief for appellant. LLP were on brief for appellee. Contending that (1) various evidentiary rulings affected the verdict and (2) the jury instructions were incomplete and misleading. Was beset by operational problems that were undermining sales in the Boston area. Kelley was promoted to Regional Field Services Manager ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="835"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/06/992853P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is before the court on remand from the Supreme Court for further consideration in light of National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Is entitled to recover punitive damages for conduct occurring outside the statute of limitations. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="835"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/10/02-6060.htm">02-6060 -- EATERIES INC. V. J.R. SIMPLOT CO. -- 10/06/2003<BR></A><BR> We affirm in part and reverse in part. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="835"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012419.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Since this is an interlocutory appeal. Filed even before the parties have completed discovery. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="835"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-1438.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Thomas Greither ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="835"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992389A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> OPINION PER CURIAM: This case was argued before the en banc Court on February 27. (2) holding that the establishment of a magnet schools program was an ultra vires. King and Gregory in the affirmative) attorneys' fees for work done on the unitary status issue are denied. Nominal damages and attorneys' fees in that regard are denied. The injunction is vacated. The imposition of sanctions is affirmed. The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed on the finding of unitary status and the imposition of sanctions. The judgment of the district court vacating and dissolving all prior injunctive orders and decrees is affirmed. The Board is to operate the school system without the strictures of these decrees no later than the 2002 2003 school year. Circuit Judge: This case is hopefully the final chapter in the saga of federal court control over the Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="835"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec99/98-4566.man.html">FARLEY V. NATIONWIDE MUT. INS. CO. (12/14/1999, NO. 98-4566)<BR></A><BR> Judgment was entered for Farley in the amount of $585. Nationwide now appeals this verdict alleging both that the jury instructions contained material mistakes of law and that the compensatory damages awarded were excessive. A claims adjustor is charged with handling all aspects of an insurance claim from investigating a damages claim to negotiating and settling the claim with the policyholder. Farley was placed under the supervision of District Claims Manager Hugh Glatts. That year was particularly stressful for Farley. His mother died and his young daughter was diagnosed with a rare and potentially fatal disease. Because Christo was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="835"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043404p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At issue is whether plaintiff properly objected to the court's jury charge under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 51. 2 and whether plaintiff was entitled to an instruction on presumed damages and defamation per se. We will affirm. Is a small pharmacy in Philadelphia specializing in fertility medications. Franklin Prescriptions was not mentioned in the text. The insert was placed next to a side bar labeled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="835"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/07/991672P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hammond argues that summary judgment was improper because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she was entitled to damages or other relief under the False Claims Act. Jurisdiction Jurisdiction in the district court was proper based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367. Jurisdiction in the court of appeals is proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. Background The following statement of facts is drawn from the district court order and the record on appeal. Was employed as Medical Director of Northland from October 1994 to September 1996. Hammond became concerned that Northland was improperly billing day Hammond also argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying her leave to amend her complaint to include a claim for punitive damages. Even if this matter were properly on appeal before this court. Northland's billing practices were not corrected. After purportedly conducting her own inquiries into the billing practices of other local mental health facilities to determine if Northland's billings were in compliance with Medicare requirements. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="835"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/07/951824P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Maddox was forced to sue Benham and Dynalogic for breach of contract. Maddox also sued The two misrepresentation counts were dismissed by the trial court. Benham and Dynalogic each counterclaimed against Maddox for monies that they alleged were due them on their respective contracts. Each proposal increased in The proposals costs and complexity to meet changing requests made by EEI. and Benham personnel. concept. were the combined product of Craig. Benham was to The terms of this oral contract were memorialized by Clete Schierman. TBG [Benham] is to develop a final lump sum engineering cost. This chronology was offered at trial as Under a design/build contract. Testified that the only way Maddox would have bid on the project was to rely on the estimates of Benham because Benham possessed all of the design information. provided by Benham. Was for a fixed price of $10. This contract was retroactively dated </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="835"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3201.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He complained to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and shortly thereafter was fired. Lampley then filed a Title VII suit against Onyx and a jury concluded that he was a victim of race discrimination. Although this amount was later reduced by 2 No. 02 3201 $45. Arguing that the award is excessive and that the punitive damages issue should not have gone to the jury. Because we find that a jury could reasonably have determined that punitive damages were warranted and that a total award of $345. 000 was not inappropriate. Was employed as an account manager with Level 1 buying authority1 by Onyx Acceptance Corp. (Strater was an assistant manager when Lampley was first hired in February 1998. He was promoted to manager in October 1998.). 2 but his requests were denied. Lampley ultimately determined that race discrimination was the reason for Strater's failure to promote him. Onyx's policy was to have employees call the Human Resources Department at corporate headquarters in California. There was a notice in Lampley's office stating that employees should report suspected discrimination to the EEOC. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="835"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec99/98-4566.man.html">FARLEY V. NATIONWIDE MUT. INS. CO. (12/14/1999, NO. 98-4566)<BR></A><BR> Judgment was entered for Farley in the amount of $585. Nationwide now appeals this verdict alleging both that the jury instructions contained material mistakes of law and that the compensatory damages awarded were excessive. A claims adjustor is charged with handling all aspects of an insurance claim from investigating a damages claim to negotiating and settling the claim with the policyholder. Farley was placed under the supervision of District Claims Manager Hugh Glatts. That year was particularly stressful for Farley. His mother died and his young daughter was diagnosed with a rare and potentially fatal disease. Because Christo was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/03/983732P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case was tried to a jury for ten weeks. A verdict was returned in favor of the boat builders for $44. Post trial motions were filed by both sides. Judgment was eventually entered for the boat builders in the amount of $133. They are located in various states. An additional party plaintiff is an Illinois buying cooperative composed of recreational boat manufacturers. 32 1 Brunswick's motion for judgment as a matter of law on its counterclaim. Neither side contests the finding of the jury that the relevant market is the market for inboard and stern drive marine engines. Since the early 1980s there have been a number of manufacturers in the market. Stern drive engines are used primarily in recreational power boats known as runabouts. Which are typical water skiing boats. Which are larger and more expensive boats and usually have cabins. The market share requirements were reduced so that the maximum 3% discount could be earned by buying 70% from Brunswick. Another feature was added to the program in 1989 to offer long term discounts of an additional 1 or 2% to anyone who signed a market share agreement for two to three years.3 Boat builders also could receive a volume discount of up to 5% based on the quantity of engines purchased. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1995/94a0967p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse and remand to the district court for further proceedings. We will limit the triable issues on remand to a determination of: (1) the definition of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug98/97-6023.opn.html">STEANS V. COMBINED INS. CO. OF AM. (8/4/1998, NO. 97-6023)<BR></A><BR> Order prohibiting future punitive damages awards was not binding on Aldridge and Williams and that Aldridge and Williams did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the orders enjoining their state court claims for punitive damages. The aggregate amount of the settlements agreed to be paid is four and a half times Combined's entire statutory profits earned during the whole of the ten year period between 1985 and 1994 in the State of Alabama. . . . The ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages paid in these settlements is more than 125 to 1. . . . The payment by Combined of the amounts it has either paid or agreed to pay is sufficient to punish Combined for the alleged Misconduct and to deter Combined and others from similar Misconduct in the future. . . . This Court will retain jurisdiction of this case for purposes of enforcing this Order and the settlement of this case. Evidence relating to Combined's operation in the entire state of Alabama.</P> <P><U>Id.</U> at 7.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1702.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Az</U> were on brief. Lez</U> was on brief. We affirm in part and vacate in part the judgment of the district court.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001809.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Brenda and Tony Park were canning food in their home in Mineral. The store was sufficiently lit to give the impression that someone was still working inside. They were aware that a woman had entered the store. Was waiting at the scene. The deputies were PARK v. SHIFLETT 3 never informed that the call was for any potential criminal offense. The only thing suspicious was that a cash drawer. Was lying on the floor in the office. Park entered the store to inquire as to why the deputies were taking so long. Park was ordered to wait outside by Deputy Shiflett. Park and told him that he was being detained until the owner of the store arrived. That he was not under arrest. Park was not cooperative. Park claims that she ran toward her husband and was grabbed by Deputy Shiflett. It is undisputed. It is not disputed that following the owner's examination of the store. Nothing appeared amiss and no crime was committed. The Parks were not charged with any crime and were released. Park claims that she suffers from severe Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and will continue to do so in the future. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3411_018.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We affirm all the rulings except that we find that judgment as a matter of law should have been entered in Cingular's favor on Kempner's tortious interference with prospective economic advantage claim because the evidence in this case reveals that Cingular did nothing more to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/79C54648F1CD43F388256E5A00707BD9/$file/9956215.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I. FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY Feltner is the sole shareholder of Krypton International Corporation. Which were also named as defendants in this action.1 In 1990. Including 1 The three subsidiary television stations are Krypton Broadcasting of Jacksonville. Feltner asserted that Columbia was not the exclusive licensee of the series in question at the time Columbia filed the lawsuit. The district court found as a matter of law that each episode of each series was a separate </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1061.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C. were on brief for CIGNA Fire Insurance. Clair & Cava was on brief for MacDonald & Johnson. Before us are BOWNES. CIGNA Fire Insurance Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/01/023161P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case was tried to a jury. Involving a letter agreement between Children's and ABC Radio (ABC Radio was later acquired by Disney). Is before our court for a second time. We determined the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that the breach of contract and the misappropriation of an advertiser list caused harm to Children's. We also ruled evidence was presented from which the jury could approximate Children's damages. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the testimony of one of Children's experts should have been excluded. We are required to decide whether or not the record contains evidence sufficient to support the jury's verdict. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C740557C88F27A1888256D3A00540B8C/$file/9956762.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the briefs. Were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Were on the brief for cross appellees Jack Lawn. Were on the brief for amici curiae International Human Rights Organizations and International Law Scholars. That Alvarez </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-8109.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Simek thought it was worth. Simek asserts five(1) (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. At the time this Agreement was negotiated and signed. Did not have a Wyoming license. King was required to prepare under Wyo. Six qualified bidders were present at the auction. Was <hr> previously known to J.P. Was an entity that Mr. The sale price for the property was $1. This amount was less than Mr. Was a disappointment to Mr. Who believed the property was worth at least $3 million. Simek] ha[d] sustained significant losses and will continue to incur additional damages until this matter is resolved. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/12/003990P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Mathieu was diagnosed with arterial blockage. By the end of the year he was again working fifty to seventy hour weeks. His doctors explained that the pain was musculo skeletal in origin. The lifting required by his job was impeding healing of the surgical incision through his sternum. Four days later he was terminated as Manager of Customer Delivery Services. Gopher News asserted at trial that his position was eliminated. Mathieu alleged he was terminated due to age and disability discrimination. It asserts there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find Gopher News regarded Mathieu as disabled. It asserts the magistrate judge erred by awarding front pay rather than reinstatement and argues that all awards were excessive. It also asserts there is no evidence it ever regarded Mathieu as disabled. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(C). It asks the court to adopt an exception to the rule </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/08/96-5212.htm">96-5212 -- LAMPKIN V. INTERNATIONAL UNION UNITED AUTOMOBILE -- 08/24/1998<BR></A><BR> Thus this was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19954424.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Feltner argues that this case involves a breach of contract claim and that the federal district court therefore did not have jurisdiction. We conclude that the district court's factual finding that MCA did not waive its right to terminate the licensing agreements was not clearly erroneous. Section 504(c)(2) provides for an enhanced damages award if the infringement was willful and for a reduced award if the infringement was innocent. Although the district court found that Feltner's infringements of MCA's copyrights were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/98-4157.htm">98-4157 -- HUNTSMAN CHEMICAL CORP. V. HOLLAND PLASTICS CO. -- 02/29/2000<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Appellant Holland Plastics Company [hereinafter </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/97-3340.htm">97-3340 -- DETERS V. EQUIFAX CREDIT INFORMATION SERVICES INC. -- 02/01/2000<BR></A><BR> Equifax contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support punitive damages based upon a supervisor's alleged failure to investigate and take prompt corrective action to stop the harassment. (2) it is not responsible for the conduct of its supervisor either because it had no knowledge of that conduct or the supervisor was not a policy maker and was acting in accordance with corporate policy. That office is engaged in the debt collection business. Debt collectors were supervised by assistant department managers (ADMs) and both were considered the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/38BB76995113D9EE88256BB30081AEB2/$file/0015166.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction over these multiple appeals from the amended judgment and two post judgment orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Factual Background Berkla is a visual artist from Chico. That contained images of plants and natural objects that were sprayed like 1 As noted in Part I.B. The jury's award of punitive damages was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9D631F7F083D44B588256A8200632C97/$file/9956215.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I. FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY Feltner is the sole shareholder of Krypton International Corporation. Which were also named as defendants in this action.1 In 1990. Including 1 The three subsidiary television stations are Krypton Broadcasting of Jacksonville. Feltner asserted that Columbia was not the exclusive licensee of the series in question at the time Columbia filed the lawsuit. The district court found as a matter of law that each episode of each series was a separate </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug99/98-4787.man.html">COHEN V. OFFICE DEPOT (8/17/1999, NO. 98-4787)<BR></A><BR> FACTS</CENTER> </P> <P> Cohen's complaint alleges that Office Depot made representations and statements in its catalogues which led </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1999/981424.TXT">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. was ordered to pay $60. The key issues raised in this case are whether General Instrument Corporation had standing to bring a suit under the Cable Act (Nu Tek's appeal) and whether statutory civil damages under the Act are limited to $60. The scope of the injunction and the calculation of the amount of attorney's fees are also at issue. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court on all issues. 2 I. The converted boxes were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-3496.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 500 in back pay (which is not within the statutory meaning of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0242p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Karaoke is wildly popular. Countless people have lined up at various venues to perform their favorite songs with. Rights of the copyright owner is an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/38bb76995113d9ee88256bb30081aeb2/$FILE/0015166.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction over these multiple appeals from the amended judgment and two post judgment orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Factual Background Berkla is a visual artist from Chico. That contained images of plants and natural objects that were sprayed like 1 As noted in Part I.B. The jury's award of punitive damages was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug98/97-6023.opn.html">STEANS V. COMBINED INS. CO. OF AM. (8/4/1998, NO. 97-6023)<BR></A><BR> Order prohibiting future punitive damages awards was not binding on Aldridge and Williams and that Aldridge and Williams did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the orders enjoining their state court claims for punitive damages. The aggregate amount of the settlements agreed to be paid is four and a half times Combined's entire statutory profits earned during the whole of the ten year period between 1985 and 1994 in the State of Alabama. . . . The ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages paid in these settlements is more than 125 to 1. . . . The payment by Combined of the amounts it has either paid or agreed to pay is sufficient to punish Combined for the alleged Misconduct and to deter Combined and others from similar Misconduct in the future. . . . This Court will retain jurisdiction of this case for purposes of enforcing this Order and the settlement of this case. Evidence relating to Combined's operation in the entire state of Alabama.</P> <P><U>Id.</U> at 7.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022050.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> TRAVELERS CASUALTY Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Because we conclude that Stubbs may in fact have claims exceeding the $75. LLC ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug99/98-4787.man.html">COHEN V. OFFICE DEPOT (8/17/1999, NO. 98-4787)<BR></A><BR> FACTS</CENTER> </P> <P> Cohen's complaint alleges that Office Depot made representations and statements in its catalogues which led </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-41279.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Our review is quite limited. plain error. Dixon was CS's senior vice president in charge of operations. Abbruzzese was chairman of the board of directors of CS and their chief executive officer of CAI Wireless Systems. CAI's senior management was seeking a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-5109.html">HUGHES COMMUNICATIONS GALAXY V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/sept97/96-3011.wpd.html">SCHEUFLER V. GEN. HOST CORP.<BR></A><BR> Plaintiffs have filed a cross appeal challenging the district court's decision to require the tenant farmers to join as party plaintiffs. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm. American Salt was owned and operated by the Cudahy Company. The Cudahy Company was a wholly owned subsidiary of defendant General Host. Is located two miles south of Lyons. Underlying Cow Creek at varying depths of approximately ten to seventy feet is the Cow Creek Valley Aquifer. Plaintiffs are owners and tenants of real property in rural Rice County. The majority of which is used for agricultural production. The specific breakdown of land ownership is as follows: Owner Tract Ted and Debra Scheufler 160 acres in Southwest Quarter of Section 28. The district court found the water in the aquifer was heavily polluted with salt. 000 parts per million have been recorded in water drawn from the aquifer. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200707/05-5139b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Stephen M. Renner was on the brief for amici curiae No FEAR Coalition. With him on the brief were Jeffrey A. Chief Judge: Marrita Murphy brought this suit to recover income taxes she paid on the compensatory damages for emotional distress and loss of reputation she was awarded in an administrative action she brought against her former employer. Her award should have been excluded from her gross income because it was compensation received </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200314516.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The defendants appeal only the jury's determination that they are liable under the CWA and the RCRA. We conclude that there was substantial evidence for the jury to find the defendants liable under the CWA and the RCRA. The facts are taken largely from the district court's order denying the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law. 2 1 * Parker moved into the house located on that property in 1983 and lived there until medical problems forced her to move out in 1998. The house at 9144 Washington Street has remained vacant.2 The property adjoining the Parker property is 8194 Washington Street ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2000/99-13156.man.html">RESNICK V. UCCELLO IMMOBILIEN GMBH (9/22/2000, NO. 99-13156)<BR></A><BR> Because the liquidated damages award was punitive. Was still able to transact his business in the building. An error of law is an abuse of discretion </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc3OTIgdyBFcnJhdGFfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7792%20w%20Errata_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (4) correctly held that plaintiffs' statelaw claims were ripe for adjudication. We hold that the District Court's award of punitive damages was inconsistent with the Due Process Clause and with Illinois law. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal brought by individual and corporate defendants who. Defendants contend Plaintiffs have brought a motion to dismiss this appeal under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. W e have d enied this mo tion. 1 2 that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over this case and the parties to it on multiple grounds. Assuming the case was not arbitrable. They claim that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to conduct a trial while an appeal was pending in this Court from the District Court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration. That the District Court abused its discretion by deciding unsettled questions of Illinois law after all the federal claims were dismissed. That the Illinois claims brought by plaintiffs were not ripe for adjudication. Arguing that the District Court abused its discretion when it denied their motion to reinstate RICO claims that were previously dismissed at the behest of this Court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc3OTJfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7792_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (4) correctly held that plaintiffs' statelaw claims were ripe for adjudication. We hold that the District Court's award of punitive damages was inconsistent with the Due Process Clause and with Illinois law. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal brought by individual and corporate defendants who. Defendants contend Plaintiffs have brought a motion to dismiss this appeal under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. Assuming the case was not arbitrable. They claim that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to conduct a trial while an appeal was pending in this Court from the District Court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration. That the District Court abused its discretion by deciding unsettled questions of Illinois law after all the federal claims were dismissed. That the Illinois claims brought by plaintiffs were not ripe for adjudication. Arguing that the District Court abused its discretion when it denied their motion to reinstate RICO claims that were previously dismissed at the behest of this Court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/04/98-3011.htm">98-3011 -- HAMPTON V. DILLARD DEPT. STORES INC. -- 04/24/2001<BR></A><BR> Hampton </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0130p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Tobacco and Firearms ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0293p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Debtors were authorized to reject executory contracts within ten (10) days after the Plan's July 1. Debtors argued that the Warrant Holders' damage claim was $0.00 or. The Bank argued that the Warrant Agreement was not an executory contract subject to rejection. The Bankruptcy Court found that damages should be allowed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1292.html">MAXWELL V. BAKER, INC.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep09/03-41279.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Our review is quite limited. plain error. Dixon was CS's senior vice president in charge of operations. Abbruzzese was chairman of the board of directors of CS and their chief executive officer of CAI Wireless Systems. CAI's senior management was seeking a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982087.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 98 2087 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Who is a paraplegic. With whom he was acquainted. As Johnson was in the check out line paying for a bottle of soda and a bag of potato chips. An employee of the Georgetown Wal Mart who was standing at the front of the store. Discovered that Lambert was shoplifting Wal Mart merchandise and prevented him from leaving the store. No such Wal Mart merchandise was found. He was escorted by a Wal Mart security guard to the back of the store where Kent had taken Lambert. No Wal Mart merchandise for which Johnson had not paid was found on Johnson's person. Although no Wal Mart merchandise for which Johnson had not paid was found on Johnson's person by Officer Burke. Kent instructed Officer Burke to inform Johnson that he was no longer welcome at the Georgetown Wal Mart. At which time he was stopped by Officer Burke and informed that he would be arrested if he did not leave the Georgetown Wal Mart's property. Miller testified that when Lambert was detained. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1075.html">FONAR CORP. V. GENERAL ELECTRIC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2003/014286p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Background At issue on the current appeal are equipment leases running from Meridian to Lechmere. Or . . . a trustee or receiver or similar officer is appointed for Lessee . . . and is not discharged within 15 days. Dissolution or other proceeding under any bankruptcy or insolvency law . . . is instituted by or against Lessee. . . . (b) Upon the occurrence of an Event of Default . . . Citations to the Code will take the form </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0081p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The bankruptcy court found that the petition was filed in bad faith and awarded JRH costs. I. BACKGROUND We set forth here an abbreviated version of the material events addressed by the bankruptcy court in adjudicating the merits of JRH's claim that Adell's petition for involuntary bankruptcy was in bad faith. Contending that it was only worth $1 million instead of $1.75 million. All of which essentially rested on two allegations: (1) that Shekerjian and JRH had orally told Adell that the land was worth $1. That the home they would construct for him would have a value of $2. Even though they knew that was impossible because there were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2000/99-13156.man.html">RESNICK V. UCCELLO IMMOBILIEN GMBH (9/22/2000, NO. 99-13156)<BR></A><BR> Because the liquidated damages award was punitive. Was still able to transact his business in the building. An error of law is an abuse of discretion </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0225p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was a member of the panel. A supporting affidavit that was crossreferenced in the warrant and that particularly described the things to be seized had been placed under seal and thus was not present during the search. BATF agent Michael Johnson uncovered the scheme when he found documents in a Missouri gun dealer's shop that linked Baranski to the dealer and when he learned that one of Baranski's letters of interest was forged. The agents were met by Saeid Shafizadeh. At which point the officers told him that it was under seal. One agent then told Shafizadeh that they were looking for firearms owned by Baranski (or by his company. Shafizadeh complained that the search was illegal because the warrant itself failed to describe with particularity what the agents could seize. Escorted the agents to the basement of the building where the bonded warehouse was located. The court concluded that probable cause supported the warrant and that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5072.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Paul Martin Wolff. With him on the brief were Stuart E. Of counsel on the brief was Jeanne E. Of counsel was Brian L. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3). I. FACTS This case is another of the many cases arising from the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s. Such that NAB was required to share with FSLIC a percentage of the tax benefits received for covered asset losses. The exact percentage to be shared is in dispute. As of the date the Assistance Agreement was executed. Beverly Hills' covered assets were estimated at $786.1 million that is. FSLIC and its successor entity FDIC </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1223.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Mahoney & Miller was onbrief. L.L.P. were on brief. Before the Court is defendant appellant Kmart Corporation's ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/06/973043P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The contract included a liquidated damages clause that provided for varying per day damage amounts if five progression dates (milestones) were not met. Will be deducted from any monies due or which may become due to [ISN]. If such expense exceeds the sum which would have been payable under the contract. To whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 2 2 In late 1991. The case was tried to a jury which found for the City on both ISN's breach of contract claim and on the City's counterclaim and awarded the City $1. It appeals only the type of damages the jury was allowed to award and the admission of a damage estimate. A. DISCUSSION Cost to Complete Damages ISN's first argument on appeal is that the district court erred in allowing the City to recover </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9CED8FAD1701682088256DAB00803567/$file/0135928.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Murphy were on the briefs. Is hereby ordered amended as follows: Slip Op. at 11135: First full paragraph. Judges O'Scannlain and Fisher have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Circuit Judge: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1468.html">LAITRAM CORP. V. NEC CORPORATION<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/080355972CE104ED88256D8000519A52/$file/0135928.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Murphy were on the briefs. Circuit Judge: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FC236EC86A73505E88256E510081F85D/$file/0217123.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We also hold that under § 7431 punitive damages are precluded absent proof of actual damages. Including two lawyers who were representing Appellants in the ongoing criminal investigation. They want you to have it. Embroidered on the back of the cap was a citation to 26 U.S.C. § 7201. Section 7201 provides that tax evasion is a felony. When the citation was read aloud. Section 7206(1) of the Internal Revenue Code provides that a person who willfully makes a false statement is guilty of a felony punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment of not more than three years. Appellants filed a motion in which they alleged that they were entitled to summary judgment on their claim for statutory and punitive damages for the violation of § 6103. The Government contended that punitive damages are not available for a violation of § 6103. UNITED STATES utory damages for one act of disclosure and held that punitive damages are not available without proof of actual damages. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/03/973788P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The bankruptcy court ruled that the actual damages portion of the judgment was not dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) (1994). That the punitive damages portion was dischargeable. I. Fischer and Scarborough were married in 1984 and divorced in 1986. Fischer was allowed visitation. Had sodomized him when he was three. The criminal charges were eventually dismissed two years later. Scarborough also filed a petition for an ex parte order of protection in 1989 that was dismissed when she failed to appear at the hearing. That portion of the judgment debt was dischargeable. Section 523(a)(6) provides that certain debts are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. Namely those that are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971878.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the unpublished order that was reversed by the Court comprised only two substantive sentences. Is entitled to an explanation of this court's prior action. Hetzel also alleged that she was retaliated against for attempting to assert her right not to be discriminated against. 000 was grossly excessive when compared to the limited evidence of harm presented at trial and would result in a serious `miscarriage of justice' if upheld. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1290.html">P.J. DICK INCORPORATED V. ANTHONY PRINCIPI<BR></A><BR> Argued for appellee Secretary of Veterans Affairs.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Robert D. 262 in damages to PJD for contract delays that were the fault of the government.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span><u>P.J. 2001).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>For reasons of judicial convenience the two separately filed appeals were consolidated into a single proceeding before this court. With the Secretary s appeal treated as the cross appeal for purposes of briefing and argument.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>PJD appeals the Board s denial of its claims for unabsorbed home office overhead damages.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>The Secretary appeals the Board s conclusion that six separate contract changes (the combined directives ) should be treated as occurring on the same date in calculating the extent of the resulting delay to contract completion.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Although we affirm the Board s conclusion that PJD was not on standby. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july96/95-4424.opa.html">MCA TELEVISION LTD. V. FELTNER<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>MCA Television Ltd. v. Entered a $9 million judgment against Feltner.<p> <i>Discussion</i><p> <p> Feltner initially asserts that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because this cause did not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1584.html">INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL. V. CAT CONTRACTING, INC., ET AL.<BR></A><BR> KG.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  < </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/495AB3DC0228E24688256C090059D5AF/$file/0015166.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is withdrawn and replaced by the amended opinion filed concurrently with this order. The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are denied. We have jurisdiction over these multiple appeals from the amended judgment and two post judgment orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The jury's award of punitive damages was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2016.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: Page 10. Polich & Shaw was on brief for plaintiffs appellees/cross appellants Taing Tao. Judgment was entered in favor of plaintiffs. Gamma was awarded $2. Because we hold that four works were infringed. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND Television Broadcasts Ltd. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar99/95-3000.man.html">MONTGOMERY V. NOGA (3/5/1999, NO. 95-3000)<BR></A><BR> We endeavor to bring a small measure of clarity to certain </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043707p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Order and Opinion of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was initially made a party to this action but was subsequently removed as a party. 2 1 granting the Township's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. Which is located in Allegheny County. The subject property was located in a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200613204.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court concluded that it was bound by our prior panel decision in Hines v. Plaintiffs contend that Hines was abrogated by Miles v. In which the Supreme Court concluded that recovery for nonpecuniary loss in the wrongful death of a seaman was not available under general maritime law. Wages for seamen who become ill or are injured 2 while serving aboard a vessel.1 Plaintiffs then filed this suit for declaratory relief on the question of their obligations in this matter. Concluding that it was bound by our rule in Hines. We described this kind of cause of action: The seaman's action for maintenance and cure may be seen as one designed to put the sailor in the same position he would have been had he continued to work: the seaman receives a maintenance remedy. Because working seamen normally are housed and fed aboard ship. Whether punitive damages may be recovered in maintenance and cure actions is a question of law that we review de novo. The central question here is whether we may depart from our prior ruling in Hines. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EFD59E401DF78480882570D5004D7B93/$file/0355963.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The bankruptcy court dismissed Rodney's case on the ground IN RE: MILES 16185 that he was generally paying his undisputed debts as they became due. One of which was that the petitions were filed in bad faith.1 The bankruptcy court retained jurisdiction to determine the alleged debtors' rights to attorneys' fees. The causes of action asserted by Melinda and Kelly were based on the bankruptcy court's finding that the involuntary petition against their mother. Was filed in bad faith. On the basis that he was generally paying his undisputed debts as they became due. The causes of action asserted by Ann were based solely on the bankruptcy court's dismissal of the involuntary petition against her husband. While these motions were pending. Appellants moved for remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b) on the premises that the removal was untimely and that there was no federal jurisdiction over damages claims by third parties resulting from the filing of an involuntary bankruptcy petition. Holding that it had </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1976.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 10. Cullen & Resnick were on brief for 604 Columbus Avenue. Gottlieb were on brief for Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. *Of the Third Circuit. This is a case involving a failed loan transaction that well illustrates Polonius' advice. Among which were the property owned by the Trust itself and properties of the Trust's principal beneficiary. Of which Millicent Young was sole beneficiary. The Young Family Trust was a named plaintiff in the adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy and district courts below. The Bank was declared unsound by Massachusetts banking officials. The FDIC was appointed 7 receiver. In February 1991 was substituted as defendant appellant in the district court. That the FDIC was entitled to raise the defenses available to it under the doctrine of estoppel established in D'Oench. The district court vacated that part of the bankruptcy court's judgment that was premised on the secret agreement by one of the Trust's principals to provide kickbacks to a Bank officer. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/oct95/93-1142.html">FITZGERALD V. MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH<BR></A><BR> The case was resubmitted on the briefs and accompanying pleadings. Including the recording of the oral argument. contends that the jury award in this action for race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. 1981 was the result of passion or prejudice. That the jury should not have been allowed to consider punitive damages. The jury should have been instructed that unreimbursed expenses should be deducted from any compensatory award for lost profits. West twice sought judgment as a matter of law that punitive damages were not supported by the evidence. Though the relief requested is more limited than might be requested. Plaintiffs' proposal was accepted on the condition of successful completion of a five day </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar99/95-3000.man.html">MONTGOMERY V. NOGA (3/5/1999, NO. 95-3000)<BR></A><BR> We endeavor to bring a small measure of clarity to certain </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july96/95-4424.opa.html">MCA TELEVISION LTD. V. FELTNER<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>MCA Television Ltd. v. Entered a $9 million judgment against Feltner.<p> <i>Discussion</i><p> <p> Feltner initially asserts that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because this cause did not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D39F2722CAFA5BC688256E980073F459/$file/0116037.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> California *Arnold Schwarzenegger is substituted for his predecessor. As the Board was named at the time. Ruling that parole board members are entitled to We discuss in more detail the rescission of McQuillion's parole date in McQuillion v. It is not cognizable under § 1983. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/495ab3dc0228e24688256c090059d5af/$FILE/0015166.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is withdrawn and replaced by the amended opinion filed concurrently with this order. The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are denied. We have jurisdiction over these multiple appeals from the amended judgment and two post judgment orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The jury's award of punitive damages was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1452.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C.</SPAN> were on brief for appellants and cross appellees</SPAN> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200412004.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Background Akouri is a United States citizen who was born in Lebanon and has lived in the United States since 1984. This issue is moot. 1 2 promotions.2 According to Akouri's trial testimony. Akouri was later terminated from his employment with DOT for misuse of his government computer in May 2001. Akouri was considered and interviewed along with five other applicants. Thomas Reynolds was selected for the position [hereinafter. Akouri again was considered along with five other qualified applicants and interviewed by a panel that included Blanchard and Marsh. Mike Atkins was selected to fill the position [hereinafter. Was not interviewed. George Denti was selected to fill this position [hereinafter. Akouri's counsel responded that he expected to continue through the following afternoon and the court told him he would have until 3:30PM. There were no objections. (2) Akouri failed to establish that the DOT's reasons were pretextual. The matter was then submitted to the jury. The jury did not believe that Akouri was denied the Atkins position for any reason other than his national origin. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1392.html">EARL E. THOMPSON, SR., V. HENRY HAYNES<BR></A><BR> 2001) ( <u>Judgment</u> ).<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2383.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Drew</SPAN> were on the brief. Cuipylo</SPAN> was on the brief. Was ordered to pay $25. Requesting that we find error in the district court's decision at trial to dismiss her claims for punitive damages.</P> <P> We will uphold the jury's verdict finding that Woodis and Westfield had sexually harassed Horney by subjecting her to a hostile and abusive working environment in violation of Title VII and Mass. We will also affirm the district court's refusal to invalidate the settlement agreement between Horney and Woodis. We will reverse the judgment against Westfield to the extent it is based on Horney's gender discrimination claim and will remand for a new trial on that claim. We conclude that the district court erred in dismissing Horney's claims for punitive damages and will remand the matter to the district court for further proceedings on those claims consistent with this opinion. </P> <P> The parties are familiar with the factual setting of this matter and with the evidence submitted at trial. We will address in turn each of the assigned errors in the appeals and the cross appeal and will there refer to the evidence where necessary to explain the court's disposition.</P> <P><CENTER>II. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/02/991052P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is a retail operation that sells a variety of household goods. Fedders is a wholly owned subsidiary of Fedders Corporation. The contract also included an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1757.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C. were on brief. Munroe and Munroe & McArdle were on brief. He was reassigned to Logan Airport in Boston in 1977. Koster's last position was Supervisor. He was responsible for Logan's garage. Humpherys was responsible for TWA's entire station operations at Logan. His </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-1655a.html">DEPT ARMY V. FLRA<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5173.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Charles J. Of counsel was Nicole Jo Moss. With him on the brief were Stuart E. This is a Winstar related case in which the Court of Federal Claims held that the government had breached an agreement with a savings and loan company that the latter could use a particular method of accounting in determining its capital for regulatory purposes. It contends that the breach of the agreement did not cause the injury for which the plaintiffs were awarded damages. The facts relating to the financial problems of the savings and loan industry in the early 1980s and the federal government's attempts to alleviate the situation are well known and need only to be briefly summarized here. At that time a large number of savings and loan companies (also known as thrifts) were in serious financial straits and facing insolvency. Which usually were incorporated in written agreements with them. The Supreme Court upheld this court's decision that the United States was liable for breach of contract to thrifts with which it had agreed to permit the use as regulatory capital of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/07/032904P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is more than eight times Healthmark's net worth. I. Healthmark first argues that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the administrators' claim for punitive damages. That his act of negligence was about to inflict injury. Healthmark as employer </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/82A6A0146A3E3A1A88256C010055E84F/$file/0035839.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Mackie did not have a registered copyright on the work at the time of infringement and consequently could not take advantage of statutory damages for infringement. 1 nor did he have evidence to sustain a claim for the Symphony's direct profits. 17 U.S.C. § 412(2). He was left to pursue claims for indirect profits and actual damages. Held that any such computation of damages was far too speculative to survive a summary judgment motion. Mackie argues that the district court erred by failing to account for his subjective objections to the manner in which his work was used. BACKGROUND Mackie is a Seattle based artist who specializes in creating public works. These schematics are based on the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042095p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> TRUST UNDER LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF RALPH MCEWAN Appellants v. This is an appeal by plaintiffs Alice Jaasma and the Trust of Ralph McEwan (hereinafter </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-5097.html">SEABOARD LUMBER COMPANY V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5059.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Of counsel on the brief were Howard N. On the brief were Stuart E. Of counsel on the brief were Jeanne E. This is a Winstar damages case. The breach was the elimination of regulatory capital by the enactment of the Financial Institutions Reform. We conclude that the $118 million amount is not recoverable under a restitution theory because the appellant elected to continue performance under the contract to the benefit of the appellant and to the detriment of the government. Is not recoverable under a reliance theory because the damages were not foreseeable as a matter of law. BACKGROUND I Before the transactions that are the focus of this lawsuit. Old Stone Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1994/94a0921p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is the largest housing agency in Pennsylvania and fourth largest in the United States. The agency is governed by a board of commissioners consisting of five members. Paone was named as PHA's new executive director. Feldman was responsible for investigating. Feldman was required to present his findings and observations to the executive director and the board of commissioners. His work was considered exemplary. Many of his reports criticized the job PHA's management was doing. Paone was particularly displeased with Feldman after he reported that management had promoted a PHA employee who was under investigation for corruption. Which was responsible for the agency's fencing contracts. Was involved in an illegal bid rigging scheme. Several PHA employees were linked to the unlawful activity. Including which PHA employees were probably involved. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/12/031073P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Eleven people died and more than eighty were injured as a result of the accident. Various federal lawsuits relating to the crash were filed. They were consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation and transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. A plaintiffs' steering committee (PSC) was appointed to be responsible for the litigation of questions of fact and law that were common to all cases. The compensatory damages claims were separated from the punitive damages claims. The cases at issue in this appeal were tried to a jury on the issue of compensatory damages. The sole issue in this appeal is whether the district court erred in granting that motion. Summary judgment was properly granted only if the evidence was such that no reasonable jury could have found grounds for awarding punitive damages under the standard established by Arkansas law. The conduct justifying punitive damages was committed by the two members of the flight crew. While the defendant in this case is American Airlines. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jul1998/98a1926p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Together with a number of individuals who are residents of those R&B houses. Sued in the district court to have the Rooming and Boarding House Municipal Licensing Law. Defendants are the Township of Neptune and the State of New Jersey.1 The FHAA declares that it is unlawful </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug96/99-12407.opn.html">CARL J. FABRY, PATRICIA P. FABRY V. COMM'R OF INTERNAL REVENUE (8/21/2000, NO. 99-12407)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1149.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Karen Vogel Weil. Of counsel was Brian C. Of counsel on the brief was Donald L. Of counsel was Fred H. BACKGROUND The '553 patent is entitled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/08/952071P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Costs to another group of plaintiffs in whose favor summary judgment was granted. This is the second lawsuit arising from the facts set forth in Deal v. The device recorded conversations made from or received on either the residential or the business telephone when either handset was picked up. With no indication to either party that the conversation was being recorded. Calls were taped. If the machine was on and a blank tape was in the machine. The tapes of the telephone conversations were seized by a United States deputy marshal on September 3. Recorded while Deal was at work in the store.3 In January 1992. Was substituted as defendant. She is also a defendant individually. Sibbie Deal and Calvin Lucas are divorced from the persons to whom they were married at the time their telephone conversations were recorded. Married each other after their suit was filed. To avoid any confusion we will refer to Sibbie Lucas as Sibbie Deal. 33 2 their judgment in the district court. Contending that their conversations also were intercepted during the relevant period. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5029.html">HANSEN BANCORP, INC., ET AL V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief was <u>Richard E. Argued for defendant cross appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Stuart E. Line height:200%'>This is a <u>Winstar</u> related case.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>In <u>Hansen Bancorp. The United States urges reversal of the court s ruling that its contract with the Hansens and Hansen Bancorp was totally breached.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>The United States also challenges the court s rejection of its contention that a $1.2 million dividend paid to the Hansens by Hansen Bancorp should be offset against any award of restitution to the Hansens.</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text indent:.5in. The judgment in favor of the Hansens is vacated.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>           </span></p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text align:center. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/01/001625P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is governed by North Dakota law. WCDC is the successor in interest to ANR Pipeline Company. Which was the pipeline subsidiary of the American Natural Resources Company (ANR). As consideration for WCDC's fronting an amount that eventually totaled over $11 million dollars to NACCO to hold the coal reserves from the time of the 1972 agreement until the Gas Plant and its accompanying power plant (the Antelope Valley Station or AVS) were completed.6 See 1979 Restatement of Basic Agreement ¶ 10(a). It is under this agreement that WCDC argues Coteau's implied duty to reasonably develop WCDC's royalty bearing reserves first arose. Basin was involved with the Gas Plant project through its construction Delay rentals are amounts paid to the holder of mining rights on an area of coal </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2000/99-12407.opn.html">FABRY V. COMM'R OF INTERNAL REVENUE (8/21/2000, NO. 99-12407)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-3288.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because all of Penncro's claimed damages are lost profits. Sprint argues the district court's judgment is fatally flawed. Sprint contends that Penncro's damages should be calculated on the basis of the work it was ready and able to perform. Arguing that it is entitled to an additional $6.5 million in damages. Penncro submits that the district court erred when it found that the company was able. While parties to a contract may define their terms as they please Ä a duck may be a goose Ä we see no evidence that Sprint's and Penncro's definition of the term consequential damages was designed to embrace (and thus foreclose the award of) profits lost as a direct result of Sprint's breach. Customers with overdue Sprint accounts trying to make outgoing calls were automatically routed to centers run by one of the three vendors. Informed callers that their accounts were past due. Attempted to collect monies owed to Sprint Ä a service known as first party inbound collections work.(1) (1) It is first party because Penncro's employees identify themselves as Sprint's agents. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1920.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> O'Donnell was on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston. Egan was on brief for appellee Christian Brothers Institute of Massachusetts. Filed counterclaims alleging damages arising from Air Safety's work.1 The bottom line after a series of rulings by the court and the jury was a net award in favor of each defendant. Which Air Safety contends were excessive and unsupported by the record. Including the quality of Air Safety's performance and the defendants' obligations to pay for completed 1 RCAB is the owner of five of the schools. Stayed enforcement of the judgment until all other claims were resolved.4 Following a twelve day trial. The jury also determined that Air Safety was responsible for 2 An </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug96/99-12407.opn.html">CARL J. FABRY, PATRICIA P. FABRY V. COMM'R OF INTERNAL REVENUE (8/21/2000, NO. 99-12407)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc0OTlfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7499_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that (i) the meaning of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-1625.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Robert C. Of counsel on the brief were Raphael V. Will & Emery. On the brief were Douglas A. Of counsel on the brief were Don O. The jury's verdict that Ericsson's infringement was willful. Both of these types of products are accused of infringing the '338 patent in the present case. This patent concerns the way wireless signals are processed. The symbols are transmitted by means of electromagnetic waves. This effect is called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept99/97-6833.man.html">BOYD V. HOMES OF LEGEND (9/16/1999, NO. 97-6833)<BR></A><BR> </EM><A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct97/95-8459.opa.html">GRAY V. LOCKHEED AERONAUTICAL SYS. CO.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gray v. Survivors of three naval aircraft crewmembers who were killed after ejecting from a crashing Lockheed manufactured aircraft. Were killed and Air Warfare Technician Second Class (AW2) Tracy Mann was injured when they ejected from a S 3 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2000/99-12407.opn.html">FABRY V. COMM'R OF INTERNAL REVENUE (8/21/2000, NO. 99-12407)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3640_042.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This putative class action alleges the Coca Cola Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct97/95-8459.opa.html">GRAY V. LOCKHEED AERONAUTICAL SYS. CO.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gray v. Survivors of three naval aircraft crewmembers who were killed after ejecting from a crashing Lockheed manufactured aircraft. Were killed and Air Warfare Technician Second Class (AW2) Tracy Mann was injured when they ejected from a S 3 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept99/97-6833.man.html">BOYD V. HOMES OF LEGEND (9/16/1999, NO. 97-6833)<BR></A><BR> </EM><A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1995/95a0998p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This matter is an appeal and a cross appeal from a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff on his claim under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0096p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At the time the lawsuit was filed. The court held that Plaintiffs had not alleged that Defendants adopted or adhered to the 25 percent rule because of rather than in spite of its disparate impact on females and that sheer disparate impact is insufficient to demonstrate an equal protection violation. While Plaintiffs' first appeal was pending in this Court. The Kentucky General Assembly amended the statute regulating discriminatory effect is a requirement of Title IX. Because Defendants are charged with knowledge of the law. It follows that remand is appropriate to determine whether Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiffs' Title IX rights. I would reverse the district court's dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims of monetary relief and remand for a determination of whether Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiffs' Title IX rights in accordance with Davis. I would also reserve judgment as to whether Plaintiffs were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/99-1215.htm">99-1215 -- GREENE V. SAFEWAY STORES INC. -- 04/28/2000<BR></A><BR> This court held that the evidence presented was legally sufficient to support an inference of age discrimination. <u>See</u> <u>Greene v. Because the evidence presented at the second trial was not substantially different from that presented at the first trial. We conclude that the unrealized appreciation was compensable under the ADEA. <p> In his cross appeal. Greene appeals from the district court's decision that the $4.4 million in unrealized stock option appreciation was not subject to doubling under the ADEA's provision for liquidated damages. We reject this contention and hold that the unrealized stock option appreciation was not an amount owing at the time of trial. We also uphold the district court's decision to deny prejudgment interest because an award of liquidated damages precludes an award of prejudgment interest. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTM2MDYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3606-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was awarded compensatory damages for lost earnings. At least to the extent such earnings were based on pay rates in the United States rather than in the worker's native country. Affordable and Mountain are now joined by third party defendant Silva. 3 In addition. Arguing that the document relied on by these third party plaintiffs to support their indemnification claim is not an enforceable contract. Is not authorized by IRCA under any circumstance. (2) it was the employer rather than the worker who knowingly violated IRCA in arranging for the employment. (3) the jury was instructed to consider the worker's removeability in deciding what. Because we conclude that appellants' and cross appellants' other arguments are also without merit. Madeira's Employment and Injury Plaintiff Jose Raimundo Madeira 1 is a citizen of Brazil who illegally entered the United States in 1998. Madeira was earning approximately $15 per hour in the United States and working as many as 50 hours per week. Such action was apparently unnecessary given his brother's willingness to hire him despite knowing Madeira's undocumented status. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001021.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Young Sergio was thrown from a 1985 Dodge Caravan through the open liftgate and killed. Was driving the vehicle on an errand with her 8 year old daughter Maria riding in the front seat and young Sergio in the back seat. She drove through a red light and was struck in the left rear by an oncoming car traveling at 30 m.p.h. Who was not wearing a seatbelt. Was thrown through the rear liftgate that had opened during the accident. Both of whom were wearing seatbelts. Were not seriously injured. Negligent design under South Carolina law were allowed to go to the jury. The Estate asserted that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/02-5196.htm">02-5196 -- JORDAN V. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE -- 08/20/2004<BR></A><BR> Employee attendance is an absolute requirement for working at the PSDS. Of the 254 days Appellant was scheduled to work during the October 1996 through August 1997 period. Of the fifty work days Appellant was scheduled to work during the February 1998 through April 1998 period. Which was granted. Three days after this meeting Appellant's position was reposted. Appellant received a letter from Appellee informing him that he was involuntarily reassigned to the Airport Mail Facility as an unassigned regular. Contrary to the Tulsa facility's traditional procedure of allowing an employee to remain in his current position until the bidding process is complete. The supervisor's attitude toward Appellant was increasingly derogatory. <p> The same day that he was notified of his new status as an unassigned regular. Appellant was placed on emergency leave without pay as a result of this letter. Appellee notified Appellant that he was terminated. His termination was reduced to a six month suspension (from October 31. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/96-1427.htm">96-1427 -- WEBB V. ABF FREIGHT SYSEEM INC. -- 09/04/1998<BR></A><BR> 124 for the appellee on his claim that he was wrongfully fired from his job as a delivery truck driver on trumped up charges after his delivery truck skimmed the underside of some tree branches. That the real reason for his discharge was retaliation for his union activities. ABF alleged that Webb had violated his contractual duty to report immediately </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971856.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Robert Scrimgeour1 brought suit in the district court alleging wrongful disclosure of tax returns in violation of I.R.C. § 7431 (West Supp. 1998)2 and viola(Text continued on page 4) 1 Several entities in which Robert Scrimgeour held an interest were also plaintiffs in the suit: Bayview Farm. 000 for each act of unauthorized inspection or disclosure of a return or return information with respect to which such defendant is found liable. Plus (ii) in the case of a willful inspection or disclosure or an inspection or disclosure which is the result of gross negligence. Because the court determined that the IRS's release of the information was neither willful nor grossly negligent. None of which are relevant here. 3 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/09/01-6067.htm">01-6067 -- TELECOR COMMUNICATIONS INC. V. SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO. -- 09/10/2002<BR></A><BR> At issue is Southwestern Bell's domination of the Oklahoma pay phone market. The plaintiffs are nine independent pay phone service providers whose efforts to compete with Southwestern Bell succeeded only in whittling down the latter's market share to roughly 80 percent after two years of competition. We nevertheless believe that the challenged rulings were proper. Subject to certain regulatory requirements. <p> Pay phone service providers ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0159p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Seidelmann & Janicki ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2004/031427p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No allowance was made for the value of the car with the defect. Nor was any reduction made for the plaintiff s use of the vehicle. We will remand for further proceedings. The scope of this review is a narrow one. Although the appeal in this case is limited to the certification issue. We are obliged to examine subject matter jurisdiction. An interlocutory order on jurisdiction per se by the District Court is not appealable. The fact that review under Rule 23(f) is restricted does not relieve the court from the duty of inquiry into its jurisdiction. Even if the parties have not raised the issue. The parties would have us address the certification issue before scrutinizing subject matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court concluded that because the class certification rulings were dispositive as to all parties it would address them first rather than the jurisdictional challenges. The certification issues common to all were logically antecedent and merited priority because they applied to all members of the class. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2004/031535p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will affirm. Was appointed by Superintendent Dr. Initially five applications were submitted. Was selected for an interview. Was interviewed. Sweda was hired after the School Board approved his hiring. Potence filed suit claiming that he was discriminated against on the basis of his age. The School District contends that Potence was not qualified for the job because he lacked a refrigerant recapturing certification. Potence responds that this reason was pretext because. It was not listed in the advertisement for the position. Could not explain why a refrigeration exam was used to test plumbing. There was trial evidence that the reasons provided to Potence for not interviewing or hiring him changed over time. He was initially told by Superintendent Shepperson that he had failed to forward his educational transcripts. Shepperson told him that he was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/00/00-3981.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whose recoveries under 42 2 Nos. 00 3981 & 00 4115 U.S.C. §1988(b) in constitutional tort litigation are not subject to any statutory maximum. That §1997e(d) is within Congress' authority. We hold that §1997e(d) is rationally related to valid objectives and hence is within the legislative power. Whether or not it is wise. I Section 1997e(d) provides: (1) In any action brought by a prisoner who is confined to any jail. In which attorney's fees are authorized under [42 U.S.C. §1988]. Except to the extent that (A) the fee was directly and reasonably incurred in proving an actual violation of the plaintiff's rights protected by a statute pursuant to which a fee may be awarded . . . . (B)(i) the amount of the fee is proportionately related to the court ordered relief for the violation. Or (ii) the fee was directly and reasonably incurred in enforcing the relief ordered for the violation. Nos. 00 3981 & 00 4115 (2) Whenever a monetary judgment is awarded in an action described in paragraph (1). If the award of attorney's fees is not greater than 150 percent of the judgment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0266p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the plaintiff is not entitled to recover damages based on a contract price/market price differential. Administrative decisions which denied the plaintiff's claims for actual damages are entitled to res judicata effect. Entered into a long term coal supply contract (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1371.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Snyder LLP</SPAN> were on brief for appellants. </SPAN> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200305/02-7006a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200501/02-7106a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs were Robert J. With him on the brief was Fritz Mulhauser. 2 Before: GINSBURG. The Commission retained ownership of the decorated donkeys and elephants and planned to sell them at auction after the exhibit ended. 3 The written announcement stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/feb96/94-3296.wpd.html">PATTON V. TIC UNITED CORP.<BR></A><BR> I Ryan Patton was raised on his family's farm in Hiawatha. The wings are lowered for use. A hydraulic system is used to lift. When the pins are removed. A new hydraulic cylinder is not charged. To insure that the cylinder will support a wing. The operator must cycle the machine to make sure that the hydraulic system is fully charged before removing the safety pin. The operating instructions did not state how to insure that the hydraulic system was properly charged or warn that the wings should not be in an upright position when replacing the cylinder. Because the day was cool and rainy. The shed was too small to permit the wings to be fully lowered while changing the cylinder. Patton retracted the cylinder to make sure that the wings were fully raised. Unaware that the cylinder was in fact not completely charged. Although he knew that one possible cause of binding was that the cylinder was not charged. The cultivator that injured Patton was manufactured by Wil Rich. Between 1981 and 1987 the assets and stock of Wil Rich were transferred among a number of entities through merger. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug99/97-8299.ma2.html">CRAWFORD V. BABBITT (8/30/1999, NO. 97-8299)<BR></A><BR> Was sexually harassed by her supervisors and then retaliated against when she complained about it. The decision informed Crawford that if she was dissatisfied. We will refer to Babbitt as the Agency). The Agency responded that since compensatory damages were not awarded as part of its final decision. After Crawford's motion for reconsideration of that order was denied. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug99/97-8299.ma2.html">CRAWFORD V. BABBITT (8/30/1999, NO. 97-8299)<BR></A><BR> Was sexually harassed by her supervisors and then retaliated against when she complained about it. The decision informed Crawford that if she was dissatisfied. We will refer to Babbitt as the Agency). The Agency responded that since compensatory damages were not awarded as part of its final decision. After Crawford's motion for reconsideration of that order was denied. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971808.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chief Judge: This case is a study in the tensions that can beset the franchisorfranchisee relationship. Defendants maintain that the suit was erroneously certified as a class action and challenge several other legal rulings by the district court. Deprived defendants of a fair trial on the precise issue of contractual breach that is properly the focus of this case. I. The plaintiff class consisted of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199903/97-7019a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With them on the briefs were Sally M. With them on the brief was Christopher L. To those claimants who have thus far not settled with the unions. Although we are reluctant to prolong this unduly protracted litigation any longer. I. Background The background of this case is set out in full in our prior opinion. Although referrals were available to non union </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/04/961552P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Porous Media Corporation (Porous) and Pall Corporation (Pall) are manufacturers of industrial filters. That Pall made false and disparaging statements about Porous's filters which were not supported by Pall's own testing data. Those findings are not directly challenged in this appeal. The district court also entered an injunction against Pall which was not appealed. 24 3 2 Pall filed post trial motions for judgment as a matter of law or in the alternative for a new trial. and Pall appeals. Because Porous failed to prove an element of the claim by failing to offer extrinsic evidence of customer confusion to show that Pall's statements were misleading. arguments. A. Jury instruction We reject both The trial court instructed the jury as to the elements of Porous's Lanham Act claim: The Lanham Act was substantially revised in 1988. Porous's claim for damages under the revised Lanham Act was dismissed by the district court before trial. This ruling is not appealed. The district court held that the amendments were not retroactive. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/10/99-5029.htm">99-5029 -- MCCLURE V. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 16 -- 10/06/2000<BR></A><BR> McClure in part but held that the individual board members were entitled to qualified immunity. Many of which are undisputed. She was evaluated by the then superintendent of schools. Her contract was renewed for the 1996 97 school year in February 1996 by a unanimous vote of the Board. <p> Her troubles apparently began as a result of her activities on behalf of the District to obtain additional monies for the school system under the Impact Aid Act.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/055428p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We disagree and will reverse. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The facts of the underlying RICO suit are straightforward. Weiss was employed by Tucker Anthony Sutro as an investment banker. He was insured by First Unum through a group insurance policy with Tucker Anthony Sutro. The policy provided long term disability benefits when the insured is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/09/022857P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Donna met Richard Jones shortly after the relationship with Todd ended and was married to him in 1981. Donna and Richard have four children and settled in Sioux Falls. Donna believed she and Richard were no longer close. Donna confided to friends she was dissatisfied with her job and marriage. Who was naked. Having discovered Donna was married. It was against this backdrop that Donna and Todd met again and rekindled their previous relationship.2 On September 23. Todd's father suffered a heart attack and was taken to Sioux Valley hospital. Donna mentioned she was having a birthday the next day. Todd presented her with a birthday card and informed the waiter it was Donna's birthday. She complained she was not getting as much sex from her husband as she wanted. Todd put his hand The only contact between Donna and Todd between 1978 and 1998 was a telephone call Donna made to Todd in 1996 soliciting him to buy vitamins she was selling. 3 2 on her knee. There was conflicting evidence at trial as to who placed the first call. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2498_013.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He is a white. Fred is a plush doll and when one squeezes Fred's extended finger on his right hand. Is a white. Two of Fartman's seven jokes are the same as two of the 10 spoken by Fred. Was not happy when Novelty. Argues that Illinois's punitive damages remedy for unfair competition is preempted by federal law. Contends that the attorneys' fees awarded by the district court should have been capped according to Tekky's contingent fee arrangement with its attorneys. It turns out that there is a niche market for farting dolls. It is quite lucrative. Fred was just the beginning. Is owned by Todd Green. Green testified that he might have photographed Fred since </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2004/032729np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to review the district court's judgment for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation acting as the receiver for Bell Savings Bank following a trial in which the plaintiffs claimed that the FDIC was liable for damages stemming from Bell's failure to maintain their line of credit. We will affirm. Finding that the Cohens had not established The claim was originally filed in Pennsylvania state court and removed to the district court. It is undisputed that Pennsylvania law applies to the state law issues. 2 1 that their alleged compensatory damages resulted from Bell Savings' actions. They argue that the court erred in dismissing their claim for failure to make out any compensatory or punitive damages because they were. They argue that the court should have allowed them to seek punitive damages against the FDIC. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that a plaintiff who failed to establish compensatory damages was not entitled to nominal damages absent a request for them. Pennsylvania courts have only reversed a trial court's failure to award nominal damages if the plaintiff has. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/11/01-1389.htm">01-1389 -- VILLESCAS V. ABRAHAM -- 11/27/2002<BR></A><BR> 633a (ADEA). <p> The narrow dispositive question is whether 29 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/june97/96-6065.wpd.html">MASON V. OKLAHOMA TURNPIKE AUTH.<BR></A><BR> BACKGROUND The OTA is an instrumentality of the state of Oklahoma responsible for constructing and operating the State's turnpike system. The OTA is directed by six Authority members who are appointed by the Governor from separate geographical districts and confirmed by the state senate. These members serve at the Governor's pleasure and are not compensated. The Governor is an ex officio Authority member. David Walters was the Democratic Governor of Oklahoma. Defendant Sam Scott was an OTA member appointed by Governor Walters. Are exempt from the civil service laws. Exempt employees may be terminated at will. Is exempt and terminable at will. The Managing Director's principal assistant also is an exempt employee. The Governor may create an additional exempt position ad hoc by issuing what is known as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1131.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Plaintiffs' motion was granted in part and denied in part. Defendant's motion was granted. Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim was controlled by Colorado law. We affirm all of the decision but how the district court calculated nominal damages under Colorado law. <hr> Background Because the critical issue in this case was plaintiffs' lack of proof on damages. Payable within three (3) business days from the date the [Termination] Agreement is fully executed by the Parties. Although Quizno's paid plaintiffs the sum that they were owed within three days. They were <hr> due delivery of the franchise agreement within three days of when the Termination Agreement was signed. The three day requirement for delivery applied only to the sum Quizno's was to pay plaintiffs. The Termination Agreement was thus ambiguous about when the franchise agreement was to be delivered. Because the franchise agreement was to be valid for forty months after the date of the Termination Agreement. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981332.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 3 the comma after the word </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0120p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (2) denying Winters's motion for summary judgment on Count II of the complaint on the grounds that the deferred compensation accrual on the final cost report was immaterial. (4) denying Winters's motion for a new trial on the grounds that (a) the jury verdict was against the clear weight of the evidence. (b) there was no evidence the Government sustained any harm. (c) the jury was confused in calculating damages. The jury verdict and remitted award of damages is AFFIRMED. All of which were managed through Medshares Management Group. Which was in place at all of the other home health agencies owned by Winters and managed by MMGI. The Plan was a deferred profit sharing and stock bonus plan. It was Winters's policy that after buying a home health agency. I at 132) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/03/031790P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Eaton acknowledges that it is bound by the lease agreements with Winthrop. The master lease agreement and the lease schedules are collectively referred to as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0159n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Having now learned from our sister court that a company with less than a 100% interest in a subsidiary does not have a qualified privilege to interfere with the contractual relations of the subsidiary under Tennessee law. IRG was a wholly owned subsidiary of Quorum Health Resources (QHR). Which itself was wholly owned by Quorum Health Group (QHG). That he was terminating his employment with the company. All of which would have allowed him to recover $1. Contends that he should have been permitted to split his remedies and cross appeals from the district court's denial of that request. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1049.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C. was on brief. P.A. was on brief. Four former employees whose conversations were recorded. Since the central issue is one of statutory construction. The plaintiffs were night shift employees of a Wal Mart store located in Claremont. Some of their conversations were secretly recorded on voice activated tape recorders. There was enough involvement by store management that Wal Mart does not contest its responsibility for what occurred. When the events were discovered. The present suit was brought. First it says the judgment below should have been limited. Wal Mart claims that the attorneys' fees award was excessive in light of plaintiffs' failure to secure one of the major objectives of their suit punitive damages. Or electronic communication is intercepted. Statutory damages consist of: . . . whichever is the greater of $100 a day for each day of violation or $10. Appellate review of issues involving statutory interpretation is de novo. When the text's meaning is plain. Courts are obligated to enforce the provision as written. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/04/952560P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who are similarly situated to him trust Farmer's Co op of Arkansas and Oklahoma. Circuit Judge. 2 This appeal concerns the degree to which a defendant is entitled to damages offsets in the calculation of rescissory damages offsets. Operated as a Mary Carter agreements are settlement agreements where the exact amount of the settlement is not fixed. The demand notes were frozen in the bankruptcy estate and were no longer redeemable at will. The Class settled with Gasohol is a fuel consisting of 90% gasoline and 10% ethyl alcohol. 4 2 February 15. The net worth was negative. The 1981 audit was performed under the Russell Brown name while the 1982 audit was performed under the Arthur Young name. The Class sought Supreme Court review on the question of whether summary judgment in favor of Arthur Young on the claim that it had acted in violation of RICO was proper. Subject to adjustments in the future to ensure that the final distribution is fair to all the creditors.5 On November 14. Before the court were questions about the The court found Arthur Young Crucial to reaching this figure was specific mechanics for calculating damages. liable for $5. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-5044.html">WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for defendant appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1010.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/12/996048P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The facts of this case are set forth in the Eighth Circuit's opinion in Gourley v. Will be expanded below only to the extent necessary for the issues presently on appeal. 1 BACKGROUND On May 1. Which was owned by Appellees Mary Beth Usery. Was approximately $1.2 million. Although complete financial records were not yet available. Cash flow in 1988 was substantially the same as 1987. Appellants were aware that. Northside was operating under a consent agreement with the state during part of 1988. The two adversary proceedings eventually were joined and tried before the Hon. It was significantly lower. Who concluded that the actual value was $5. She also agreed with the Appellants' expert that the cash flow for 1987 should not be included in the calculation because that year was atypical. After the damages were set off against the promissory note. Judgment was entered in favor of the Appellants in the amount of $1. The remaining portion of the damages was overturned by the Eighth Circuit and are not at issue in this appeal. 3 2 Appellees appealed the decision to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-2174.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge. <hr> This is the third appeal in this case concerning Mr. O'Toole was on loan to the federal government to work on a project in San Diego under a four year </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1563.html">CATALINA LIGHTING, INC V. HOME DEPOT<BR></A><BR> That these patents have not been shown to be invalid or unenforceable. We affirm in part and reverse in part the damages award because it is contrary to law.</p> <p class=MsoBodyTextIndent2 align=center style='margin:0in. Inc. ( Lamps Plus ) is the owner of U.S. 904 ( the 904 patent ).<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-4253.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The breach of contract and conversion claims against Kenton and Lori Tuttle were dismissed. The matter was tried to a jury which returned verdicts against William and Charlene Tuttle on all four causes of action. Arguing that (1) the fraud claims were not ripe. (5) prohibited the Tuttles from offering evidence of the Ellsworths' farming practices and (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. After the supplemental briefs were filed. With respect to certain jurisdictional facts which should have been established in the district court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/04/982050P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> When the accounting department was moved to Topeka. Kelley expressed a preference for younger employees and indicated that dramatic changes were on the way for MGE. Kelley stated MGE was not a place people should expect to retire from and people should not work anywhere for more than ten years. The supervisory level employees in attendance were asked to recall when they had last fired someone and were reminded that they possessed the authority to fire employees within their supervision. 2 Morse's supervisor. Harbour stated that it was rare for people to work for one company as long as Morse had and noted that he was only five or six years old when Morse began working for the company. Harbour also had given Morse a drawing of a wrinkled older man with no hair or teeth that was labeled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/01/953482P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nucor Yamato Steel Company (NYS) appeals from the judgments entered by the District Court on Rebecca Caviness's and Sally Parks's claims that they were subjected to illegal sexual harassment resulting in a hostile environment at the NYS steel plant where they worked. I. Parks was an employee at NYS's steel plant in Blytheville. Caviness was a contract employee for NYS in Blytheville Both women from December 1990 to November 1991. Alleging that they were discriminated against on the basis of sex. It is unnecessary for us to get into the details of the allegations of sexual harassment. Suffice it to say that the record is replete with evidence from which a jury could conclude. That the NYS plant in Blytheville was a decidedly harsh environment for female employees. That NYS was in violation of Title VII. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Only equitable remedies were available to victims of discrimination under See Landgraf v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0268p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Attached to the consent decree was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061232np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> She contends the District Court erred in denying her motion for judgment as a matter of law because the trial record was insufficient to establish. 2) the 2 District Court erroneously instructed the jury that Moore was entitled to presumed damages under Pennsylvania law. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will affirm. I. Factual Background At the heart of this politically charged defamation action are various statements concerning corruption and criminal activity in the inspection of road programs made by Dorothy Vislosky. Vislosky alleged that inspection reports and punch lists were approved. Although the work was not actually performed. That inspectors were demanding kickbacks from contractors. At the time the alleged defamatory statements were made. Daniel Moore was employed as an inspector at Unitech. Id. (citation omitted). 3 1 engineering firm hired by the Township to inspect construction and road work projects.2 Moore contends Vislosky's statements were directed at him and were false. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2479.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Graffam & Lausell were on brief for defendant Crowley Towing. Sarraga were on brief for plaintiffs Berend J.D. Were forced to abandon her moments before the collision and were rescued several hours later. As the Rule 59(e) motion was not served until August 11. It was summarily denied. That the special jury verdict on liability is contrary to the evidence on comparative fault. a. An order denying a new trial will be reversed only if the verdict was against the clear weight of the evidence. A federal court may not set aside a jury verdict and direct the entry of a contrary verdict unless no reasonable jury could have returned a verdict adverse to the moving party. Testified that the GLORIA followed proper col lision avoidance procedure.3 Captain Rivera stated that the GLORIA was placed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5103.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were <U>Richard D. Of counsel on the brief were <U>Ronald W. Of counsel were <U>Bruce H. With him on the brief were <U>Jeanne E. Of counsel was <U>William F. With him on the brief were <U>Charles J. Of counsel on the brief were <U>Jerry Stouck</U>. With him on the brief were <U>John M. The issue in this case is how to measure the damages sustained by savings and loan institutions as a result of the breach by the United States of contracts it made with these organizations during the savings and loan crisis of the late 1970s and early 1980s. The judgment of this court was affirmed by the Supreme Court. The matter was remanded to the Court of Federal Claims for a trial on damages.</P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec2000/003084.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Once the drugs were suppr essed and the prosecution dismissed. The narrow issue presented in this appeal is what type of damages Hector can obtain under the Fourth Amendment. We will affirm. 2 I The Supreme Court has </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/05/011893P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Contending that the six houses that Atlantic provided were not well constructed and that Atlantic's failure to provide well constructed houses caused the failure of the entire project. It contends that the identity of Housing 21's investors was irrelevant and that providing such information to the jury was unfairly prejudicial. Housing 21 is a limited liability company that was formed by Robert Bjerke. Bjerke was familiar with Atlantic's houses. Atlantic was aware of the planned scale of the Riverview Estates project. Problems with the houses were apparent immediately. It was unable to sell them because of difficulties obtaining occupancy permits from Sioux City. Housing 21 was dissatisfied with the quality of the houses. Repair work on these houses was performed. It was determined that the city inspectors were not applying the UBC correctly. Some seven months after the first houses were delivered. Sales were not able to support debt service. The case was tried from October 10 to October 23. Walls that were not level or connected. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/06/951604P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND This case arose out of an automobile accident in which Gerald Shoemaker and Beverly Garner were killed. compartment of their vehicle. Brought this products liability action alleging that the engine fire was caused by a faulty fuel pump in the Chevrolet S 10 Blazer in which their mother was riding and that this defect caused her death. GM asserted that the fuel pump was neither faulty nor the cause of the fire and that instead. The cornerstone of the plaintiffs' case is the product's defect. asked complaints accidents. from customers To help prove that defect. The plaintiffs GM products) involving similar GM to produce its 1241 reports (1241 reports are essentially regarding GM represented that all 1241 reports were indexed in summary GM stated that its customary response form in its central computer file. actual 1241 reports. to discovery requests was to produce these 1241 summaries instead of the From these summaries. Plaintiffs could request the Both the 1241 specific 1241 reports in which they were interested. summaries and the reports proved difficult to obtain from GM and were the source of several discovery disputes during the months before trial. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2145.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 7. Loventhal Law Office was on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. DPJ Company Limited Partnership ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/690732C04555546188256E5A00707BDF/$file/9956746.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc.'s (Kimmel) complaint on the ground that Kimmel's state law claims are preempted by the Federal Insecticide. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Background Defendant Appellee DowElanco is the manufacturer of Vikane. Vikane is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3355.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Her father is a Marine veteran. Bethesda Naval Hospital is of course a federal hospital. So the suit is under the Federal Tort Claims Act. That is where the suit was filed. It is curious. The reasons are especially mysterious because the filing of an appeal by the prevailing party does not stay the judgment in his favor unless he is seeking to change the form of the relief that he obtained in the district court (for example. That place was Maryland. That the reference in the Tort Claims Act to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-2015a.htm">98-2015A -- EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION V. WAL-MART STORES INC. -- 08/23/1999<BR></A><BR> The most important factor to consider </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1416.html">VIRGINIA V. MAC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3662.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On appeal we must determine whether compensatory and punitive damages are available as a remedy for a retaliation claim against an employer under the ADA. Although Moser was impressed by the performance of Kramer's team during early 1999. Moser was critical of Kramer's job performance. This was the first notice that BOA had of Kramer's disease. Moser informed Kramer that her employment with BOA was terminated. Trial on Kramer's remaining claim was scheduled for May 13. BOA asserted that compensa 4 No. 02 3662 tory and punitive damages are not recoverable on a claim of retaliation under the ADA. Because Kramer was not entitled to recover compensatory and punitive damages under the ADA. The court found that compensatory and punitive damages were not available as a remedy and that Kramer was not. Kramer argues that the district court erred in ruling that the she was not entitled to seek compensatory and punitive damages for a claim of retaliation under the ADA. Because she was entitled to seek compensatory and punitive damages. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/06/002424P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The union is the bargaining representative for 1. Was out of the state participating in negotiations with Goodyear. Was in charge of the day to day strike activity. Brown crossed the picket line.3 It is our duty to set out what occurred. He also testified that the picketers shouted </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1999.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Zimmerman</SPAN> were on brief. P.A.</SPAN> was on brief. These are cross appeals in a Title VII religious discrimination case. The sum of which was reduced to the statutory cap of $300. Johnson was repeatedly harassed over the course of his nine year employment in Spencer Press's janitorial department by his supervisor. Arguing that the evidence did not show that the harassment was because of Johnson's religion and did not show that it was severe and pervasive. We reject these contentions and affirm. </P> <P> Johnson cross appeals the district court's holding that he was not entitled to any back pay or front pay after he was fired from his next job. He also argues that the district court erred in rejecting the contention that he was unable to get a subsequent job because he was psychologically disabled. That Spencer Press is responsible for this disability because it stems from the harassment he endured while he was an employee there. </P> <P> We affirm the limitation on Johnson's front pay and back pay. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011347.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY Maryland Declaration of Rights.2 The five officers have appealed the judgment of the district court. The plaintiffs have cross appealed certain pre verdict rulings and the attorneys' fee award made to them. Was murdered as he sat in his police cruiser. Their case was removed to the District of Maryland. Or by the Law of the land. 3 The fourteen plaintiffs are David Randall. The officers sued by Francine Williams were awarded summary judgment. She is not a party to either of these appeals. 2 RANDALL v. Before the case was submitted to the jury. Twenty of the twenty seven defendants were dismissed. The verdict against the Supervisors was based on the indirect liability concepts of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1130.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLP</U> was on brief. We hold that a plaintiff who alleges that local educational officials have flouted her right to a free and appropriate public education may not bring suit for money damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without first exhausting the administrative process established by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). We next conclude that same sex discrimination is actionable under Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 (although. The upshot is that we affirm the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' amended complaint.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1473.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bates was on brief for the Ellenwoods. Was on brief for the State of Maine. McGill were on brief for Exxon Shipping Company. Was removed from his position as chief engineer of another Exxon oil tanker. Relying primarily on the company's previous written policy that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0304p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> MGI contends that the jury's award of $2 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages is clearly excessive and grossly disproportionate to the loss suffered by MMCS. As that loss is reflected in the evidence presented at trial. We are not persuaded by MGI's contention that the award is clearly excessive and we therefore cannot say the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion for remittitur. The purpose of the software was to maintain prescription and billing records for MGI's customers. 000 for each pharmacy in which MGI was using MMCS's software. The letter further warned that if the amount sought was not received by 5:00 p.m. MMCS </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1453.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Was on brief. That there is insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to have found that they violated Davis's constitutional rights. That they are entitled to qualified immunity. He was involuntarily committed to Westborough State Hospital (Westborough) for periods during 1991 and 1992. He was committed to Westborough for a third time on May 12. Davis testified that he told Dexter that he was unhappy because no one had visited him on his birthday two days earlier. Who is Davis's key witness. Davis and Dexter were loud and boisterous as they rode the elevator up to Hennessey 2A. Wiegers had not received notice from Chauncy Hall that Davis and Dexter were coming. Wiegers was responsible for 37 patients and several staff. About half of whom were outside on a picnic. </FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-2015.htm">98-2015 -- EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION V. WAL-MART STORES, INC. -- 08/23/1999<BR></A><BR> With the knowledge that he was hearing impaired and would need an interpreter in certain circumstances. Amaro left a mandatory training session requiring viewing of a video tape because there was neither closed captioning nor an interpreter. Was not a certified </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982758.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Regarding a breach of contract claim brought by Mike Mitchell and S&D Land Clearing (S&D) and denying its motion to set aside an award of attorneys' fees.1 Mitchell cross appeals the ruling of the district court that he failed to present sufficient evidence of damages resulting from 1 This action was brought by the United States for the use and benefit of S&D and Mitchell. We will refer to the action as having been prosecuted by Mitchell. 3 D'Elegance's fraud and accordingly was not entitled to treble damages for the fraud under North Carolina's unfair and deceptive trade practices statutes. Waste Control Services (Waste Control) was the prime contractor with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) by virtue of a written contract covering eight counties in North Carolina. Removing vegetative debris is quicker. The loading costs would have been an additional $1.00 per cubic yard. That he would not have entered into 2 C&D debris consists of building and demolition materials. 3 C&D debris must be sorted by type of material and hauled to different locations. 4 the subcontract had he known that he would not be allowed to remove the vegetative debris. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2095.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.A. was on brief for appellants. Reed and Reed & Reed were on brief for appellees. That the damages awarded were improperly duplicative. This is a unusual case. Because none of these irregularities is material to the narrow issues on appeal. We merely point 2 2 was $229. No payments of principal or interest were due on the note until either the LaBarres sold certain other real estate or the passage of two years from the date of the note's execution.2 In October 1990. Shepard and Parks initiated foreclosure proceedings against the LaBarres for the balance then due on the mortgage note.5 A foreclosure sale was 3. This judgment is impossible to decipher. The judge then stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/02/053414P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Both Lovell and Allen were speaking very loudly and Cobb expressed concern customers in the store might hear the argument. Cobb was upset by the lack of leadership shown by Lovell and Allen. Bearden was responsible for staffing approximately fifty employees at the ten stores. 2 1 On December 27. (3) Allen was subjected to a hostile work environment at both the Dumas and McGehee stores. Allen asked Goggans whether she was being fired. Three days before Allen's case was set to go to trial. Reasoning TSI was not prejudiced by having to present its case to a jury rather than to the bench. The district court also denied TSI's motion for judgment as a matter of law as a sanction for what TSI contended was Allen's repeated perjury. The district court found Allen's omissions and alleged perjury were not material and did not rise to the level of an abuse of the judicial process warranting a dismissal of the lawsuit. The sanction of dismissal of a case is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1218.html">RHONE-POULENC AGRO, S.A. V. DEKALB<BR></A><BR> For plaintiff appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Rudolf E. Hutz</u> and <u>Francis DiGiovanni</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel was <u>Richard D. For defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Richard<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>L. Spears</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel were <u>Lisa J. We have reconsidered this case and. Mso bidi font family: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1639.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It alleged that a shipment of cigars entrusted 2 Nos. 02 1639 and 02 1741 to Yellow Freight was damaged in transit. That none of the excepted causes under the Carmack Amendment were proven by Yellow Freight. That the damaged cartons were part of the shipment at issue in the case. National Insurance crossappeals the district court's determinations that the date of subrogation rather than the date of delivery of the damaged goods is the date of accrual for prejudgment interest and that prejudgment interest would be simple rather than compound. He noted that some of the cardboard box tops were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C4AE676EA67371D488256A84007CBFA4/$file/9956746.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc.'s (Kimmel) complaint on the ground that Kimmel's state law claims are preempted by the Federal Insecticide. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Background Defendant Appellee DowElanco is the manufacturer of Vikane. Vikane is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/06/011478P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jurisdiction Jurisdiction in the district court was proper based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. Jurisdiction in this court is proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. The NAP plant is multi leveled. NAP requires employees desiring to return to work following a sick leave to present a physician's fitness for duty certificate showing that the employee is able to perform his or her essential job functions. The handbook states: All employees must submit a written certification from a medical provider that the employee is capable of performing their duty prior to returning to work. No employee will be permitted to return to work without a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00b0001p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Both parties argue that the bankruptcy court's judgment was internally inconsistent. The Panel concludes that all of the state court judgment arose from the same conduct which the state court found was willful and malicious. That the entire judgment is nondischargeable. The bankruptcy court's judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part. I. ISSUE ON APPEAL The issue on appeal is which parts of the state court judgment are nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6). An order is final if it </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-2230.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> FBI agents were investigating the Redisis' activities and meeting with leaders of the cable television industry. Astarita sent Teleview Distributors a letter indicating that he had evidence that some of the products Teleview Distributors was selling might be capable of descrambling Cablevision's signal and that. Inventory with various other companies selling decoders (owned by defendants who have settled out of the case). They moved unsuccessfully to have the action dismissed. The district court instead granted a preliminary injunction on June 24 and set a briefing schedule under which discovery was to close on September 10. Astarita was scheduled to be deposed on the morning of September 2. Six days after the notice was sent. They further represented that this fact was important to their statute of limitations defense. The district court denied this motion as well on the ground that the deposition was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1775.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C.</U> were on brief. Dodge LLP</U> were on brief. Was the general partner of GCP. Genzyme Development was obligated by law and by the limited partnership agreement to issue annual federal and state tax schedules to the limited partners. No schedules were issued between 1987 and 1990. GCP was liquidated.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200313022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> If loss of use damages are available. Because we find that these are unsettled questions of distinct importance to the development of Florida tort law and dispositive of the case at hand. When it shall appear to . . . any circuit court of appeals of the United States . . . that there are involved in any proceeding before it questions or propositions of the laws of this state. Which are determinative of the said cause. There are no clear controlling precedents in the decisions of the Supreme Court of this state. P. 9.150(a) provides: On either its own motion or that of a party . . . a United States court of appeals may certify a question of law to the Supreme Court of Florida if the answer is determinative of the cause and there is no controlling precedent of the Supreme Court of Florida. 2 While excavating in downtown Miami. Both of these terminals are connected to a third terminal in downtown Miami. During which time MCI was able to redirect the telecommunications signals that would have traveled through the damaged cable in the opposite direction along the continuous link. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/05/981593P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Each of whom was an employee of the Kansas City. (Although the named defendant is the Fire Department. All four women claimed that they were disparately treated based on their sex. That they were subjected to a hostile work environment based either on their sex or their race. That they were retaliated against for filing charges against the city and for opposing Fire Department practices. The trial court excluded much of the plaintiffs' evidence in limine: No evidence was admitted of acts that occurred prior to 1989. Claiming that there was insufficient evidence to support the judgment in favor of Ms. I. Employment discrimination claims of the kind involved here are barred if a plaintiff fails to file a timely charge with the appropriate federal or state administrative agency. Evidence of discrimination is ordinarily admissible only with respect to acts within the statutory limitations period preceding the filing of the charges. Maintaining that they could do so because they were complaining of continuing violations. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5164.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Will & Emery. With him on the brief were Marie A. Also on the brief was Thomas P. With him on the brief were Stuart E. Because the Claims Court did not clearly err in determining that the cost of replacement capital damages award will most likely be subject to income taxation. Was formerly a stockholder owned association. Talman and several other Illinois thrifts were failing or had failed due to an extreme rise in interest rates. Federal authorities consolidated failing or failed thrifts into associations that were more efficient. A more detailed discussion of the savings and loan crisis of the early 1980's is provided in United States v. In dividends that were purportedly based on the thrift's past and projected future earnings. Talman's entitlement to account for 05 5164 2 supervisory goodwill was phased out. A more detailed discussion of the financial and regulatory arrangements made between Talman and the government is provided in LaSalle I. Those dividends were classified as either </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031316.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court concluded that certain of Bryan's claims arose under federal law and were subject to dismissal under the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2000/99-12360.man.html">MUNOZ V. OCEANSIDE RESORTS (8/25/2000, NO. 99-12360)<BR></A><BR> We decide as an issue of first impression in this circuit whether an employer which demonstrates only that it eliminated an age discrimination plaintiff's former position satisfies its burden of proving that it legitimately would have terminated said plaintiff. Whether the damages award was excessive.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971816.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Into a product Development Technologies was developing called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/06/961351P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Claiming that Ruth Rahija was deliberately indifferent to her serious medical needs in violation of her Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Holding that Rahija was deliberately indifferent to Coleman's serious medical needs and awarding Coleman $1. (4) Rahija's conduct was sufficiently callous to support an award of punitive damages. remaining issues. I. Background The factual background is primarily based on the findings of the district court. Was transferred from the Iowa Correctional Facility for Women in Mitchellville. Coleman was twenty eight years old and approximately She was transferred to IMCC to facilitate closer Rahija was a registered nurse employed by seven months pregnant. Coleman prematurely delivered twins who were either stillborn or died Of Coleman's subsequent four pregnancies. Examined Coleman and discovered that her cervix was one to two centimeters dilated. Coleman's obstetric history was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4197.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Annes's decision was based on a four inch linear skull fracture that Rebekah's treating physician had reported to Child and Family Services four days earlier. The Division of Child and Family Services found that protective custody was no longer warranted and returned Rebekah to her family. The court also indicated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-2369.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.A.</U> were on brief. Welte P.A.</U> was on brief. P.A.</U> were on brief. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/06/00-7039.htm">00-7039 -- BOWEN V. AMOCO PIPELINE CO. -- 06/20/2001<BR></A><BR> Which is located on his property. It concluded the source was an upstream historic release of oil. No oil well was close enough to the creek to be the source. The two nearby documented leaks from Koch pipelines could not have contaminated Flag Branch Creek because they were contained within their immediate spill areas. (Aplt. 167) Because wells and documented leaks were not the source. Were Amoco the responsible party. Amoco contended the arbitration panel would have the power to decide <em>all</em> claims. Continuing to deny its lines were the source of hydrocarbon contamination in the creek. It claimed to have provided the Bowens with a line sheet showing the replacement. Which was technical and difficult to read. 000 feet of pipeline was replaced in 1950. Despite some testimony that it was corporate practice to keep such records.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/06/00-7039a.htm">00-7039A -- BOWEN V. AMOCO PIPELINE CO. -- 06/20/2001<BR></A><BR> A copy of the corrected opinion is attached. <p> Sincerely. Which is located on his property. It concluded the source was an upstream historic release of oil. No oil well was close enough to the creek to be the source. The two nearby documented leaks from Koch pipelines could not have contaminated Flag Branch Creek because they were contained within their immediate spill areas. Because wells and documented leaks were not the source. Were Amoco the responsible party. Amoco contended the arbitration panel would have the power to decide <em>all</em> claims. Continuing to deny its lines were the source of hydrocarbon contamination in the creek. It claimed to have provided the Bowens with a line sheet showing the replacement. Which was technical and difficult to read. 000 feet of pipeline was replaced in 1950. <p> Other than the line sheet. Despite some testimony that it was corporate practice to keep such records.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200015305.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are not subject to the Limitation of Vessel Owner's Liability Act. The question of whether the United States' claims brought pursuant to PSRPA are subject to the Limitation Act is one of first impression. If the limitation is granted. The vessel owner subsequently is found liable. It was entitled to all damages due to injuries to resources in the National Park as a result of the grounding.3 The relevant provisions of the PSRPA include: 16 U.S.C. § 19jj 1(a): [A]ny person who destroys. Or injures any park system resource is liable to the United States for the response costs and damages resulting from such destruction. As limitation is based on the post accident value of the vessel and its freight. Especially in cases in which the vessel sinks or the freight is lost. Or injury to the same extent as a person is liable under subsection (a) of this section. 16 U.S.C. § 19jj(c): </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2000/99-12360.man.html">MUNOZ V. OCEANSIDE RESORTS (8/25/2000, NO. 99-12360)<BR></A><BR> We decide as an issue of first impression in this circuit whether an employer which demonstrates only that it eliminated an age discrimination plaintiff's former position satisfies its burden of proving that it legitimately would have terminated said plaintiff. Whether the damages award was excessive.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/10/00-2121.htm">00-2121 -- NIETO V. KAPOOR -- 10/31/2001<BR></A><BR> Kapoor settled with plaintiffs and were dismissed from the case. Kapoor was the Medical Director of the Radiation Oncology Department at ENMMC in Roswell. Plaintiffs were employees of the ENMMC in Dr. The ENMMC was owned by Chaves County. ENMMC was regulated by and operated pursuant to the New Mexico Open Meetings Act. The members of the ENMMC Board of Trustees were appointed by the Chaves County Board of Commissioners. <p> Dr. Kapoor was not an employee of ENMMC. He was responsible for making decisions concerning diagnosis and treatment therapy. Although he did not have actual authority to hire. Kapoor's actions and statements of a racially and sexually harassing nature are too many to detail in this opinion. A summary will suffice to give a sense of his conduct. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/97-4007.htm">97-4007 -- UTAH FOAM PRODUCTS CO. V. UPJOHN CO. -- 09/04/1998<BR></A><BR> Found that the competitor was able to offer the product to Utah Foam at a lower price than that charged by Upjohn. <p> In July. Because PAPI 135 was not of like grade and quality to PAPI 27. Thus they were irrelevant to Utah Foam's claims. We held that they were barred from doing so under <u>Donovan</u>. <u>See</u> <u>id.</u><strong> </strong>In short. The well established rule is that acceptance of remittitur of damages effectively waives the right to appeal any issue pertaining to the causes of action covered by the remittitur offer. <u>See</u> <u>Denholm</u>. 322 (5th Cir. 1985) (because punitive damages and compensatory damages based upon same cause of action are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-6338.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BACKGROUND Plaintiff Haberman is the sole shareholder of a professional corporation. Were returning to Oklahoma City from a pleasure trip in Dallas. Moomey was the driver and owner of a 2000 Mercury SUV that was headed northbound on I 35 just five miles south of Davis. The 2000 Mercury SUV was not a scheduled vehicle under the Center's commercial insurance policy. <hr> On some date. The Center was the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2001/001586.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P. 23(f) is whether plaintiffs' securities fraud claims satisfy the requirements for class certification under Fed. We will affirm. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. P. 23 to provide for interlocutory appeal by permission of the court of appeals.1 Recognizing that denying or granting class certification is often the defining moment in class actions (for it may sound the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2082_017.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Claiming that unduly prejudicial evidence was admitted at trial. The Bank is located across the street from Michael Realty. Which is owned by defendants Robert and George Michael. The Michael brothers are also majority shareholders of Citizens Bank. Robert is Chairman of the Board and CEO. George is a Director. Defendant Nicholas Tanglis is the President of Citizens Bank and recruited Farfaras. Farfaras was subjected to a steady stream of inappropriate comments and actions by each of the three individual defendants. [He asked] what my ethnic background was. . . . I told him I was of Greek descent. [A]bout a month and a half into my employment . . .[Robert] asked me if I was married or if I had a boyfriend. He said that he didn't understand why I wasn't married or why I didn't have a boyfriend. He asked me if I was on drugs . . . an alcoholic . . . [or] if I was shopping at the malls too much. . . . If only I was a little younger and Greek. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1572.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Kathi A. With him on the brief were Gary H. Of counsel were Dana Johannes Finberg. MicroStrategy and Business Objects are competitors in the field of business intelligence software. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1995/95a1093p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Factual Background and Procedural History This appeal arises in a Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) case in which the employer is New Jersey Transit Rail Operations. Cars are connected to each other by vestibules. Which are enclosed areas located just outside the passenger seating compartments of each car. Appellant Thomas Fashauer was performing his usual duties as brakeman on a New Jersey Transit train en route from Lindenwold. Signaling the engineer that the platform was clear and that the train could depart. It was raining heavily. The rug on the vestibule floor was soaked when the train arrived at the Atco station on the last run of the day. Fashauer was not holding on to the handrails at the time. He testified that he was in agony at the time. Alleging that his injury was proximately caused by New Jersey Transit's negligence. The case was tried between March 7. New Jersey Transit defended against Fashauer's claims by presenting evidence that the seals were not defective. The slippery condition was purely the result of the rainy weather. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2335.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.A.</SPAN> were on brief for appellants. </SPAN> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/01/00-4183.htm">00-4183 -- METROPLEX CORPORATION V. THOMPSON INDUSTRIES, INC. -- 01/10/2002<BR></A><BR> Metroplex subsequently determined that many of the ties were defective. Thompson is a merchant and distributor of wood products. The contract provisions were subject to interpretation under Pennsylvania law. The railroad ties delivered by Thompson pursuant to the contract were nonconforming and defective in that they were the wrong species of wood and were improperly treated. Metroplex sought punitive damages on the theory that Thompson's alleged misconduct was deliberate. The case was subsequently transferred to the District of Utah. The district court ruled that the redacted portion of the notes was protected by the attorney client privilege. The court essentially held that this was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2004/021297p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to review the propriety of damage awards. We will affirm in part and reverse in part. The suit arises from an arrangement known as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1171.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is corrected as follows: 1. Suggesting that any remarks by Gonzalez were motivated solely by a concern for plaintiff's health and physical condition. 3. Gonzalez questioned him about his age and made other age related remarks that the jury reasonably could have construed as evincing bias. Was never called to testify at trial Gonzalez's statements comprise potent evidence of age based animus. With whom Lespier & Munoz Noya was on brief. This is a ghost ship of an SELYA. The muted sound of voices through the fog but there is nothing solid to be grasped. Leaving things exactly as they were. Only five are worthy of extended comment.2 These include four evidence oriented propositions. Appellant's final claim is that the lower court erred in doubling the two awards. The standards of review that appertain to a trial court's denial of the usual post trial motions in civil cases are firmly settled. May reverse the denial of such a motion only if reasonable persons could not have reached the conclusion that the jury embraced. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/03/97-2226.htm">97-2226 -- WOODWORKER'S SUPPLY INC. V. PRINCIPAL MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. -- 03/10/1999<BR></A><BR> 3) the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's findings of fraud. 4) Principal Mutual is entitled to contract damages resulting from Woodworker's failure to pay certain premiums. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/06/053504P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> David Stern was a patient of the physicians for approximately four years. He was told that his cancer was in an advanced state and that his condition was terminal. These items of damage are all recoverable under Missouri law in a wrongful death claim. Holding that Ruth could not satisfy the requirement under Missouri law that she plead and prove that her son could have maintained a cause of action for personal injuries had he survived. The statute was amended in 2005. Because this is a diversity case. Such claims are brought pursuant to statute. Would have entitled such person to recover damages in respect thereof. The person or party who . . . would have been liable if death had not ensued shall be liable in an action for damages. The defendant may plead and prove as a defense any defense which the defendant would have had against the deceased in an action based upon the same act . . . which caused the death of the deceased. Which action for damages the deceased would have been entitled to bring had death not ensued. § 537.085. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/03/051588P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Policy states: [State Farm] will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of . . . personal injury or advertising injury to which this insurance applies. . . . .... [State Farm] will have the right and duty to defend any claim or suit seeking damages payable under this policy even though the allegations of the suit may be groundless. Finding that the claims against the NRCCUA were not for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1086.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199912360.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We decide as an issue of first impression in this circuit whether an employer which demonstrates only that it eliminated an age discrimination plaintiff's former position satisfies its burden of proving that it legitimately would have terminated said plaintiff. Whether the damages award was excessive. Although Muñoz does not specifically admit to the incident for which he was reprimanded. As is customary among individuals of Cuban decent. That the Resort's management was aware. The ensuing events are in dispute. Informed Muñoz that the Resort was terminating him for insubordination. Who at that time was over forty years of age. Yet was not terminated. Benigno Muñoz was witnessed by General Manager Mr. Or business associates of Oceanside Resorts Inc. will result in immediate termination. We note that this exhibit was not part of the appellate record. The Resort asserts: (1) it was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law because Muñoz failed to rebut sufficiently its nondiscriminatory explanation for Muñoz's termination. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199912360.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We decide as an issue of first impression in this circuit whether an employer which demonstrates only that it eliminated an age discrimination plaintiff's former position satisfies its burden of proving that it legitimately would have terminated said plaintiff. Whether the damages award was excessive. Although Muñoz does not specifically admit to the incident for which he was reprimanded. As is customary among individuals of Cuban decent. That the Resort's management was aware. The ensuing events are in dispute. Benigno Munoz was witnessed by General Manager Mr. Or business associates of Oceanside Resorts Inc. will result in immediate termination. We note that this exhibit was not part of the appellate record. Informed Muñoz that the Resort was terminating him for insubordination. Who at that time was over forty years of age. Yet was not terminated. The Resort asserts: (1) it was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law because Muñoz failed to rebut sufficiently its nondiscriminatory explanation for Muñoz's termination. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/10/043212P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which the parties agree was in effect at all times relevant to this case. Which the AGBCA found Rain and Hail to have met. Are satisfied. Reading the Manager's Bulletin in light of 7 C.F.R. § 400.352 (the regulation forbidding certain state court judgments that was incorporated into the MPCI policy). The AGBCA held that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5034.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Everett C. With him on the brief were Peter D. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims in a takings case. The United States and the plaintiffs have both appealed from that judgment. recalculation of damages. I A The plaintiffs are four owners of rental property in Los Angeles. When a large number of the mortgages were nearing the 20year mark. Was a temporary measure. When we were presented with the question whether ELIHPA and LIHPRHA had caused the plaintiffs to suffer a compensable temporary regulatory taking under the test established by the Supreme Court in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. Would have applied to their property and limited the rent that they could have charged tenants after leaving the federal program. Holding that it was barred by this court's mandate and by the doctrine of law of the case from entertaining that contention. The court held that LARSO would not have reduced the amount of the award because it was expressly preempted by the preemption provision of LIHPRHA. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/09/00-1167.htm">00-1167 -- ECHO ACCEPTANCE CORP. V. HOUSEHOLD RETAIL SERVICES INC. -- 09/28/2001<BR></A><BR> The district court's jurisdiction was based on 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/02/963266P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This opinion is consistent with his vote at the panel's conference following oral argument on September 11. I. Bob Balderston is the owner and president of BSF. Mark Talbott is the vice president and general manager of BSF. Tom Riddings is the president and general manager of the Outlet. Because the Jimmy was to be wholesaled. Described the Jimmy as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F829D609AA38019988256E97007CFB0D/$file/0216903.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The main question in this case is whether a debtor may recover damages for emotional distress under 11 U.S.C. § 362(h) when a creditor violates the automatic stay that follows from the filing of a bankruptcy petition. Who were friends of Plaintiffs. The Chapter 13 plan was confirmed. A foreclosure sale was scheduled for early 1995 but Plaintiffs tendered payment to the Bank just before the date set for the sale. So the foreclosure proceedings were discontinued. A foreclosure sale was conducted. Was recorded. After the Dixons' foreclosure of the property was complete and title was vested in the Jamesons: (1) Plaintiffs would </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1580.html">TROY SHOCKLEY V. ARCAN<BR></A><BR> Inc.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/09/02-2040.htm">02-2040 -- WOODMEN OF THE WORLD LIFE INSURANCE SOCIETY V. MANGANARO -- 09/09/2003<BR></A><BR> It cannot be said to a legal certainty that the arbitration award would be less than the requisite jurisdictional amount. <ol> <li><strong>BACKGROUND</strong></li> </ol> <p> Defendants are insured members of Woodmen. Defendants also sought to enjoin Woodmen from charging and collecting additional premiums from policyholders who pay their premiums in increments rather than a single annual premium <p> unless and until (a) [Woodmen] obtains those policyholders written agreement to pay such additional amounts for the option of paying periodically and (b) plainly discloses the various periodic payment options and related costs . . . so that the policyholders can make an informed choice as to which option is appropriate for them. <p> Defendants did not follow the three step Procedure before filing their state lawsuit. <p> <p> Invoking diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. Sanchez attached an affidavit which claimed that the amount of damages she sought to recover was only $12. The district court noted that only the amount in controversy was contested. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2001/00-10784.opn.html">ASSOCIATED MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS V. MARTIN K. EBY CONSTR. CO. (11/9/2001, NO. 00-10784)<BR></A><BR> Inc. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-5105.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2001/00-10784.opn.html">ASSOCIATED MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS V. MARTIN K. EBY CONSTR. CO. (11/9/2001, NO. 00-10784)<BR></A><BR> Inc. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/06/022242P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It argues the judgment should be set aside because all of Walsh's claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Fail as a matter of law because there is no evidence to support the view that Walsh was discriminated against because of her pregnancy under either Title VII or the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). It further argues that Walsh was not entitled to punitive damages because she did not prove malice or reckless indifference to her rights. NCS contends that if punitive damages were appropriately assessed. They were excessive. She was a salaried ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/may96/95-6133.wpd.html">HAROLDS STORES, INC. V. DILLARD DEPT. STORES, INC.<BR></A><BR> That it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law after trial. Dillard is a retail department store. Harold's is a retail clothing store with 22 stores in 7 states. Harold's represents to its customers that the original print fabric garments are available solely from Harold's. Harold's offers unique custom printed fabric designs in skirts and other sportswear that are not available from Harold's competitors. Oklahoma were offering for sale skirts with print fabric patterns identical to print skirts that Harold's had sold during the previous 1991 to 1992 sales season. The Dillard skirts were priced at $28.00 to $30.00. 223435. from Wadesboro were made from fabric similar or identical to fabric used by CMT to manufacture skirts for Harold's. That Dillard could sell the garments in markets where Harold's did not have stores. Ruling that the Copyright Act did not preempt Harold's claim under the Oklahoma Antitrust Act because the state law claim was qualitatively different from. 1994 order was fully 160 days out of time. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5123.html">BLUEBONNET SAVINGS BANK, F.S.B V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellees.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>W </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971032.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I Tommy Larsen is a designer of products of functional art. Tommy Larsen manufactures and distributes his products through Tommy Larsen AS.1 Terk is a small. The CD 25 is 1 When this lawsuit was filed. Tommy Larsen AS was a Danish entity referred to by the denomination </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-40973.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. We will reverse a district court's decision to certify a class only upon a showing that the court abused its discretion. P. 23(b)(3) was not met. That a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jun2004/Jun07/03-40973.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. We will reverse a district court's decision to certify a class only upon a showing that the court abused its discretion. P. 23(b)(3) was not met. That a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001017.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appellant argues that this instruction may have caused the jury to return a lower verdict. Appellant also alleges that the award of damages was inadequate as a matter of law and that the district court erred when it failed to grant a new trial on those grounds. Were killed when the car in which they were traveling was struck by a tractor trailer delivery truck driven by Clark. The case was removed to the district court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Witnesses testified that the family was very close and that they spent a lot of time together including frequent camping trips. Stebbins's wife was 30 years old at the time of her death and had a normal life expectancy of 80 years. Clark and England tendered an instruction that would inform the jury that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/02/054345P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Post trial motions were denied. Which is headquartered and incorporated in Florida. United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 2 Rawlings and Matrix executed the contract which is the subject of this litigation. The license was to continue so long as certain conditions were satisfied. The other party was entitled to terminate the contract if the breaching party did not cure the breach within thirty days after the written notice. The contract was to be governed by the law of Delaware. There was testimony at trial that annual sales of Rawlings bags were about $300. In the next several years they declined and were at about $865. For some time Rawlings had been concerned with the decline in its bag sales and believed that Matrix was uninterested in growing this business and was not using its best efforts to foster and develop its products. Rawlings management expressed concern that the bag line was stagnant. Rawlings was dissatisfied with Orloff's response to these concerns. During that same month K2's consolidation plans were carried out. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2002/014045.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gagliardo was also responsible for a special project the handling of military orders. Gagliardo was by all accounts a capable employee. Gagliardo's life began to change in 1992 or 1994 when she was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981208.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Required all improvements that were part of the original buildout by Parkridge to be surrendered to Parkridge at the expiration of the Lease. Parkridge maintains that Lockheed was uncooperative in allowing Parkridge to determine whether Lockheed was complying with the terms of the leases (e.g. States that Parkridge was seeking information (e.g. Etc.) which the leases did not require Lockheed to submit to Parkridge and that Parkridge was inquiring into matters regarding </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962164.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Published opinion filed 5/13/98 is vacated. As the event's organizers were beginning plans for the motorcycle rally. Captain Doug Horton of the SDPS was informed that organizers expected up to 3500 participants. Sought Horton out and advised him that an unidentified friend at work had told McKinney that an unidentified person had reported to McKinney's friend that a confrontation at the Rally between the Hell's Angel and Pagan gangs was planned. Horton was further advised that gang members could not be visually identified because it was planned that they would </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1207a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Panner argued the cause for petitioners and supporting intervenors.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199911/98-7121a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Ted Justice Williams was on brief. The district court's order denying the motion for judgment as a matter of law is affirmed in part and reversed in part and the district court's judgment on the verdict for plaintiff is affirmed. The source of the alleged sexual harassment was a co worker in the District's Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). She was transferred to the Domestic Security Section of the MPD's Intelligence Unit where she met Detective Condwell Freeman. In July 1993 Curry was again transferred to a different unit and did not return to the Intelligence Unit until the following May. Who was her (and Freeman's) direct supervisor. Who was on vacation during that period. Curry told him she thought he was harassing her for rebuffing his sexual overtures and that she intended to wait for Major's return before re submitting the report. She also reported the incident involving the redraft ed reports when Freeman was acting sergeant and Freeman's remarks she had overheard that morning. Which was on the same floor as the Domes tic Security Section but in a different wing of the building. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200603/05-5031a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Kenneth L. I. Background Randy Webman and Larry Rozen were imprisoned for fraud and other offenses at the Federal Correctional Complex in Coleman. Rozen was released in 2001. Webman and Rozen </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2001/00-14272.man.html">LAMBERT V. FULTON COUNTY (6/6/2001, NO. 00-14272)<BR></A><BR> 000 compensatory damages on their separate Title VII claims against Fulton County asserting that disparate discipline was administered to them by Fulton County because they are white. Whether they were entitled to qualified immunity and whether the district court erred in denying their motions for judgment as a matter of law on the punitive damages claims or. Because there was sufficient evidence to support the several jury verdicts. Because Regus and Cooper were not entitled to qualified immunity. Factual Background</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2002/00-14090.opn.html">JOHNSON V. BREEDEN (1/28/2002, NO. 00-14090)<BR></A><BR> They ask us to reverse the judgment on grounds related to the jury instructions and special interrogatories that were used. Also because they say that no punitive damages should have been awarded. Used excessive force against him while he was a prisoner. Luciano filed a joint motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity and other grounds.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-5180.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Peter D. Are undisputed. The College was a private. The padlocks were removed and students returned. It is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/09/03-2158.htm">03-2158 -- O'TOOLE V. NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORP. -- 09/09/2004<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff/Appellant Joseph O'Toole appeals from a final judgment in favor of his former employer. The following facts are undisputed: <p> [I]n May 1996. He was again forced to borrow money from his retirement account in October 1998 to buy a home in Los Alamos in order to avoid paying capital gains tax on the sale of his San Diego house. O'Toole was entitled to receive. <em></em> <p> In his suit for breach of contract. It was reasonably foreseeable here. Div. 2001) (holding that money damages equal to what breaching insurer should have paid in first place may not be sufficient to place plaintiff in economic position he would have been in had contract been performed because assumption that plaintiff has access to alternative source of funds to pay that which insurer wrongfully refused to pay is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1995/95a1148p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That Stelwagon was entitled to recover treble damages pursuant to section 4 of the Clayton Act. We believe it failed to present sufficient proof of actual antitrust damages and is. We will vacate the district court's judgment insofar as it awards Stelwagon treble damages under section 4 of the Clayton Act. We will. Affirm with respect to the breach of contract claim because we believe the district court correctly concluded that the contract claim was not barred by the Statute of Frauds. I. BACKGROUND Stelwagon is a wholesale distributor of roofing. Stelwagon also learned that Tarmac was selling MAPs to two competitors Standard Roofing Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/10/954078P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The plaintiffs are the buyers of the property. The defendants are the sellers. Arguing that plaintiffs are receiving what amounts to a double recovery: an *The Hon. The defendants do not contest the finding made below that they were guilty of fraud in this respect. Their application was denied on the ground that the sellers. Defendants argue first that there was no sufficient evidence to support the damages verdicts. When the property was sold. Testimony was that the value of the property transferred without the boatdock permit was $43. 000 less than it would have been with the permit. by the jury. one record would have supported a much greater award than was actually given As to the swim dock. The evidence is less specific. Was one of a list of items in respect of which evidence tended to show that plaintiffs did not receive full value from the sale. the entire list was $40. The total amount of damages ascribed to No specific figure was given for the swim dock. It was of some substantial value. The major issue on appeal arises because damages were not the only relief secured by the plaintiffs. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2002/00-14090.opn.html">JOHNSON V. BREEDEN (1/28/2002, NO. 00-14090)<BR></A><BR> They ask us to reverse the judgment on grounds related to the jury instructions and special interrogatories that were used. Also because they say that no punitive damages should have been awarded. Used excessive force against him while he was a prisoner. Luciano filed a joint motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity and other grounds.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7FB8AD67BBC9E2C388256BFF00575C12/$file/0115630.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (2) Kyocera's performance under the agreements was not excused. Relationship of the Parties LaPine is a corporation formed in 1984 to design. LaPine was financed by PruTech. The general partner of which was an 10390 KYOCERA v. Kyocera is a Japanese manufacturer of ceramic and electronic products. Under which K.K.P.B. was obligated to maintain the level of funding of LaPine until the cash flow of the latter achieved </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002053.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Griffin argues primarily that its Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial was violated when the district court awarded damages in addition to those awarded by the jury and granted a declaratory judgment to WEGCO. I. WEGCO is a Maryland corporation that assists its clients in obtaining and executing government contracts. Griffin is a Georgia corporation that provides the federal government with commercial facilities management and mechanical maintenance services. Provide support services after the contracts were awarded. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/04/996068P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bankruptcy Judge This is an appeal by the City of Papillion from a final judgment entered by the bankruptcy court. Under the agreement the Debtor was to operate a keno type lottery in the City for a term of five years. The Debtor was given the choice to deliver an irrevocable letter of credit for the same amount. Which is the option the Debtor chose. The Debtor was entitled to 10% of the gross proceeds from which to pay all expenses. No less than 65% of gross proceeds were to be paid out as winnings. The Debtor was to maintain a cash reserve in an amount not less than the sum of the maximum prize possible in the regular game plus the amount available to be won in the progressive game. The Debtor was authorized to pay 1% of the gross proceeds toward the progressive jackpot. The Debtor was to resume paying the 1% to the City. Which was prior to the amendment. Although the deposits were not made consistently. The bankruptcy court found that this amount came from the Debtor's share of the gross proceeds because the Debtor was not yet authorized by the amendment to fund the reserve with the City's share of the proceeds. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1005.html">MINCO, INC. V. COMBUSTION ENGINEERING<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-5131.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Thomas G. With her on the brief were Stuart E. Of counsel was Maureen A. This appeal is another in a series of Winstar related cases. The Court of Federal Claims determined that the government breached its contract and that Westfed is entitled to approximately $305 million in reliance damages. Westfed is a thrift holding company. Which was subject to regulatory approval. The Federal Home Loan Bank Board ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972079.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> For an oil spill were not compensable under the Oil Pollution Act (OPA). Finding that the Fund Director had acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner and that Gatlin Oil was entitled to compensation for all its recovery costs and damages with interest. Although a district court's remand to an agency is not usually within the purview of section 1291. The Supreme Court has noted an exception that is applicable to this appeal. The Court explained that an order reversing an agency's denial of benefits and remanding for proceedings consistent with the 2 district court's opinion was a final appealable order within the meaning of section 1291. The owner of an onshore facility is the party responsible for removal costs of a spill that discharges oil into navigable waters. The owner is afforded a complete defense. §§ 2702(d)(1)(A). The Act also created the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (Fund) for the payment of uncompensated removal costs that are consistent with the National Contingency Plan (Plan) and for the payment of uncompensated damages. §§ 2712(a)(3). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971762.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss primarily on the grounds that such damages are unavailable under IDEA. I. The instant appeal is from a dismissal for failure to state a claim. Kristopher was eighteen years old. That his test scores as 2 early as fourth grade </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec99/98-6817.man.html">ROSS NEELY SYS., INC. V. OCCIDENTAL FIRE & CAS. CO. OF N. CAROLINA (12/3/1999, NO. 98-6817)<BR></A><BR> We affirm.</P> <P><CENTER><EM>BACKGROUND </EM></CENTER> </P> <P> Ross Neely is a trucking company that bought business auto insurance from Occidental. These broad provisions were modified by two pertinent endorsements.</P> <P> First was a punitive damages exclusion: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2153.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hoffman were on brief for appellant. Cotchett and Susan Illston were on brief for appellees. Mass. 1993). 2Defendants named in this action are the NFL. Charles Sullivan (plaintiff or Sullivan) is the former owner and sole stockholder of SMC. Was the Patriots' owner at all relevant times. Was to sell the shares to the public. Member teams are not permitted to sell shares to the public unless three fourths of the members approve. William Sullivan was unable to persuade the other NFL owners to allow his proposed deal. The stadium subsequently was sold for the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0289p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (3) the compensatory damages were excessive. (4) Oracle was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of punitive damages. I. American Trim was formed in 1996 as a joint venture between Alcoa. The Superior Metal Products system was not Y2K compliant. Oracle is a supplier of business software. Put together a list of twenty five leading software vendors who were candidates to provide a new integrated system. Testified that EDI was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1734.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 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 $500 in capital and Larry Ansin was issued a share certificate for 437.5 shares in R O Realty. He would have to sign a non competition agreement. Harold Ansin did not know how many shares he was purchasing. Understood that he was buying his son's entire 10% interest in River Oaks. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2443646ADB60F7BF8825724B0001E8BF/$file/0456394.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ORDER The Appellee Gulf Insurance Company's Petition For Panel Rehearing is GRANTED. 2006 and published at 466 F.3d 867 is hereby AMENDED as follows: After the second to last sentence in the opinion. 656 (9th Cir. 1994) (applying California law and reversing district court's summary judgment that there was no coverage under insurance policy. IT IS SO ORDERED. Pan Pacific and Western were each insured under a Directors' and Officers' Liability and Company Indemnification Policy ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1104.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Allen & Snyder were on brief. Sarli & Marusak were on brief. Because the amount awarded by the jury may have been the result of a misapprehension of the nature of joint tortfeasor liability aided by an incomplete and therefore misleading jury instruction. Which is now almost five years old: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTEyMDYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-1206-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The actions of plaintiffs' faithless principal were an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5407a.html">MONICA M. PEYTON V. MICHAEL F. DIMARIO<BR></A><BR> Argued the cause for appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-7121a.html">CURYY, CYNTHIA D. V. DC<BR></A><BR> Were on brief.</P> <P> Elizabeth Margaret Boyle argued the cause for the appel </P> <P>lee. Ted Justice Williams was on brief.</P> <P> . The district court's order denying the motion for </P> <P>judgment as a matter of law is affirmed in part and reversed </P> <P>in part and the district court's judgment on the verdict for </P> <P>plaintiff is affirmed.</P> <P> Karen LeCraft Henderson. The source of the </P> <P>alleged sexual harassment was a co worker in the District's </P> <P>Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). She was transferred to the Domestic </P> <P>Security Section of the MPD's Intelligence Unit where she </P> <P>met Detective Condwell Freeman. Joint Appendix (JA) </P> <P>111.</P> <P> In July 1993 Curry was again transferred to a different </P> <P>unit and did not return to the Intelligence Unit until the </P> <P>following May. </P> <P>who was her (and Freeman's) direct supervisor. Who was on vacation </P> <P>during that period. Curry told </P> <P>him she thought he was harassing her for rebuffing his sexual </P> <P>overtures and that she intended to wait for Major's return before </P> <P>re submitting the report.</P> <P> . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200014090.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> They ask us to reverse the judgment on grounds related to the jury instructions and special interrogatories that were used. Also because they say that no punitive damages should have been awarded. Used excessive force against him while he was a prisoner. Luciano filed a joint motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity and other grounds.2 The district court denied that motion insofar as the excessive force claim was concerned. The case was tried before a jury. Ernest Johnson was incarcerated at Phillips Correctional Institution in Buford. He was returning to his cell after a work detail. A prison guard questioned Johnson as to his possession of food items from the prison store when it was not his </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec99/98-6817.man.html">ROSS NEELY SYS., INC. V. OCCIDENTAL FIRE & CAS. CO. OF N. CAROLINA (12/3/1999, NO. 98-6817)<BR></A><BR> We affirm.</P> <P><CENTER><EM>BACKGROUND </EM></CENTER> </P> <P> Ross Neely is a trucking company that bought business auto insurance from Occidental. These broad provisions were modified by two pertinent endorsements.</P> <P> First was a punitive damages exclusion: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2001/00-14272.man.html">LAMBERT V. FULTON COUNTY (6/6/2001, NO. 00-14272)<BR></A><BR> 000 compensatory damages on their separate Title VII claims against Fulton County asserting that disparate discipline was administered to them by Fulton County because they are white. Whether they were entitled to qualified immunity and whether the district court erred in denying their motions for judgment as a matter of law on the punitive damages claims or. Because there was sufficient evidence to support the several jury verdicts. Because Regus and Cooper were not entitled to qualified immunity. Factual Background</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTEzMDUtY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/05-1305-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was suffering from end stage renal disease. Peter Lucia's left kidney was therefore air lifted to a hospital in Miami. Where Colavito was waiting for its implantation. While Colavito was being prepared for surgery. Discovered that Lucia's left kidney was irreparably damaged by aneurysms and therefore unfit for implantation. He was told that it had already been delivered to and implanted in another patient. Have also brought suit against a variety of persons and entities in New York State court alleging fraud. Concluding that his remaining claims were barred by a common law public policy against recognizing property rights in human corpses. We think that New York public policy respecting organ donations is more likely to be properly determined by reference to its current relevant statutory law than common law principles. Because Colavito's claims raise novel questions of statutory interpretation that have not yet been addressed by the New York courts. We will certify the following questions to the New York Court of Appeals: (1) Do the applicable provisions of the New York Public Health Law vest the intended recipient of a directed organ donation with rights that can be vindicated in a private party's lawsuit sounding in the common law tort of conversion or through a 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 26 private right of action derived from the New York Public Health Law? (2) Does New York Public Health Law immunize either (3) If a donee can negligent or grossly negligent misconduct? bring a private action to enforce the rights referred to in question 1. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9DC5BB5DB5573A7988256E5A00707B9A/$file/9917073.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is a products liability action involving pacemakers containing the allegedly defective ENCOR Bipolar Passive Fixation Pacing Lead Model 330 854 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200001/99-1157a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the briefs were David W. With her on the brief were David M. 500 SSA employees successfully contended that they had been misclassified and consequently denied payment for overtime work to which they would otherwise have been entitled. Which gives rise to the unfair labor practice order which is the subject of the present petition. The Union and the SSA submitted to the FLRA for resolution the question of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/88AB5EEB8875CF3888256B21007B0998/$file/9917073.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: 1) Add the following sentence to the end of the third paragraph of section III. Judges O'Scannlain and Gould have voted to deny the petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc. The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Circuit Judge: This is a products liability action involving pacemakers containing the allegedly defective ENCOR Bipolar Passive Fixation Pacing Lead Model 330 854 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1371.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court ruled that Radioshack was liable for damages stemming from its guaranty of a lease between one of Judith Kallman's companies and Color Tile. Radioshack challenges the district court's ruling that Radioshack is liable for Color Tile's breach. That it is responsible for the cost of repairs to the property. An understanding of the history of the series of leases controlling the property is central to resolving Radioshack's claims. Which was controlled by Irwin Kallman. Was for a term of 15 years with the option to renew for a ten year term. Color Tile exercised its option to renew the lease for a term that was to end on April 30. More than three years before its lease was to expire. No sign was posted on the property and Win did nothing to list the property locally. After the listing agreement was finalized. Win finalized a lease with a company named Happiness is Pets for $11 per square foot. In order to close lease negotiations with Happiness is Pets and finalize a new lease term with T.J.'s. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9C382D0C30B8A79A88256C09005930CE/$file/9915645.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That sex was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/08/993218P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is the third time we have been called upon to address disputes related to the Norman Branch. Is located approximately 3 miles from Gurdon. The shippers are all located on the northern part of the Norman Branch. After the embargo was imposed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2321(a) and § 2342(5). Should be determined in accordance with prior law if the ICC's functions related thereto were transferred to the Board. Certain issues in this appeal are controlled by former provisions of the United States Code. 51 B. Was enacted to address concerns about the deteriorating rail service provided on some of the secondary railroad lines throughout the country. Whichever is greater. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1596.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. The patents generally claim an indicator device that is comprised of a chamber that is divided by a diaphragm into a first chamber and a second chamber. The first chamber contains an indicating member and is connected to the air flow between an engine's air filter and air intake. The indicating member is in turn attached to the top of the diaphragm. A transparent wall of the chamber allows an individual to see the position of the indicating member within the chamber and thereby gauge the contamination level of the air filter in order to determine whether it is in need of replacement. An important feature of the device is its </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTIxOTZfc28ucGRm/04-2196_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19972664.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We also conclude that the damages award to Hardaway is not in error. A detailed review of the facts is necessary to understand our holding. Construction was to proceed on a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1587.html">THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO FOUNDATION V. AMERICAN CYANAMID<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellees.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>   </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Harold A. Colorado.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Also of counsel on the brief were <u>Robert N. Argued for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Richard W. Elliot</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Donald R. Mso bidi language:AR SA'>[1]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a> as a preface to the discussion of the issues on appeal.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Our recitation of the facts is based on the findings made by the district court after trial.</p> <p class=MsoBodyText2 style='text indent:.5in'>Prenatal supplements containing 60 65 mg of iron are widely used to ensure that pregnant women absorb the approximately 3.5 mg of supplemental iron per day they requ </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E76AF88175CB3E0188256A6C00580FDC/$file/9917073.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is a products liability action involving pacemakers containing the allegedly defective ENCOR Bipolar Passive Fixation Pacing Lead Model 330 854 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19972664.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We also conclude that the damages award to Hardaway is not in error. A detailed review of the facts is necessary to understand our holding. Construction was to proceed on a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug98/97-2664.man.html">ROBERTS & SCHAEFER CO. V. HARDAWAY CO. (8/31/1998, NO. 97-2664)<BR></A><BR> We also conclude that the damages award to Hardaway is not in error. We affirm the judgment.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P><CENTER>A.</CENTER> </P> <P> A detailed review of the facts is necessary to understand our holding. Construction was to proceed on a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/09/003445P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While Deanna Beard was employed at a Flying J restaurant in Davenport. Each party then filed post trial motions that were denied by the district court. Beard was employed as an assistant manager of Flying J's restaurant in Davenport. Krout was hired as the general manager of the restaurant. There is no question that Mr. Krout was Ms. Beard says were erect because she had been in the freezer at the restaurant. Krout that his behavior was unwelcome and complained about it to several other Flying J employees. Although none of these employees was listed in Flying J's employee handbook as a person to contact in case of sexual harassment. Snider said that he was unable to determine whom to believe. Krout was reinstated after a brief suspension. Krout from his position and that there was no evidence that he had engaged in any misconduct. Krout was to be reinstated. Flying J contends that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Ms. Beard was required to produce evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to conclude that she was a member of a protected group. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200010784.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Associated attacks the district court's holding that its claim for delay and inefficiency damages was barred because it failed to give Eby timely notice of its intent to seek those damages. Associated also argues that the district court should have awarded it interest on the final or </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1995/95a1204p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that the district court correctly decided both issues and therefore we will affirm its judgments. Jordan were high level executives of the defendant. Which like all such plans is commonly referred to as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4B58941DD5130E8188257348005742F0/$file/0556452.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who is paralyzed from the chest down. Molski was able to MOLSKI v. There was not enough clear space to permit him to access the toilet from his wheelchair. 000/day . . . for each day after [Molski's] visit until such time as the restaurant is made fully accessible </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug98/97-2664.man.html">ROBERTS & SCHAEFER CO. V. HARDAWAY CO. (8/31/1998, NO. 97-2664)<BR></A><BR> We also conclude that the damages award to Hardaway is not in error. We affirm the judgment.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P><CENTER>A.</CENTER> </P> <P> A detailed review of the facts is necessary to understand our holding. Construction was to proceed on a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/12/021423P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sellers brought this action against the United States Secretary of Transportation (the Secretary) and Joseph based upon allegations that Joseph sexually harassed and assaulted her while they were both employed with the FAA. Sellers was awarded compensatory and punitive damages totaling $215. Now before this court is Joseph's appeal from the judgment.2 For reversal. Jurisdiction was proper in the district court based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332. Jurisdiction is proper in this court based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. Background The following summary of pertinent background facts is based upon the evidence presented at trial. Both Joseph and the Secretary have appealed. The two appeals have been separated because Joseph filed a bankruptcy petition which triggered a temporary stay of his appeal. 2 2 In September of 1987. Sellers was screaming. Union officials that she was being sexually harassed. An internal investigation was ordered. A letter officially reprimanding Moore for inadequately handling the matter (hereinafter </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Apr2002/004323.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the district court's orders. Joan McIlhenny's 1990 Ford Taurus had to have its transmission overhauled at 73. James Dunlap's 1995 Ford Winstar had to have its transmission overhauled at 65. The district court first indicated that Pennsylvania courts </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1996/96a1337p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The principal questions we must decide are whether county prosecutors in New Jersey act as state or county officials when they make personnel decisions and whether the district court properly exercised in personam jurisdiction. We will reverse the May 4. We will affirm the district court's denial of Kaye's motion. We will remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. Barbara Coleman was employed as an investigator at the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office during John Kaye's tenure as Monmouth County Prosecutor. It is uncontested that he possessed the final authority to determine who worked for the Monmouth County Prosecutor and in what capacity. She was not promoted to either position. Coleman's applications to be promoted to sergeant were denied in both June and October of 1990. A male investigator was promoted over Coleman. The County of Monmouth was not named separately as a defendant. The summons and complaint were served upon Kaye. The case was sent to the jury. (3) Kaye and/or one or more of his subordinates who made recommendations to him intentionally discriminated against Coleman because she was a woman. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/12/971147P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court certified a class of plaintiffs that includes those who have been employed at Eveleth Mines in Eveleth. Minn. 1991) (Jenson I).2 The named defendants are Eveleth Taconite Company. The district court defined the class to include: all women who have applied for. Or have been employed in. Who have been. Are being. Subd. 2 (allowing district court judge to award same relief). will be discriminated against with regard to the terms and conditions of their employment because of gender. The plaintiffs have not appealed that ruling. Plaintiffs have not pled a separate claim for defamation. Plaintiffs are entitled to have the trier of fact weigh evidence such as public humiliation. The specific awards were as follows: for Angel Alaspa the amount of $6. The Special Master found that the claims of Diane Hodge were time barred. Plaintiffs assert the damages awards do not make the women whole and are totally inadequate and ?shocking. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19944838.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was appointed manager of the Miami branch office over a territory that included most of South Florida. His performance was rated as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1999/977450.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Taking the position that Herre Bros. was bound to the Union's 1995 agreement with the SMCA. Ruling that Herre Bros. was bound to the 1995 collective bargaining agreement. I Herre Bros. is a mechanical and electrical contractor in Enola. The parties agree that as a result of that membership Herre Bros. was a party to the collective bargaining agreement between the Union and the SMCA which was effective from June 1. This notification was signed by Anthony J. Who was both president of the SMCA and vice president of Herre Bros. The 1992 collective bargaining agreement was nearing expiration and the parties set about negotiating a new agreement. The Union allegedly discovered that Herre Bros. was still an active member of the SMCA despite its revocation of bargaining rights. The Union took the position that Herre Bros. was bound by the 1995 agreement because of Herre Bros.' continuing membership in the SMCA. That Herre Bros. was bound to the existing collective bargaining agreement effective from June 1. The court determined that Herre Bros. had not effectively withdrawn from the SMCA and therefore was bound to the terms of the new agreement. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept97/96-6833.opa.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>In re Amtrak </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/02/052224P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 1 I Kforce and Surrex are competitors. It first concluded the election of remedies did not apply and thus did not bar the suit because the theories of recovery were consistent with one another but a doctrine prohibiting double recovery did bar the claims. It held the collateral litigation exception was inapplicable. 2 II We review a district court's dismissal de novo. We will affirm only if it appears beyond doubt that he cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200315189.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The jury determined that AT&T was guilty of fraudulent billing practices and the collection of illegal gambling debts in violation of the federal and Georgia RICO statutes. These gambling debts were incurred after Kemp's grandson called a 900 number named </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/03/971075P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (Riverboat) appeals from a judgment entered in the district court following a jury verdict finding that Riverboat discharged Lee Browning from employment as a security office manager because he was white. I. Browning was 54 years old at the time he was terminated from his employment with Riverboat. He was one of three security managers who worked for Riverboat. Were black. The security department was responsible for safeguarding Riverboat's property along the the reasons set forth below. Browning was hired by Taylor as a security were manager. By the time Browning reported to work he was informed that he had been assigned the undesirable night or </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2001/001817.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Evans was awarded back pay. Contending that the District Court erred in granting the Port Authority's motion for remittitur and in failing to allow the jury to consider the issue of punitive damages. 2 Because we are convinced that the Port Authority's allegations of error relating to the liability portion of the verdict clearly lack merit. Although we recognize that the award for emotional damages is atypical. Though we may have arrived at a different calculation had the award been ours to determine in the first instance. The attorney's fees award is more problematic. Reduction in the fee award is warranted. We will conditionally affirm the order of the District Court denying the Port Authority's motion for a new trial and granting its motion for remittitur. We will vacate the District Court's order approving the award of attorney's fees and will remand this matter for a recalculation of the award. Evans applied and was interviewed for the Port Authority position of client manager. Eight total candidates were considered. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/01/98-6485.htm">98-6485 -- MACSENTI V. BECKER -- 01/22/2001<BR></A><BR> Jurisdiction in the district court was based on diversity of citizenship. (Hereinafter in this opinion we will use </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1692.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Miller & Candon were on brief. Gardner was on brief. Circuit Judge. seems to have been fueled as much by indignation as by the dollars involved. The extent of its victory was curtailed somewhat by the judge's trimming of the award. All was serene: DCPB rendered services. We merely summarize the results insofar as they are pertinent to the appeals. THE PLAINTIFF'S APPEAL The plaintiff contends that the jury's award of enhanced damages should have remained intact. The contention is dichotomous. Our review is plenary. Punitive damages are not allowed in New Hampshire except in specific instances enumerated by the state legislature.1 See N.H. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/99-1388.htm">99-1388 -- GUIDES V. YARMOUTH GROUP PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC. -- 07/02/2002<BR></A><BR> Our jurisdiction is pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BE94C00688637A7688256E5A00707D8C/$file/9917073.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: 1) Add the following sentence to the end of the third paragraph of section III. Judges O'Scannlain and Gould have voted to deny the petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc. The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Circuit Judge: This is a products liability action involving pacemakers containing the allegedly defective ENCOR Bipolar Passive Fixation Pacing Lead Model 330 854 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1998/98a1999a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> * Circuit Judges ORDER AMENDING SLIP OPINION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the slip opinion in the above case. 1998 *Judge Seitz heard argument in this matter but was unable to clear the opinion. 2 CORRECTED REPRINT Filed November 12. D.C. 20006 *Judge Seitz heard argument in this matter but was unable to clear the opinion. 2 GARY R. We will affirm the District Court's decertification order and its grant of summary judgment. 6 I. Ciaran McNally are Pennsylvania residents who began smoking cigarettes before the age of 15 and have smoked for many years. The defendants are The American Tobacco Company. Inc. have been dismissed from this action without prejudice. Industries p.l.c. was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction by order of the District Court dated June 21. Finding that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept97/96-6833.opa.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>In re Amtrak </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200204/00-5407a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Roscoe C. With him on the brief was John W. Peyton's hostile work environment claim and retaliation claim were tried to a jury. (2) awarding back pay for a period when Peyton was in school. (3) awarding future earnings that are unreason ably speculative. However we agree with appellant that the future earnings awarded are unrea sonably speculative and remand for further proceedings. In the fall of 1995 she was accepted into a 2 year proofreader apprenticeship program. Apprentices were evaluated during each 13 week period of the 2 year training program. Throughout the training pro gram GPO provides information to apprentices to allow them to access their reading speed at any time and periodically advises apprentices as to whether they are meeting expecta tions. There was physical contact between Peyton and Massey. Peyton complained to her superiors that her work was being adverse ly affected by the hostile environment of the proof room. Peyton was even told that she should drop her complaint. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200111/00-1207a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Michael K. With him on the briefs were Daniel M. Phillips were on the joint brief of intervenors ABTEL Communications. Fingerhut were on the brief of Local Exchange Carrier intervenors. The case was remanded. That the question of what damages should flow from that violation was best reserved for another day. That the Liability Order is final. May have even been compelled. The Liability Order was rendered non final. As whatever reliance those carriers placed on ultimately erroneous FCC pro nouncements cannot excuse their violations of governing law as that law is properly construed. We conclude that the Liability Order is final. That we therefore have jurisdiction to review it. It is true that the general rule is that an adjudicatory decision resolving only liability and not damages is not final. Provides that an order </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug10/03-50419-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Flourogas is a small English company that develops and manufactures fluorine generators. Who was also its president. It was owned by Graham FOC is a Texas company that The began with two brothers. The process involves spraying chemicals onto silicon wafers while those wafers are inside a chamber. cleaning. Chambers are cleaned with nitrogen trifluoride (or NF3) gas. One of these Yet Fluorine has companies have looked for alternatives to NF3. potential alternatives is fluorine gas (or F2). its own problems ­ in particular. It is extremely dangerous and difficult to handle. As even the Siegeles have admitted. The MOU was a handwritten document drafted by Fluorogas Frederick Siegele over the course of a weekend. contends that the parties planned to eventually replace the MOU with a more formal contract. The MOU granted FOC </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1206.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Challenging the court's instructions (1) that the jury could not award damages to Klesch under the last of several successive written agreements signed (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. (3) that Liberty Media would be liable for damages only if it was a but for cause of those damages. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm. This possibility appears to have sparked Liberty's interest in the deal. The letter stated that there was still no definitive agreement between the parties. The acquisition was still premised on the condition that all its aspects </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1076.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nathan & Voltz and Carolyn Koch were on brief for plaintiff. Were on brief for City of Boston. Was under staffed at a time when homeless persons in the City were in need of services. Lynch alleged that the statement that she must </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1710.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellant.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/10/99-1372.htm">99-1372 -- SIGNATURE DEVELOPMENT CO. INC. V. ROYAL INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA -- 10/31/2000<BR></A><BR> BACKGROUND <p> Signature is a developer of custom homes. Jaudon that it was a carrier for Signature from January 1. That </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-5037.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel were Gerald M. Are the owners and managers of properties that have provided low income rental housing under several programs sponsored by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Once 20 years had passed since the mortgage was issued. HUD was required to ensure that the properties would continue to operate as low income housing and that the property owners satisfied certain other requirements. One of the requirements was that property owners had to be in compliance with all applicable HUD regulations governing the condition of the properties. 24 C.F.R. § 248.145(a)(12). The loans that HUD guaranteed were known as section 241(f) equity loans because the guarantees were authorized under section 241(f) of the National Housing Act. HUD refused to process the necessary paperwork on the ground that Carabetta was not in compliance with certain HUD regulations. Schedule D listed 25 properties the parties agree were to be insured under this provision. Another property was inadvertently omitted from 06 5037. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0633n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Certain information requested was for printers not covered by the LOU. 2 No. 05 3876 Tharo Sys. v. cab Produkttechnik Tharo filed a complaint in state court. A federal court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant if jurisdiction is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2001/99-11130.man.html">UNITED STATES V. 1461 W. 42ND ST., HIALEAH, FLORIDA (5/22/2001, NO. 99-11130)<BR></A><BR> This appeal deals with the considerations that ensue when real property that the government has seized in civil forfeiture proceedings is foreclosed by the property's mortgagee so that when it is time to return the property. We are presented here with the task of tailoring an appropriate remedy under such circumstances when due process was violated pursuant to </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962143.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Shaw alleged that he was fired because of his race. The case was removed to federal district court on the basis of diversity of citizenship. Titan argued: (1) that because it had introduced evidence and argument for the proposition that Shaw was discharged pursuant to a legitimate reduction in its workforce. The punitive damages award was reduced to $350. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/08/031443P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 3) found that the compensatory award was supported by the evidence. Facts Conseco is a Delaware financial services company with its principal place of business in Minnesota. The facts and issues in this case arise from actions taken by North American to acquire information about individuals that is contained in Conseco's confidential files. Which is sent to Conseco's branch offices throughout the country in the form of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/02/99-5159.htm">99-5159 -- WALKER V. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC. -- 02/27/2001<BR></A><BR> 2601 2654) and various tort claims under Oklahoma common law.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/04/062760P.pdf">N:\DOCS\MELISSA\06-2760.CHRISTENSEN V. TITAN.FINAL OPINION2.WPD<BR></A><BR> Christensen was 58 1/2 years old and went on short term disability leave to have knee replacement surgery. Considered Christensen his most qualified and experienced supervisor and told Christensen that he would have his job when he returned from the disability leave. While Christensen was still on disability leave. All Quintak employees who wanted to work at Titan were required to submit applications. Warren told Christensen that while everyone was required to fill out an application. Christensen was on his list of people who were needed to run the operation. Christensen submitted an application while he was still on disability leave and kept in contact with Warren. Warren assured Christensen that he would have his job as third shift supervisor whenever the doctor allowed him to return to work. Who told Christensen that he was not conducting any more interviews and that Christensen needed to have Warren schedule him for an interview with Luthin. Luthin </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/12/033914P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We agree with the district court:1 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1AD54E2A73721D1F88256E5A00707A3D/$file/9935898.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is another appeal arising out of the verdict and judgment of five billion dollars in punitive damages against Exxon Corporation following the disastrous 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill into Prince William Sound. We here consider whether some of the plaintiffs who settled with Exxon before certification of the mandatory punitive damages class are entitled to share in the allocation of the punitive damages judgment. Which is challenged in a related appeal. At issue in this appeal is the district court's July 23. 1999 order granting final approval to the plan of allocation of punitive damages to the seafood processors who were included in the plaintiff punitive damages class. The approved </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept99/98-8899.man.html">HARRIS V. GARNER (9/30/1999, NO. 98-8899)<BR></A><BR> Or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0218p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Thoroughbred appeals the district court's denial of: (1) an award of actual damages for infringing software that was not used by Dice Corp.'s customers. (3) attorney's fees on the ground that Thoroughbred was not a prevailing party. Is entitled to an award for attorney's fees. I. BACKGROUND Thoroughbred is a New Jersey based company that develops and sells business accounting computer software. A license is required for each copy of the software purchased. Certain modules will not operate without others. It is permissible to move the software from one computer to another. As long as the software is deleted from the first computer. A user must inform Thoroughbred when software is moved. It is undisputed that Thoroughbred has valid. Dice Corp. is a Michigan based company that provides computer hardware with pre installed software to its business customers in the security and alarm monitoring industry. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/40EF69E0B1C8B8C38825728000821E44/$file/0436021.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 over this appeal of the final judgment of the district court. I. Phillips was convicted in state court of second degree manslaughter and sentenced to an indeterminate term of ten years imprisonment. Was subsequently incarcerated for other crimes. He was seeking access to PHILLIPS v. He was called to the library on June 8. He was unable to bind the petition on that date. Rossi/Hust </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2001/99-11130.man.html">UNITED STATES V. 1461 W. 42ND ST., HIALEAH, FLORIDA (5/22/2001, NO. 99-11130)<BR></A><BR> This appeal deals with the considerations that ensue when real property that the government has seized in civil forfeiture proceedings is foreclosed by the property's mortgagee so that when it is time to return the property. We are presented here with the task of tailoring an appropriate remedy under such circumstances when due process was violated pursuant to </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/01/033673P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was not supported by evidence that satisfied the requirements of Fed. Cree and Jurgens's plan was to develop a product to link computers at one location to data storage networks at other locations through the Internet or other Wide Area Network using Internet Protocols. Which was developing data storage networking products. Schrandt accepted NuSpeed's offer and gave Storage Technology oral notice on or about December 3 that he was leaving. While Schrandt was still at Storage Technology. That he was going to work for NuSpeed. NuSpeed hired twenty two more engineers who were or had been employed at Storage Technology. A new open Internet protocol was published. NuSpeed announced that it was developing a device to transmit data using the iSCSI protocol. Although the SN 5420 was 2 indeed the first iSCSI device to market. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkyODNfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9283_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiff contends both awards were insufficient. Who was a member of the panel. The appeal is being decided by the remaining two members of the panel. Who are in agreement. R. 0.14(b). 1 * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 is affirmed. The award of attorney's fees is vacated and remanded for further explanation and/or reconsideration. Which plaintiff contends were insufficient. We vacate the award and remand because we cannot tell from the explanations given by the district court whether the court's ruling was consistent with governing law. Kassim's lease was not recorded. Because the owner of the property was delinquent in paying $11. Was aware of the Victory Market. Notice of the foreclosure proceeding was sent only to the owner. No notice was given to Kassim. A default judgment of foreclosure was entered on April 7. This was the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3826.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was responsible for the redevelopment. Levin was responsible for finishing the remainder of the redevelopment plan. A synopsis of the agreement is as follows: Levin was required to purchase land obtained by the DRA and construct buildings on it. Plans were behind schedule and the parcel sizes were constantly being changed by the DRA. Levin objected to the closing date because there was. The DRA refused to extend the closing date and notified Levin that it was in breach but took no other action. A major goal of the redevelopment project was to find an entity to serve as an anchor tenant. The DeForest Library Board was willing to sign the agreement. That there was a secret meeting between the DeForest Library Board and the DRA in which the DRA suggested that the Board delay the library development plan. The DRA contends that Levin's construction manager was present and thus the meeting was not secret. The Liaison Requirement One of the main disputes in this case is the liaison requirement under Section 2.5 of the contract. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/96-6254.htm">96-6254 -- VINING V. ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL GROUP INC. -- 07/06/1998<BR></A><BR> Failure to order a new trial because the jury verdict was the product of passion and prejudice. Arguing that in the event a new trial is ordered. Claiming that Milford had misrepresented material health history in his insurance application and that the Policy was issued in reliance upon this misrepresentation. Milford's visit was not precipitated by any symptoms or medical reasons. I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT I DO NOT PRESENTLY HAVE. NOR HAVE I EVER HAD. NOR HAVE I BEEN TOLD I HAVE. NOR HAVE I BEEN TREATED WITHIN THE PRECEDING 12 MONTHS FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING: ANY HEART DISEASE. Sullivan was his only medical visit in the twelve months preceding the Policy purchase date. Enterprise does not have a claims manual or any written guidelines specifying when a claim is payable or not. Cluck never paid a claim if she had any reason to doubt whether a person's medical history was inconsistent with the health disclaimer included on the insurance application. Cluck did not investigate whether Sidler was informed of Milford's medical history. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkyODMgdyBlcnJhdGEucGRm/03-9283%20w%20errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiff contends both awards were insufficient. Who was a member of the panel. The appeal is being decided by the remaining two members of the panel. Who are in agreement. The judgment awarding damages is affirmed. The award of attorney's fees is vacated and remanded for further explanation and/or reconsideration. Which plaintiff contends were insufficient. We vacate the award and remand because we cannot tell from the explanations given by the district court whether the court's ruling was consistent with governing law. Kassim's lease was not recorded. Because the owner of the property was delinquent in paying $11. Was aware of the Victory Market. Notice of the foreclosure proceeding was sent only to the owner. No notice was given to Kassim. A default judgment of foreclosure was entered on April 7. This was the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept99/98-8899.man.html">HARRIS V. GARNER (9/30/1999, NO. 98-8899)<BR></A><BR> Or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1998/98a1999p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> D.C. 20006 *Judge Seitz heard argument in this matter but was unable to clear the opinion. 2 GARY R. We will affirm the District Court's decertification order and its grant of summary judgment. 6 I. Ciaran McNally are Pennsylvania residents who began smoking cigarettes before the age of 15 and have smoked for many years. The defendants are The American Tobacco Company. Inc. have been dismissed from this action without prejudice. Industries p.l.c. was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction by order of the District Court dated June 21. Finding that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/07/992628P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That EFCO's evidence was insufficient to support any of its jury verdicts. Arguing that it is entitled to prejudgment interest on its judgment and attorneys' fees for the prosecution of its trade secrets claim. We affirm the district court in all respects.3 FACTS EFCO and Symons are competitors in the concrete forming system trade. Among the products both companies make are metal panels that can be joined together to create large modular systems. Which is poured into the metal systems and allowed to set. The metal forms are removed. The panels are reusable. Are manufactured in various sizes to accommodate different applications. During that time he was instrumental to EFCO's engineering operations. Was intimately involved in the development of one of EFCO's new products. The Super Stud is a metal beam designed to support the concrete forming system by acting as a buttress. Because Phillips was prohibited from working with Symons as a result of his severance agreement. Whereby Phillips was paid by a third party. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct2000/994024.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Reasoning that the funds' injuries were too remote from. We hold that because the hospitals' damages are too speculative and their injuries are too remote from the tobacco companies' alleged wrongdoing. Proximate cause is lacking. Thus the hospitals do not have standing to sue. I. Factual Background and Procedural History The appellants are sixteen charitable not for profit Pennsylvania hospitals (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F0489AE517323C06882569ED006231B9/$file/9935898.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is another appeal arising out of the verdict and judgment of five billion dollars in pun