Inc.Of counsel on the brief were Peter W. With him on the brief were Robert L. Which are also called radiometers.
OPINION/ORDER
The data collected by the Commission pursuant to section 1606 of Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations is maintained in an electronic database. The Commission's database provided the foundation of information for the Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star program and is used frequently by consumers. Claim that these California regulations are preempted by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION were adopted but before they went into effect. The district court held that the California regulations are preempted. 517 (1992). [1] To determine whether California's regulations are preempted by EPCA. We are instructed to first
OPINION/ORDER
McDermott Will & Emery LLP. Circuit Judge: This is another in a series of cases arising out of the energy crisis that occurred in California and other western states in 2000 and 2001. We are asked to review the decision by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (
OPINION/ORDER
Inc. was on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellee. Because we conclude that the energy related components of HUD and FmHA utility reimbursements are excluded by statute from income under the Food Stamp Act. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND The defendant appellees are the Secretary of USDA (Secretary) and the Commissioner of the Maine Department of Human Services. Plaintiffs are a class of tenants receiving food stamps. In privately owned FmHA assisted housing.1 1The class includes [a]ll the persons in the State of Maine who will receive or who have received FmHA and/or HUD utility [reimbursements] anytime since March 1. 1990 and whose food stamp benefits were or will be 2 Plaintiffs.
OPINION/ORDER
Chief Judge: The fundamental question in this appeal from a district court order of remand is whether we have appellate jurisdiction in light of the limitations of 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). We hold that we have jurisdiction to review the district court's ruling on substantive issues of controlling law on the merits of the case. Hold that the claims against the U.S. government agencies should have been dismissed rather than remanded to state court. BACKGROUND The underlying consolidated actions are suits arising from the energy crisis of 2000 2001. Both BPA and WAPA are agencies of the United States Government statutorily authorized to promote the development. BC Hydro is a crown corporation of the Canadian province of British Columbia created by the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority Act of 1964. PowerEx is a wholly owned subsidiary of BC Hydro. Arguing that they were entitled to be dismissed from the action because they enjoyed sovereign immunity as agencies of the U.S. government. BC Hydro argued for dismissal on the ground that it was an immune foreign sovereign as defined by the FSIA.
OPINION/ORDER
Nearly 200 petitions for review of the various FERC orders have been filed in our Court. Were the proper subject of the refund proceedings instituted by FERC. The net effect of our decision is to preserve the scope of the existing FERC refund proceedings. (2) FERC's denial of relief for energy sales in which CERS was the purchaser. Tucson Electric Power Company. 22 3 Also before us in this case are the Public Entities'4 and the Bonneville Power Administration's petitions for review of FERC's determination that it had authority to order relief for certain transactions known as
OPINION/ORDER
McDermott Will & Emery. Nearly 200 petitions for review of the various FERC orders have been filed in our Court. Were the proper subject of the refund proceedings instituted by FERC. The net effect of our decision is to preserve the scope of the existing FERC refund proceedings. (2) FERC's denial of relief for energy sales in which CERS was the purchaser. Also before us in this case are the Public Entities'4 and the Bonneville Power Administration's petitions for review of FERC's determination that it had authority to order relief for certain transactions known as
OPINION/ORDER
The data collected by the Commission pursuant to section 1606 of Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations is maintained in an electronic database. The Commission's database provided the foundation of information for the Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star program and is used frequently by consumers. Claim that these California regulations are preempted by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. After these regulations were adopted but before they went into effect. The district court held that the California regulations are preempted. To determine whether California's regulations are preempted by EPCA. We are instructed to first
With him on the brief was Thomas C. With him on the brief was David . With him on the brief were Gerald A. ) to refund excess revenues collected under energy sales contracts was unreasonable. ) were entitled. Because the Court of Federal Claims erred in determining that Western's refund methodology was unreasonable. The dam was later named the Hoover Dam. Firm energy was described a pre defined minimum amount of energy that the Secretary reasonably expected the Hoover Dam to generate each year. Seeid. For example. The total amount of firm energy was to be 205 billion kilowatt hours. Secondary energy was defined as the amount of energy generated in any given year in excess of firm energy. Seeid. Unlike the firm energy. The yearly availability of secondary energy was speculative and depended upon the vicissitudes of the Colorado River's hydrology. These rate setting determinations were to be made at five year intervals. Rates were set so as to ensure that the revenues collected from the sale of energy would ".
OPINION/ORDER
The appeal was not submitted as NRG Energy. Which was in bankruptcy proceedings. Argued the case for the appellant and was on the briefs. Were also on the briefs. Argued the case for the appellees and was on the joint briefs of the appellees. Hixson were also on the joint briefs as attorneys for the same parties. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the brief of amici curiae State of Washington and State of Oregon in support of plaintiff. 2004 is hereby amended as follows: At page 8863 of the slip opinion. Delete the parenthetical quotation and add the following two sentences at the conclusion of footnote 17 as follows: At issue are not state regulatory schemes for employment discrimination. Which might indirectly and unintentionally have some possible effect on energy prices. The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Circuit Judge: We must decide whether federal removal jurisdiction lies over California state court actions alleging that several power companies fraudulently failed to deliver reserve energy that might otherwise have helped to avert the state's energy crises of 2000 and 2001.
OPINION/ORDER
The appeal was not submitted as NRG Energy. Which was in bankruptcy proceedings. Argued the case for the appellant and was on the briefs. Were also on the briefs. Argued the case for the appellees and was on the joint briefs of the appellees. Hixson were also on the joint briefs as attorneys for the same parties. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the joint PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA v. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the brief of amici curiae State of Washington and State of Oregon in support of plaintiff. Circuit Judge: We must decide whether federal removal jurisdiction lies over California state court actions alleging that several power companies fraudulently failed to deliver reserve energy that might otherwise have helped to avert the state's energy crises of 2000 and 2001. Perhaps the culmination of this rethinking was California's decision in 1996 to initiate an aggressive market experiment to deregulate and to restructure its electricity markets.
OPINION/ORDER
Argued the case and was on the briefs of petitioners Nevada Power Company and Sierra Pacific Power Company. Were also on the briefs as attorneys for the same parties. Argued the case and was on the briefs of petitioner Southern California Water Company. Lyons was also on the briefs as attorney for the same party. Argued the case and was on the briefs of petitioner Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County. Were also on the briefs as attorneys for the same party. 19546 PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT v. Were on the briefs of petitioner Office of the Nevada Attorney General. Argued the case and was on the briefs of the respondent. Were also on the briefs as attorneys for the respondent. Was on the brief of intervenor Public Utilities Commission of Nevada. Were on the joint brief of the intervenors. Were on the joint brief of the intervenors. Were on the brief of intervenor Mirant Americas Energy Marketing LP. Will & Emery LLP. Were on the brief of intervenor Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. Argued the case and was on the joint brief of the interve PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT v.
OPINION/ORDER
The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Brian Broaddus [hereinafter
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: The California energy crisis of 2000 and 2001 is a subject that is well known to this court and to the public.1 Following 1 See California ex rel. Various non public utilities which somewhat confusingly are public. Are not classified by federal statute as public utilities challenge the refund orders. Are not
OPINION/ORDER
SER contends that PP&L impermissibly curtailed purchases of SER generated electric energy and that SER was therefore unable to compete with PP&L in the provision of electric energy to consumers in the retail market and resellers in the wholesale market. SER is PP&L's supplier. That PP&L's generation curtailment policy does not create an injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent. We will affirm. Any person who owns or operates facilities used to transmit or sell electric energy in interstate commerce is subject to the jurisdiction and regulatory power of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (
OPINION/ORDER
Who are eight small power producing companies. Conditions and interpretation of which is governed by a complex state and federal regulatory scheme. Plaintiffs contend that Consumers Energy is not paying them contractually agreed upon amounts. They have sought relief in several different forums over the past several years. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is whether the district court properly declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act. Plaintiffs argue on appeal that the complaint was not one solely for declaratory judgment and the district court erred in treating it as such. I. Plaintiffs are eight small power producers that sell power to Consumers Energy Company. The sale of power from these small producers is governed by a complex set of federal and state regulations. Plaintiffs are nonutility power producers known as
OPINION/ORDER
We consider another piece of the California energy crisis puzzle.1 Before us are petitions for review from the California Independent System Operator (
OPINION/ORDER
With them on the briefs were William R. With them on the brief was Jay L. With him on the briefs were J. Open access is the essence of Orders 888 and 889. Open access transmission is expected to increase competition from alternative power suppliers. Are intended to create a market in which customers may purchase power from any of a number of suppliers. Will no longer have to purchase power from its local utility but instead may seek cheaper power anywhere in the country. All key players in the electricity market have challenged various provisions of Orders 888 and 889. Utili ties have been heavily regulated at both the federal and state levels. Economies of scale have justified the construction of large (greater than 500 MW) generation facilities. Techno logical advances in the 1970s and 1980s have permitted small plants to operate efficiently as well. These alternative suppliers have created a wholesale market for low cost power. They have and will continue to exercise that market power in order to maintain and increase market share.
OPINION/ORDER
With them on the briefs were William R. With them on the brief was Jay L. With him on the briefs were J. Open access is the essence of Orders 888 and 889. Open access transmission is expected to increase competition from alternative power suppliers. Are intended to create a market in which customers may purchase power from any of a number of suppliers. Will no longer have to purchase power from its local utility but instead may seek cheaper power anywhere in the country. All key players in the electricity market have challenged various provisions of Orders 888 and 889. Utili ties have been heavily regulated at both the federal and state levels. Economies of scale have justified the construction of large (greater than 500 MW) generation facilities. Techno logical advances in the 1970s and 1980s have permitted small plants to operate efficiently as well. These alternative suppliers have created a wholesale market for low cost power. They have and will continue to exercise that market power in order to maintain and increase market share.
OPINION/ORDER
It was not material and therefore did not justify Lightning's nonperformance. The amounts and prices for particular deliveries of natural gas were established by negotiated individual confirmation contracts entered into in accordance with the Master Agreement. The arrangement was to last one year. After which it was to continue from month to month until terminated by either party after 30 days' notice. Each of which was duly governed by a confirmation contract stating the terms of the particular transaction and signed by both parties. Statoil's corporate name was changed to Hess Energy. Lightning appeared to have no problem with Amerada Hess' involvement in the administration of the confirmation contracts between Lightning and Hess Energy. That Hess Energy's correspondence address was changed to that of Amerada Hess' Alexandria. When the parties were unable to agree on prices. Amerada Hess faxed a letter to Lightning that same day in which it stated that Amerada Hess and Lightning
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was Joseph E. With him on the brief were Douglas W. Is unambiguous. Contends that s 3(17)(B) is ambiguous and that the court must defer to FERC's reasonable interpretation of the statute inasmuch as it fosters the congressional purpose of encouraging the devel opment of power production from alternative fuel sources by addressing circumstances that Congress could not have fore seen. While there is a certain appeal to FERC's final point. Section 3(17) is plainly crafted to allow small power producers to engage in a rather carefully defined set of exceptional uses for fossil fuels. FERC's interpretation of s 3(17) in the orders under review is also contradicted by FERC's own regulation. Is inconsistent with the unambiguous terms of 1 Section 3(17) of the Federal Power Act (
the brief were Douglas W. Is unambiguous. Contends
that s 3(17)(B) is ambiguous and that the court must defer to
FERC's reasonable interpretation of the statute inasmuch as
it fosters the congressional purpose of encouraging the devel
opment of power production from alternative fuel sources by
addressing circumstances that Congress could not have fore
seen.
While there is a certain appeal to FERC's final point. Section 3(17) is plainly crafted to allow small power
producers to engage in a rather carefully defined set of
exceptional uses for fossil fuels. The rather obvious alternative
reading offered by Edison gives effect to all of the text.
FERC's interpretation of s 3(17) in the orders under review
is also contradicted by FERC's own regulation. Is inconsistent with the unambiguous terms of
1 Section 3(17) of the Federal Power Act (
OPINION/ORDER
Judge McKeown was drawn as a replacement judge. 13124 CALIFORNIA v. That California energy consumers are entitled to as much as $2.8 billion in refunds. Was designed to dismantle the investor owned. Vertically integrated2 utilities were required to divest a substantial portion of their power generation plants. Which was created The Commission is an agency established by the California Constitution. One of the Commission's duties is the regulation of retail rates for electricity charged by investor owned utilities in California. The Commission's restructuring order is contained in Re Proposed Policies Governing Restructuring California's Electric Services Industry and Reforming Legislation. There are three major vertical components: generation. Was to provide a centralized auction market for the trading of electricity. It was thus deemed a public utility pursuant to the Federal Power Act. Which was to be responsible for managing California's electricity transmission grid and balancing electrical supply and demand.
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Floyd L. Was on the brief for Alabama Public Service Commission in support of petitioner and reversal of orders. Stern was on the brief of amicus curiae Florida Public Service Commission in support of petitioner and urging reversal. With her on the brief was David E. Were on the brief for amicus curiae Georgia Public Service Commission in support of petitioner. With him on the brief were Cynthia A. With him on the brief was Neil L. The Commission found that because the connection facilities in each case were located
OPINION/ORDER
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. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Roger Creger is the sole owner of Future Energy. The policy was purchased through the Association for Independent Managers and lists the Association for Independent Managers. Future Energy was to offer advice on how maintenance should be performed and Entergy employees were to perform the Section II of the policy explains who is considered an insured. If you are designated in the Declarations as: a. You and your spouse are insureds. Only with respect to the conduct of a business of which you are the sole owner. . . . 2. Each of the following is also an insured: a. Was the Future Energy employee sent to consult to George Brewer and Malcolm Goodman. The Entergy employees who were to perform the maintenance. Their alcoholsoaked rags burst into flames and they were severely injured. Hermitage denied coverage because neither was a named insured under the policy.
OPINION/ORDER
The case involves contract related claims against energy wholesalers by a public utility which contends it was forced to pay exorbitant prices for electricity. The utility's case was dismissed by the district court because its claims were found to be preempted. Washington (
OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: On page 28. Were on brief. Were on brief. Was on brief. Were on brief. Were on brief. Will & Emery. (2) make findings regarding allegations of anticompetitive consequences of the merger that were unique to Holyoke. Northeast Utilities Service Company (
OPINION/ORDER
If an entity is not yet ready to construct a nuclear power plant but desires to seek early approval for a potential construction site. If the benefits are not discussed. An admissible contention is one that provides sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists on a material issue of fact or law. 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vi). Exelon is a merchant generator. Exelon is not required to supply the energy needs of any particular area. That is. The report concluded that several of the alternatives were not viable baseload energy alternatives because. Were not reasonable baseload alternatives because they are intermittent energy sources and therefore cannot maintain continuous full rated capacity (the sun is not always shining. The wind is not always blowing). Reasoning that energy efficiency is not an alternative generation method that independent power generators like Exelon typically employ. Or facilities using a combination of these alternatives were not environmentally preferable to the proposed nuclear facility.
OPINION/ORDER
Packaged them for the retail consumer. 3M is a manufacturing powerhouse. It was NicSand's only competing supplier of DIY retail automotive coated abrasives and now. It is a monopolist of what NicSand alleges to be a distinct economic market. The wholesale and retail markets for DIY retail automotive abrasives are small and highly concentrated. Although the retailers were not contractually bound to stay with a particular supplier. The gravamen of the Amended Complaint is that 3M monopolized and attempted to monopolize the abrasives market through the exclusivity provisions of the contracts that the discounts accompanied. It is possible to draw certain conclusions from the allegations. The complaint notes that sales by the six largest retailers accounted for 80% of the retail market and that 3M executed exclusive contracts with four leaving only Wal Mart (which was subject to the wrap around program) and Pep Boys as possible distributors for NicSand's products. This change would have increased 3M's (retail) market share from 20% to 73% (assuming that NicSand and 3M split the Pep Boys's business evenly).
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Cynthia S. With him on the briefs was Wallace F. With him on the briefs were Noel H. With them on the brief was Robert H. With him on the brief were Ilia Levitine and Stephen G. Roby were on the brief for intervenors Wisconsin Public Power Inc. Jr. were on the brief for intervenor Duke Energy Shared Services. Is a nonprofit corporation that controls the transmission of electricity over a grid spanning 15 Midwestern states. Its original tariff was approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and went into effect in 2002. Who are electricity sellers in MISO's markets subject to the new tariff's rules and liabilities. Who are electricity buyers under contracts predating the establishment of MISO. Any such rate or charge that is not just and reasonable is hereby declared to be unlawful.
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was Betsy R. With him on the brief were Jay L. Glenn were on the brief for intervenor Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation. FERC determines whether the new rates are
Appeal the district court's ruling that the state's statutes regulating the storage and transportation of spent nuclear fuel are preempted by federal law. SeeSkull Valley Band of Goshute Indians v. The Utah officials argue that the district court should not have reached the merits of this dispute because (1) the plaintiffs who challenge the statutes
OPINION/ORDER
We are asked to determine whether the Bonneville Power Administration (the
The plant was built by its corporate predecessor near Southern's mainline system in order to obtain the most direct natural gas service available. See Arcadian Corp. v. Arcadian sought direct service from Southern which would have necessitated the construction of approximately 140 feet of connecting pipeline to physically link Arcadian's plant with Southern's pipeline. Contending that its decision not to provide direct service to Arcadian was a business decision that did not violate the NGA or its tariff.
The plant was built by its corporate predecessor near Southern's mainline system in order to obtain the most direct natural gas service available. See Arcadian Corp. v. Arcadian sought direct service from Southern which would have necessitated the construction of approximately 140 feet of connecting pipeline to physically link Arcadian's plant with Southern's pipeline. Contending that its decision not to provide direct service to Arcadian was a business decision that did not violate the NGA or its tariff.
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: This appeal is from the dismissal of all counts of a complaint filed by Crossroads Cogeneration Corporation (
OPINION/ORDER
An agreement its predecessor entered into with Pillowtex.1 The District Court denied Duke's motion on the grounds that the MESA was not a true lease. The sole issue in this appeal is whether the District Court correctly determined that the MESA entered into between Pillowtex and Duke prior to Pillowtex's bankruptcy filing was a secured financing arrangement rather than a true lease. The MESA was a secured financing arrangement. 1. Facts and Procedural Background Because the nature of the MESA is at issue. The production equipment was provided to Pillowtex by Duke pursuant to separate stand alone agreements. Which were recorded as true leases on Pillowtex's books. Only the nature of the parties' arrangements concerning the energysavings equipment is at issue in this appeal. Which were installed in nine of Pillowtex's facilities and a new wastewater heat recovery system that included hot water heating equipment (the
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Peter D. Arguing that the Court of Federal Claims erred in computing the damages to which it was entitled. Which were made following a trial. The judgment in favor of North Star is reversed.1 The case is remanded to the Court of Federal Claims. Which is instructed to enter judgment in favor of the United States and to dismiss North Star's Second Amended Complaint. It is not necessary for us to reach North Star's cross appeal. The pertinent facts are not in dispute. WAPA is one of four power marketing administrations within the U.S. WAPA is in the business of moving power. A power control area is a bounded subsystem within the larger national power grid within which electrical power levels are maintained at a level equaling their As noted. North Star was a third party beneficiary of the contract between AEPCO and WAPA. This adjustment of power supply to meet changing demand is known as
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Merrill L. With him on the brief was Dennis Lane. With him on the brief were Donna M. Circuit Judge: These are petitions for judicial review of a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ruling that a 60 day notice of termination rule does not apply to power sales contracts terminated by 21 of the counterparties of the Power Company of America (PCA). PCA is a power marketer. Especially in regard to the transaction documents they are required to file with the Commission. The present dispute is about the notice PCA's counterpar ties had to give before unilaterally terminating their con tracts. Is whether the terminated contracts were
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were James A. With him on the brief were Jay L. Pierre F. de Ravel d'Esclapon was on the brief for interve nor H.Q. Energy
OPINION/ORDER
2 the EPA created a scheme in which the Environmental Appeals Board (
It bars all qui tam suits that are based upon publicly disclosed information unless the person bringing the action is an original source of the information. The primary questions presented in this appeal are whether the relator's suit is based upon a
OPINION/ORDER
The Midland facility was originally planned to be a nuclear power plant. Bischof was the Complete Demolition employee who was primarily responsible for attempting to sell the nuclear equipment. The Consumers Energy employee who was primarily responsible for investment recovery. Techlink is a marketing. Bischof indicated that he was interested in working with Techlink to sell the reactor along with any other nuclear equipment from the facility. Complete Demolition's work for Consumers Energy at the Midland facility was set to end in 1997. Bischof explains that Techlink was to conduct the negotiations and communications with potential buyers and that Bischof was to handle all contacts and dealings with Consumers Energy and Pitsch. This alleged agreement is referred to as the alleged 1996 agreement. No Midland nuclear equipment was sold in 1997 or 1998. The alleged substitution of Power Tek for Bischof is referred to as the alleged 1999 agreement or the alleged 1999 substitution. Two sales of nuclear equipment from the Midland facility were effectuated.
Argued for plaintiff appellant.With him on the brief were Lisa J. Mso bidi font family:
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Edward H. With him on the brief were Joseph M. Specifically to protect maintenance workers in electric power generation plants from being injured or killed by the accidental activation of equipment while they are servicing it. A lock is a mechanical device that keeps the equipment from being energized until the lock is removed. A tag is a warning placed to caution others not to operate the device. After the maintenance is completed. The group servicing provision applies when
OPINION/ORDER
P.C. were on brief for appellants and Peter W. Was on brief for appellee. Background Background Plaintiffs are non utility power producers known as
OPINION/ORDER
ZOLP 2979 ceedings: (1) the district court's factual finding that the involved stock was
OPINION/ORDER
The district court is affirmed. I Plaintiff/Appellant Caballo Coal Company (Caballo) is a coal producer with mines in Wyoming's Powder River Basin. Plaintiff/Appellant Peabody COALSALES Company is a sales agent for Caballo. Caballo and Peabody COALSALES Company are wholly owned subsidiaries of Peabody Holding Company. Which in turn is a wholly owned subsidiary of Peabody Energy Corporation. American Electric Power Service Corporation (AEP Service) are wholly owned subsidiaries of American Electric Power Company. AEP Energy is a coal trader that manages coal procurement for its parent companies' power plants. AEP Energy is not a coal producer and does not presently control any mining operations or coal reserves. Are the current parties to a fortyyear coal supply agreement signed in 1974 by IMPC and a predecessor of Caballo (Agreement). Are Caballo's and IMPC's agents for administration of the Agreement. The parties have the option to call for a price reopener every five years. Preceding the end of the then current contract period BUYER will accept SELLER's last offer or obtain and present SELLER with a firm.
OPINION/ORDER
We are presented with two decisions of the district court dated May 18. We are asked to decide whether the district court erred in determining that the bankruptcy court was not authorized to compel the Internal Revenue Service to reallocate tax payments first to trust fund taxes. We will affirm the decisions of the district court. I. We feel compelled to set forth the facts in detail because these bankruptcy cases are so heavily fact intensive. KBS is a Pennsylvania corporation formed for the sole purpose of acquiring and operating a modular home manufacturing business. Were its sole owners. That payment was not accompanied by a quarterly return. 468 were
OPINION/ORDER
Was a mere pretext. We affirm on the alternative basis that Grosjean failed to make his prima facie case of age discrimination because he was not replaced by a person significantly younger than himself. Over the following two decades he was steadily promoted until in 1990 he joined management as a machine shop supervisor at First Energy's Bayshore. He was reassigned to a position as yard supervisor. Grosjean was instructed in these duties by John Gallagher. Their supervisor during the relevant period was the director of production. There appear to have been no significant problems with Grosjean's performance. Dresner and Grosjean had a series of meetings to discuss what Dresner felt were inadequacies in management style. The common element of these complaints was that Dresner considered Grosjean to be neither sufficiently strict with the workers under his supervision nor loyal to Dresner. Was damning with respect to his management role. Grosjean was reassigned from his supervisory position to a newly created position of planner.
These cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Petitioners Datha D. The sole issue is whether Mr. and Mrs. Burke are entitled to relief from the discharge of indebtedness income pursuant to Bowers v. We have jurisdiction to consider this appeal. See 26 U.S.C.
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Lois J. With her on the briefs was Alexan der W. With him on the briefs was Mark Chavaree. With her on the brief were John H. Were on the brief for intervenor State of Maine. Manahan were on the brief for intervenor Great Northern Paper. The petitions are denied. 1 American Rivers. Which is part of the Penobscot Mills Project.2 Constructed in 1899. Though that order was also listed in the petitions for review. 3 Interior initially recommended flows of 500 cfs and later in creased the recommendation to 945 cfs. In addition to the power and development purposes for which licenses are issued. The Commission retains authority to decide that recommended conditions are
Defendants Appellees have moved this court to dismiss these appeals for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Appellants have opposed these motions. 99 3066 are therefore GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Appellants in cases 99 3065 and 99 3066 are the states of Alabama. Plaintiffs Appellants in case 99 3102 are the states of Delaware.
An offset against future payments that Exelon (like all other utilities that produce nuclear waste) is obligated to pay into
OPINION/ORDER
We are called on once again to consider the Three Mile Island accident as we determine the appropriate standard of care for the operators of the facility. We held that the Act created no federal cause of action and was not intended to confer jurisdiction on the federal courts. The actions were remanded to the appropriate state courts. These personal injury actions were removed to federal court and consolidated in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The district court found the standard of care was set by the federal regulations: 1) prescribing the maximum permissible levels of human exposure to radiation[fn5] and 2) requiring radiation releases to be
OPINION/ORDER
The County weatherization department conducts an audit to determine what specific services are required. The County awards the job to the contractor who submitted the lowest bid for the particular combination of services unless one of several exceptions applies (e.g. the lowest bidder exceeded its bonding limit or the weatherization department determines that the job is appropriate for the County's welfare to work crew). The County's stated reason for terminating Stephens was that he falsified weatherization audits. These charges were fabricated by Judy Swendsen and Diane Hansen. Were biased against him on account of his age and race. At the time that he was fired. Stephens was the oldest employee and the only black in the County weatherization department.3 2 One set of vendor contracts (
Argued for appellant.With him on the brief were Virginia A. Argued for appellee.With him on the brief were Robert D. Empire and the Air Force entered into a contract under which Empire was to provide cogeneration
OPINION/ORDER
Those petitions were consolidated before this court. Pending resolution by the Fifth Circuit as to whether those petitioners were required to obtain a permit in the first instance. After the Fifth Circuit held that the Oil and Gas Petitioners' challenge to the application of the General Permit was not ripe for review. Before briefing was due. The discharge of pollutants into navigable waters is illegal unless authorized by a permit issued pursuant to § 402 of the Act. 33 U.S.C. § 1342. Which was feasible for regulating discharges from wastewater facilities or industrial plants. By the 1980's it became clear that the individual permitting process was unworkable to regulate storm water discharges which can occur virtually anywhere.
OPINION/ORDER
With her on the briefs were Kevin J. With him on the brief were Cynthia A. Inc. is the surviving parent corporation in a merger of two already quite diverse companies. Dominion contends that the Compliance Order was far broader than the order on which it purportedly rested. Was thus arbitrary and capricious. Domin ion was a holding company with predominantly electric utility interests. Was a holding company with predominantly gas utility interests: . Was broader than the firms' original proposal. Since it included electric affiliates regardless of whether they were free to sell at market rates or whether they transacted directly with CNGT. This would have enabled non operating staff shared by the pipeline and its affiliated energy companies to receive restricted information (without making contemporane ous disclosure) so long as the employees in fact did not act as conduits. Holding that an
OPINION/ORDER
Opinion by Judge Rymer *Spencer Abraham is substituted for his predecessor. Which provide (among other things) a process for determining whether certain radioactive waste streams are
OPINION/ORDER
That challenge hinges on whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (
OPINION/ORDER
With her on the brief were Cynthia A. Southern California was committed to buying electricity for its retail customers in two wholesale contracts: (1) a baseload contract with Dynegy Power Marketing for 12 megawatts (
OPINION/ORDER
Opinion by Judge Rymer *Spencer Abraham is substituted for his predecessor. Which provide (among other things) a process for determining whether certain radioactive waste streams are
OPINION/ORDER
IV were on the brief for petitioner. Were on the brief for respondent. Parrish were on the brief for intervenor International Paper Company. 2 Before: Judges. Serving the QF's host load under retail rates was unreasonable and unduly discriminatory. The Commission's ruling was intended to benefit customers by treating QFs who wish to participate in the market for the wholesale sale of electric energy comparably to other sellers in that market. We deny the petition for review. ****
OPINION/ORDER
Kaiser also requests a determination that its claims be decided by arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause in a contract between Kaiser and BPA.1 We have exclusive jurisdiction over the petitions pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 839f(e)(5). The petitions are timely because they were filed within ninety days of BPA's final decision. Kaiser's claims are not arbitrable. BPA's decisions were reasonable and not contrary to statutes. BACKGROUND Respondent Bonneville Power Administration (
OPINION/ORDER
Kaiser also requests a determination that its claims be decided by arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause in a contract between Kaiser and BPA.1 We have exclusive jurisdiction over the petitions pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 839f(e)(5). The petitions are timely because they were filed within ninety days of BPA's final decision. Kaiser's claims are not arbitrable. BPA's decisions were reasonable and not contrary to statutes. BACKGROUND Respondent Bonneville Power Administration (
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were James Bradford Ramsay. With him on the brief were S. With her on the brief were Robert H. With her on the briefs were Neil L. FERC's solution in Order No. 888 was to require transmission providers. Which typically have a natural monopoly. Here we review claims advanced by two sets of petitioners (the two sets are generally aligned with each other in their positions): four utilities (
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: We must decide whether a California municipality and a California public utility which operates an auction for trading electricity are entitled to extraordinary relief from nonfinal orders of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission addressing the crisis surrounding California's restructuring of its electricity market. Several features of this complex legislation and the decisions of the California Public Utilities Commission (
OPINION/ORDER
Plaintiffs are a class of retirees from the Paducah Gas Diffusion Plant (
OPINION/ORDER
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Which is directed to a medical device used to prick a patient's finger to obtain a blood sample. The device is commonly called a
OPINION/ORDER
Contend that the restructuring was designed to shield assets worth millions of dollars from creditors. (4) the Commission's decision that the corporate reorganization was consistent with the public interest was supported by substantial evidence and was not
OPINION/ORDER
Chief Judge: The California Department of Water Resources (
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: We must decide whether a California municipality and a California public utility which operates an auction for trading electricity are entitled to extraordinary relief from nonfinal orders of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission addressing the crisis surrounding California's restructuring of its electricity market. Several features of this complex legislation and the decisions of the California Public Utilities Commission (
Of counsel was Stephen C. Have appealed from a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Which ruled against them on their request for attorney s fees.
OPINION/ORDER
While the statutory and factual background in this appeal is quite complicated. The ultimate issue is relatively straightforward: whether BPA's authority to settle out of power contracts is bound by the power exchange requirements of the Northwest Power Act (
OPINION/ORDER
We are called upon to review an arbitration award arising out of a dispute between TXU Energy Retail. After having first found that these sales were not subject to the pricing structure set forth in a 1998 Master Agreement between TXU and MME. 3 The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of MME. Finding that the panel's decision concerning attorney fees
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: This is an action brought under the Clean Air Act by an industrial consumer of electric power to obtain rights to valuable pollution emissions allowances allocated by the Environmental Protection Agency for the Kammer Generating Station. Is therefore entitled to a proportionate amount of the pollution emissions allowances. The contractual arrangement between Ormet and Ohio Power did not make Ormet a joint owner of the Kammer plant and that Ormet was therefore not entitled to a 3 proportionate share of the pollution emissions allowances allocated to the plant. Electricity is its single greatest
OPINION/ORDER
Were on consolidated brief for petitioners Bangor Hydro Electric Company. Were on consolidated brief for respondent.
OPINION/ORDER
This is an appeal from the district court's reversal of an order of the bankruptcy court imposing sanctions under Fed. The conduct for which the attorney was sanctioned grew out of litigation described in Cascade Energy & Metals Corp. v. I. This appeal relates to an adversary proceeding in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case in which Cascade Energy and Metals Corporation is the debtor. Invalidating the judgment lien on the ground that the recordation was ineffective to perfect a lien under California law. These interlocutory orders were not immediately appealable. While its appeal was pending. The motion and accompanying memorandum in support were signed by attorney Findlay. Which is applicable here. Provides in pertinent part: (a) If a recorded . . . copy of a money judgment appears to create a judgment lien on real property of a person who is not a judgment debtor . . . the . . . property owner may deliver to the judgment creditor a written demand for a recordable document releasing the lien. The demand shall be accompanied by proof to the satisfaction of the judgment creditor that . . . the property is not subject to enforcement of the judgment against the judgment debtor.
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Joseph R. With him on the brief were Greer S. Bishop were on the brief for amicus curiae Nuclear Energy Institute. The State of Nevada asked the Department of Energy for a fiscal year 2004 grant to fund its participation in an upcoming Nuclear Regulatory Commission proceeding that will determine whether the project receives a license. Nevada argues that it is entitled to a grant pursuant to section 116 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Congress believed that
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Petitioner Rocky Mountain Radar. Is prohibited by FCC rules interpreting the Communications Act of 1934. We determine that we have jurisdiction over this appeal. Consumers were advised that the Spirit II
OPINION/ORDER
That the plaintiff is not entitled to recover damages based on a contract price/market price differential. Administrative decisions which denied the plaintiff's claims for actual damages are entitled to res judicata effect. Entered into a long term coal supply contract (the
With him on the brief was Beverly J. The EPAA engendered two rounds of litigation that are relevant to this appeal.
OPINION/ORDER
We will affirm the District Court's order. The wholesale market for electrical energy is regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (
OPINION/ORDER
With her on the briefs were Kevin J. With him on the brief were Cynthia A. The Commission enacted regulations requiring a utility to purchase
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Joan Dreskin. With him on the briefs were Anne K. With him on the briefs was Brett A. With him on the brief were John S. The Act's fundamental purpose is to protect natural gas consumers from the monopoly power of natural gas pipelines. (Marketing affiliates are the separate affiliates of pipelines that sell natural gas. (ii) a factual record consisting of complaints by other sellers who were competing with pipelines' marketing affiliates and of documented abuses by pipelines and their marketing affiliates. Traders) that are affiliated with pipelines. Indicated that abuse by pipelines and non marketing affiliates was a real problem in the 4 industry. That the factual record on which FERC relied was barren and did not contain a single example of abuse involving non marketing affiliates. We therefore hold that the Order is arbitrary and capricious as applied to natural gas pipelines. We will grant the petition. Processors distill
OPINION/ORDER
Nelson were on brief. Were on brief. Bauser were on brief. The petitioners and petitioner intervenors are public interest groups. Supported by the Attorneys General of five states (who have filed a helpful amicus brief). We have studied the complex statutory and regulatory framework and scrutinized the plenitudinous administrative record. BACKGROUND
OPINION/ORDER
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. the district court. The bankruptcy court's findings of fact will be rejected only if clearly erroneous. Are reviewed de novo.
OPINION/ORDER
We find that removal was not precluded by the CAA and was thus proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). Has given the individual states a great responsibility for ensuring that national air quality standards are attained within their geographical areas. State and local governments are 2 required to develop plans that provide for implementation. So long as they are not less stringent than the national standards. The Navy facilities located in Jacksonville are subject to both the State and City air pollution regulations. The City does not claim that any are continuing in nature. While this motion was pending. The Navy argued that dismissal of the case was proper because the City instituted this action purely to recover punitive penalties. That the case was otherwise properly removed. Although the issue of removal was not certified in the interlocutory appeal. It is properly before this Court because a § 1292(b) appeal brings up the entire district court order. It was pursuant to § 1442(a)(1) that the Navy removed the case against it to federal district court.
OPINION/ORDER
The Board's order was predicated on the findings and conclusions of an administrative law judge (1) After examining the briefs and appellate record. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Johnson was entitled to benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act. Because he was completely disabled by pneumoconiosis(1) contracted. Energy West asserts that reversal is warranted because the Board improperly resolved conflicting evidence about the causes of Mr. Johnson's troubles was his longstanding smoking habit. Because we owe deference to the Board when its decision is supported by substantial. Johnson was 79 years old and a retiree who suffered from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (
OPINION/ORDER
An offset against future payments that Exelon (like all other utilities that produce nuclear waste) is obligated to pay into the Nuclear Waste Fund (
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge:* The parties are engaged in a dizzying web Pursuant to 5TH CIR. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. It is therefore unfortunate. That in denying plaintiff's request for an injunction that would have yielded finality. I. The facts and proceedings are aptly described in our prior opinion. Martin Group
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge:* The parties are engaged in a dizzying web Pursuant to 5TH CIR. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. It is therefore unfortunate. That in denying plaintiff's request for an injunction that would have yielded finality. I. The facts and proceedings are aptly described in our prior opinion. Martin Group
OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: The Slip Opinion at page 9685. Standing: REMOVE THE BEGINNING PORTION OF THE FIRST SENTENCE Despite the Aluminum Companies' half hearted attention to whether they have standing to bring their petitions. BONNEVILLE POWER ADMIN. 11579
OPINION/ORDER
With her on the briefs were Paul R. With him on the brief were Cynthia A. With him on the brief were Noel J. Inc. which have long cost sharing histories. Petitioners also contend that the Com 1 Other petitioners are Arkansas Cities and Cooperatives. We therefore turn directly to the Commis sion's threshold contention that petitioners have waived their s 205 challenge to Opinion Nos. 385 and 385 A. Provided the request is filed within 30 days of the order. 16 U.S.C. s 825l(a). Application for rehearing by the Commission is a prerequisite to seeking judicial review. No objection to the Commission's order may be raised on appeal to the court unless it was urged before the Commission on rehearing
Because we conclude that Manus was entitled to relief because of excusable neglect on its part. We will reverse. 1. Is a corporation which. Appellees in this case are referred to as
OPINION/ORDER
L.L.P. were on brief. Were on brief. After the settlement agreements were executed. 267 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2001).
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge:* The parties are engaged in a dizzying web Pursuant to 5TH CIR. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. It is therefore unfortunate. That in denying plaintiff's request for an injunction that would have yielded finality. I. The facts and proceedings are aptly described in our prior opinion. Martin Group
OPINION/ORDER
The district court held that the claims were preempted by federal law. FERC reviewed electricity rates that were cost based. The primary factor in setting the rate was the cost of producing and transmitting the electricity. Utilities were also required to give a thorough explanation of
OPINION/ORDER
Plaintiffs Rowan and Washington are former employees of Defendant Lockheed Martin Energy Systems. They were laid off by Lockheed in December 1999 when Lockheed conducted a
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were J. With him on the briefs were Lois J. With him on the brief was Thom as J. Agree with appellant that two of the agency's regulations are arbitrary and capricious. An important aspect of this statutory scheme is its regulation of subsidence caused by underground mining. There is no definition of the term in the statute or the regulations. The parties agree it is used only to describe the kind of subsidence caused by underground coal mining. A.The Angle of Draw Presumption The Association's most vigorous challenge is to the regula tion establishing a rebuttable presumption of causation: If damage to any non commercial building or occupied residential dwelling or structure related thereto occurs as a result of earth movement within an area determined by projecting a specified angle of draw from the outer most boundary of any underground mine workings to the surface of the land. The presumption will normally apply to a 30 degree angle of draw. 30 C.F.R. s 817.121(c)(4)(i) (1998). The angle of draw
The parties have submitted briefs on this issue and. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 . We dismiss the appeal because we conclude Key Energy has waived appellate review by its failure to object to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation within the required time period.
The facts surrounding appellant's failure to file timely objections are not disputed.
OPINION/ORDER
This appeal arises from four state court actions against the defendants that were separately removed to the U.S. The four cases were later consolidated to address the defendants' separately filed motions for judgment on the pleadings after the court denied the separate motions to remand. This was vitally important to Centerior in 1986 because it needed to justify the recent merger of CEI and Toledo Edison. The defendants were required to file an information return with the Internal Revenue Service reporting payments of dividends aggregating $10 or more made to any person during any calendar year. A company that furnishes an information return is required to give notice to the person who is the subject of the return by written statement under 26 U.S.C. § 6042(c) and is subject to a penalty. The IRS may instruct a corporation to deduct and withhold a specified amount of tax for dividends if the payee underreports or if there is a payee certification failure. Those distributions not paid from earnings and profits are returns of capital of the shareholders' basis in the stock.
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was Clark Evans Downs. With him on the brief were Jay L. APX is a public utility subject to regulation under the Federal Power Act.
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief was Nathan C. With him on the brief were Peter D. Appellants did not use the enriched uranium or produce nuclear power.1 We conclude that the tax was improperly levied on the appellants. As the reactor fuel is depleted. It is necessary to increase the concentration of U 235 to that needed for nuclear reaction. The fee is calculated by a formula that includes the difference in the amount of U 235 in the starting material. The amount of U 235 in the enriched fuel that is returned to the utility. This difference is defined in terms of
OPINION/ORDER
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Determining that Plaintiffs' exclusive remedy is under the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Law. Arguing primarily that the court should have certified certain questions to the state supreme court for resolution. Were injured on September 24. Both Chastain and Simpson were employees of Duke Energy 2 Corporation (
OPINION/ORDER
1993 final decision on the ground that Santa Fe is no longer
on the briefs were Lois J. With him on the brief was Thom
as J. Agree with appellant that two of the
agency's regulations are arbitrary and capricious.
I.
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. An
important aspect of this statutory scheme is its regulation of
subsidence caused by underground mining. There is no definition of
the term in the statute or the regulations. The parties agree it
is used only to describe the kind of subsidence caused by
underground coal mining. We consider them in turn.
A. The Angle of Draw Presumption
The Association's most vigorous challenge is to the regula
tion establishing a rebuttable presumption of causation:
If damage to any non commercial building or occupied
residential dwelling or structure related thereto occurs
as a result of earth movement within an area determined
by projecting a specified angle of draw from the outer
most boundary of any underground mine workings to the
surface of the land.
OPINION/ORDER
This is an appeal from an order of the District Court ruling on an attorneys' fee application following the settlement of a complicated class action that resulted in a $9.5 million settlement for the benefit of the named plaintiffs and unnamed class members. It is difficult. Such is the case here. The District Court's opinion making the fee award and its subsequent opinion denying 3 reconsideration are vague and conclusory. We will therefore vacate the challenged order and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. The named plaintiffs as well as the unnamed class members were investors in a series of limited partnerships involving oil and gas interests formed and promoted by the defendants named in the caption. That they were victorious in litigating several key discovery disputes. Counsel submit that their efforts to defend against summary judgment on their clients' RICO claims are noteworthy for. Both of which could have been interpreted as barring the plaintiffs' RICO claims. They were able to convince the District Court that neither the Act nor Klehr barred their clients' claims.
OPINION/ORDER
As they are partners in South Florida Cogeneration Associates. Senior Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from the denial of a motion for summary judgment by the district court. 1 Two questions are presented: first. Whether a public utility is immune from antitrust liability under the state action doctrine of Parker v. The denial of a motion for summary judgment under the state action immunity doctrine is immediately appealable under the collateral order exception to the final judgment rule. The appeals were then consolidated by order of this court as they both involve the same parties and the same issues. Are taken from the same summary judgment order. 1 * 63 S.Ct. 307. Whether lobbying of a county legislative body by the utility is protected from antitrust liability under the Noerr/Pennington doctrine. The district court found that the utility was not entitled to immunity from antitrust sanctions for its actions. The denial by the district court of the utility's Cogeneration is the production of electricity and useful thermal energy at a single facility.
brief for amicus curiae the State of North Dakota.
Wendy L. With her on the brief was
Lois J. Cohen was on the brief for amicus curiae
Conservation Law Foundation. Conley
were on the brief for intervenors.
Before: Edwards. These
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Roscoe C. With him on the brief were Brian P. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal of an award of attorney's fees for actions brought under the Freedom of Information Act (
OPINION/ORDER
With them on the briefs were Joshua B. With them on the briefs were Albert S. With her on the brief were R. With him on the brief were Christopher J. Weber were on the brief of Shipper Intervenors in support of respondent with respect to arguments of SFPP. This case is the latest chapter in a long running dispute over SFPP's tariffs. The shipper petitioners are BP West Coast Products. (3) the Commission erroneously held that certain shippers were not entitled to reparations for rates charged on SFPP's East Line after August 1. SFPP and the Association of Oil Pipe Lines have intervened on behalf of the Commission with respect to these issues. 4 SFPP and the Association of Oil Pipe Lines have also crosspetitioned for review of the three challenged orders. The shippers have intervened on behalf of the Commission regarding these issues. We hold that the Commission's income tax allowance policy was not arbitrary or capricious or contrary to law. We also hold that FERC's interpretation of the Energy Policy Act was reasonable.
OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: 4288 KRYSTAL ENERGY CO. v. Assuming
OPINION/ORDER
The district court held as a matter of law that MidAmerican was immune from federal antitrust liability under the state action immunity doctrine. (2) the regulatory policy is actively supervised by the state. Jurisdiction Jurisdiction was proper in the district court 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 R. MidAmerican is the largest electric utility in Iowa. Which is located in the area designated under Iowa Code §§ 476.22 .26 (1997) as the exclusive electric service territory of MidAmerican. Is sold by MidAmerican under its own
OPINION/ORDER
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. One part of calculating Net Proceeds is to deduct the
OPINION/ORDER
ShoshoneBannock Tribes (collectively NRDC) in their action to obtain a declaration that DOE Order 435.1 is at least partially 15706 NATURAL RESOURCES DEF. As we noted when the dispute was first before us in an attempt to obtain direct appellate review of the Order. Which provide (among other things) a process for determining whether certain radioactive waste streams are `waste incidental to reprocessing' that are not considered `high level waste.'
OPINION/ORDER
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. In July 2002. Shepard argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. I. BACKGROUND George Shepard was the chief welding inspector on a natural gas pipeline project between Mobile Oil Corporation and KN Energy near Liberal. Shepard was paid salary and per diem by an engineering sub contractor that invoiced KN Energy. Was another inspector on the project. KN Energy's policies prohibited Mr. Blood is not a welder and never worked on a welding rig. Blood were deposited into bank accounts of Mr. A KN Energy audit discovered that (1) people on the payroll were not actually working. (2) welding equipment that the welder did not own was being charged to the project. Were being purchased. Shepard's storage trailers and welding rigs were being used on the project. The district court dismissed five counts of money laundering because those checks
Sierra Club contends its procedural claims alleging that the DOE failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prior to issuance of a road easement are ripe for adjudication. We agree and reverse the decision of the district court with respect to those procedural claims.
I.
The district court found the following background facts were established by the administrative record. The owners of the Rocky Flats subsurface were precluded from accessing their mineral rights. Which operates an existing gravel pit and grading facility directly west of the Buffer Zone . . .
The Buffer Zone is not accessible to the general public. The land is relatively untouched and pristine. The proposed mining area is located on a gravel plain that stores water in the spaces between the rocks. Two hundred acres of the Buffer Zone are used by the DOE as a National Wind Technology Center (NWTC).
In 1997. The use and occupation of the road were made subject to such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the manager of the Golden.
OPINION/ORDER
Its judgment with respect to the Title VII claim is affirmed. Is remanded in light of two intervening decisions by the Virginia Supreme Court. The rest of Barrett's state law claims were properly dismissed. ARECO is a Virginia corporation that manufactures flooring. While Barrett and Ramsey were on a business trip to Atlantic City. Age or disability is a violation of this policy.
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief was Helene de Neuville Pangas. Of counsel on the brief were Dennis A. With him on the brief were Peter D. If there is more than one PF rate. If there is more than one PF rate. While the Agreements specify a surplus firm rate for the Cities' power that is higher than the Priority Firm Rate (the PF rate). The surplus firm rate will also increase 5%. The Preference and Exchange rates were identical. The Preference and Exchange rates were again equal. Separate itemization (to local customers) of the various charges was not a sufficient reason to take them out of the Section 9(a)(3) calculation. The Board explained:
The proposed connection will allow Beaulieu to bypass Dalton. Dalton contends that FERC's orders are unlawful for several reasons. Including that they violate Southern's tariff and that they were impermissible under various sections of the Natural Gas Act (
OPINION/ORDER
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. The application was rejected by the examiner for lack of utility and enablement. Dash filed a continuation application that was also finally rejected on the same grounds. That application is now before us on appeal. Dash and his graduate students have published experimental results that. They claim to have found distortion of the palladium cathode. Which could have been produced by nuclear reactions in the palladium. measurements of heat produced by the apparatus. They reported Some of these results were submitted to the Patent Office in support of Dash's attempts to overcome the utility and enablement rejections. 04 1145 2 DISCUSSION Dash appeals the Board's decision sustaining the examiner's rejection on enablement and utility grounds. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 141 and 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). The substantial evidence standard requires us to determine whether a reasonable fact finder could have arrived at the Board's decision.
OPINION/ORDER
The natural gas industry is partially deregulated. Are regulated by the relevant state authority.1 In Indiana. The state authority is the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC). Gas delivered through interstate pipelines for transport eligible users is brought as far as the connection to IG's distribution network. Is required to transport the gas from that point to the end user. This is compared to the traditional fee structure used by LDCs for their residential and other small quantity customers. No. 01 2727 3 pipeline is
OPINION/ORDER
Vanguard argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the verdict on the trade secrets claim. That it is entitled to a new trial due to the improper admission of a Rule 1006 summary exhibit purporting to list PEAT's trade secrets. That the award of compensatory damages is excessive. Conclude that a new trial is required due to the erroneous and prejudicial admission of the summary exhibit. This action was complicated. The patent was issued in 1996 to Dr. Which was separately provided for the TVA Phase I project and for all
OPINION/ORDER
Saas were on brief. Carroll was on brief. Was on brief. O'Donnell was on brief. Benkin was on the brief of intervenor Nebraska Public Power District in No. 99 1448. A group of petitioning MAPP mem bers (MAPP petitioners) assert that the ordered refunds are impermissibly retroactive and that they were incorrectly cal culated. I. MAPP is an association of energy transmission utilities. In 1994 the pooling agreement was amended with the addition of a tariff. We will accept the proposed MAPP rates for filing because MAPP's methodology produces rates that are just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential when tested against traditional standards. We note that the single system wide MAPP rate that members will pay for ser vice over the entire MAPP system is lower than the rate that each jurisdictional MAPP member could separately propose under a traditional rate while taking into account distance and power flows. Non discriminatory membership provi sions and modify any provisions that are unduly discriminato ry or preferential.
The proposed connection will allow Beaulieu to bypass Dalton. Dalton contends that FERC's orders are unlawful for several reasons. Including that they violate Southern's tariff and that they were impermissible under various sections of the Natural Gas Act (
OPINION/ORDER
Gore appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in which all claims were dismissed in favor of the employer/ERISA plan administrator El Paso Energy Corporation (
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Donald A. With him on the 2 brief were Cynthia A. Because PPL was not a party to the latter agreements. PPL does have standing to challenge the orders rejecting its own agreement. The rates they will charge for the transmission or sale of energy. FERC
OPINION/ORDER
Roberts argued the cause for PJM Utility petitioners and supporting intervenor.
OPINION/ORDER
With whom Wallace Edward Brand was on the briefs. Was on the brief. Prisco were on the brief for intervenor Central Louisiana Electric Company. Where there is a competitive market. The Commission approves appli cations to sell electric energy at market based rates only if the seller and its affiliates do not have. Or adequately have mitigated. Arguing that CLECO does in fact have market 1 FERC defines market power as a seller's ability to
OPINION/ORDER
With them on the briefs were Craig S. Were on the brief for amicus curiae the State of North Dakota. With her on the brief was Lois J. Cohen was on the brief for amicus curiae Conservation Law Foundation. Conley were on the brief for intervenors. These
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was Brett A. With him on the briefs were Robert V. With her on the brief were John S. Snyder were on the brief for intervenor IDACORP Energy L.P. in support of respondent. Fagan were on the brief for intervenors California Independent System Operator Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company in support of respondent. This case is really just a billing dispute between the entity that runs the California electric grid and one of its customers. (2) should have permitted it 3 to increase the pre arranged limit on charges. We are without jurisdiction to address its cross petition. Petitioner IDACORP is one of several
Argued for plaintiff appellant.Of counsel on the brief were Charles W. New York.Of counsel was Nancy T. Argued for defendant appellee.With him on the brief were Eileen J. Appeal the decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims granting summary judgment to the United States.The court held that Shell was not entitled to a tax refund for calendar years 1988 and 1989 under the Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act ( COWPTA ). 1992.Because we conclude that Shell is precluded from disputing that hydrocarbons produced by enhanced recovery techniques in use prior to April 2. Are crude oil as opposed to tar sand oil under § . Because there is an absence of evidence that Shell recovered hydrocarbons by any means other than enhanced recovery techniques available in 1980. Line height:200%'>Crude oil is generally extracted through wells from underground reservoir formations of sand or rock containing tiny pore spaces permeated with oil.To be recoverable.
We reverse and hold that gathering systems are assets used in the exploration for and production of petroleum and natural gas deposits for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code's Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (
OPINION/ORDER
LLC (Islander East) is a natural gas company. It appears that the challenged agency decision was arbitrary and capricious because the CTDEP (1) failed adequately to explain or support its denial with record evidence. Our consideration of section 19(d) of the NGA is a matter of first impression in this circuit. Natural gas companies are subject to the Prior to the EPACT's amendment to section 19. Which is currently pending. The FERC is required to issue such a certificate if it finds the company
OPINION/ORDER
LLC (Islander East) is a natural gas company. It appears that the challenged agency decision was arbitrary and capricious because the CTDEP (1) failed adequately to explain or support its denial with record evidence. Our consideration of section 19(d) of the NGA is a matter of first impression in this circuit. Natural gas companies are subject to the Prior to the EPACT's amendment to section 19. Which is currently pending. The FERC is required to issue such a certificate if it finds the company
OPINION/ORDER
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED in part and VACATED in part. We conclude that plaintiffs' due process arguments have merit. Since the substantive relief awarded by the district court is fully supported by the finding of a due process violation. LIHEAA was intended to. Participating states are given a block grant. The states are. Levels of LIHEAA funding are set by Congress on an annual basis. Allocated funds are distributed among participating states on the basis of a complicated statutory formula. In order to ensure that all eligible households are provided with benefits. Hence provides benefits only to the extent that federal funding is available in any given program year. New York's Home Energy Assistance Program (
OPINION/ORDER
1 have contested the Plaintiffs Saginaw Bay Pipeline Company and CMS Saginaw Bay Comp any formed a limited business partnership known as
EA K was created to develop coal processing facilities in North America. Which were to transform low grade coal into a better fuel called K Fuel. Fru Con shall not be required to perform any further services and B+B shall have no further obligation to make a capital contribution to [EA K] Energy. Paragraph (f) stated
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Roger D. Nagel were on the briefs for intervenor and amici curiae in support of petitioner. With him on the brief were John S. With him on the brief were Anna J. A TRR
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was Elizabeth B. Landsman were on the brief for intervenors Midwest Municipal Transmission Group and Dairyland Power Cooperative in support of petitioner. With him on the brief were John S. With him on the briefs was Arnold B. Petitioners argue that the Commission's decision to approve the charges was arbitrary and capricious because the services for which the charges were assessed are already covered in existing contracts that shield them from new charges unless they are for
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Alex D. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel was Jane K. With him on the brief was Robert L. The Secretary [of Energy] is authorized to enter into contracts with any person who generates or holds title to high level radioactive waste. Will dispose of the high level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel involved as provided in this subchapter. The government asserts that sixty six such claims have been filed. The United States courts of appeals shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over any civil action (A) for review of any final decision or action of the Secretary. Is commonly known as Yucca Mountain. Courts of appeals have asserted jurisdiction under section 119 over claims brought challenging DOE actions under the NWPA. The first of these cases was General Electric Uranium v. Although section 302(a)(3) fell within Title III of the Act and section 119 was in Title I and only conferred the courts of appeals with jurisdiction over agency actions
OPINION/ORDER
Walke was on brief. Kacenjar was on brief. Attorney General at the time the brief was filed. Attorney General at the time the brief was filed. Were on brief for amici curiae the State of New Jersey et al. in support of the Environmental Petitioners. Klineberg and Mary Ann McGrail were on brief for amici curiae State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials in support of the Environmental Petitioners. Was on brief. Wallisch were on brief. Shipley were on brief. Carpenter were on brief for amicus curiae Rubber Manufacturers Association in support of the respondents. Segal was on brief for amicus curiae American Boiler Manufacturers Association in support of the respondents. Environmental Petitioners) challenge the CISWI Definitions Rule on the ground that its narrow definition of
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Harvey L. With him on the brief were John S. With him on the brief was Perry D. Claybour were on the brief for intervenors USGen New England. That the Commission did not satisfy its obligation under 16 U.S.C. § 824e(a) to determine whether the filed rates were just and reasonable. That the Commission's refusal to order refunds for purchasers who were charged the negotiated rates was an abuse of discretion. We do not find in the record a clear basis for the Commission's finding that the rates were just and reasonable. We therefore remand the case for further consideration by the Commission. *** The New England Power Pool (the
OPINION/ORDER
Control or operate facilities used for transmitting electric energy in interstate commerce to have on file open access non discriminatory transmission tariffs that contain minimum terms and conditions of non discriminatory service.
OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellees. The basic issue on this appeal is whether the federal government has waived its sovereign immunity from punitive fines and various monetary fees imposed upon federal facilities under a state hazardous waste law. If the district court's determination concerning waiver of sovereign immunity is upheld. The Navy will pay Maine: 1. 1319 I(1)(A) (fee of 2 per pound for
OPINION/ORDER
Which have been decimated by the decades of reduced water flows. Were not met. We reverse the conclusion that the scope of the EIS and the range of alternatives considered therein was unreasonable. The Trinity River was long known for its abundant fishery1 resources. The Trinity River Division (
OPINION/ORDER
Lamboley were on brief. United States Department of Justice were on brief. Bauser were on the brief for amicus curiae 2 Nuclear Energy Institute. Nuclear technology is used in energy production. Those advances have come at a price the waste that is the inevitable byproduct. The consensus is that the waste should be stored in an underground repository to be located at Yucca Mountain. Nevada asks us to review both the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and that portion of the Record of Decision (ROD) the Department of Energy (DOE or Department) issued governing the Senior Circuit Judge Edwards was in regular active service at the time of oral argument. 1 3 transportation of nuclear waste from the production sources to Yucca. Nevada alleges the FEIS is procedurally flawed and therefore violates the National Environmental Policy Act ( NEPA). We conclude that some of Nevada's claims are unripe for review and the remaining claims are without merit. The DOE is responsible for the development and operation of the repository once the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issues a license for the project under the Atomic Energy Act.
With him on the briefs were Scott H. With him on the briefs were Catherine M. With her on the brief were John S. Carroll were on the brief for intervenors in support of respondent. Stan Berman were on the brief for intervenors California Electricity Oversight Board. The CAISO is responsible for managing the flow of electricity on the electric grid across the State and runs a
OPINION/ORDER
Varela Fernandez was on brief. Were on brief. It was bound for Japan. I The voyage of the Pacific Swan is part of a modern circumferential trade. Uranium from the United States is sent to Japan to fuel nuclear energy reactors. Which is turned into nuclear fuel (either RepU fuel. The waste is vitrified according to specifications that have been approved by French and Japanese governments and placed in casks that meet criteria set forth by the International Atomic Energy Agency in its Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material. Both the waste and the fuel are returned to Japan on board specially designed ships that meet the standards of the International Maritime Organization's Code for the Safe Carriage of Irradiated Nuclear Fuel. Even if they are not territorial waters. The case is not moot. Review of entry of summary judgment is de novo. The issues presented are ones of law and our review is plenary. Mayagezanos has refined its argument to a single attack: the federal courts have jurisdiction to consider this action under NEPA and the United States's failure to regulate the passage of such nuclear waste through its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) waters is a
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was Robert V. With her on the brief were Eric H. Both at the time the brief was filed. With him on the brief were W. It was suggested without contradiction at oral argument that it has not so proved. Seeking information collected by DOE on forms that these facilities are required to file with DOE's Energy Information Adminis tration Forms EIA 867. It held that Niagara had failed to raise an issue of material fact against DOE's position that the information was exempt because its release (1) would cause substantial competitive harm to the entities submitting the information (the QFs). The court also rejected Niagara's claim that no FOIA exemption could apply because the information was already publicly available. * * * The language of Exemption 4 protects from disclosure
Is the second largest privately held corporation in the United States. KII was founded by Fred C. Those members of the Simmons family involved in the instant suit are cousins to the four Koch brothers.
In 1966 and 1967. He was never a KII employee and did not place a representative on the board until March of 1981.
In 1980. Frederick and the Simmons Family either to buy back some or all of their stock or to take KII public and have the now dissident shareholders sell their stock on the public market. The SPA contained two relevant warranties by KII: The first provided that all KII financial statements disclosed to the selling shareholders had fairly presented KII's financial condition and were prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Would have increased the Plaintiffs' valuation of KII stock at the time of the SPA. The Defendants named in the action were KII. Which alleged the Defendants failed to disclose that certain expenses were
OPINION/ORDER
With them on the briefs were Charles G. Were on the brief. With him on the brief were Arnold B. They also argue that FERC lacks jurisdiction 1 The nine petitioners are: Atlantic City Electric Co. The Commission is obliged to assure that the rates and charges demanded or received by any public utility in connection with the interstate transmission or sale of electric energy are just and reasonable. That no public utility's rates will unduly discriminate against any consumers. Electric utilities were vertically integrated. ISOs have no financial stake in any power market participant. Have the ability to halt generation causing transmission system constraints. The Commission empha sized that an ISO's independence with respect to governance and financial interests was fundamental to assuring that an ISO would not favor any class of transmission users. Non discriminatory member ship provisions and to modify provisions that were unduly discriminatory or preferential. Tight power pools are highly integrated pooling arrangements.
OPINION/ORDER
Whether Congress has abrogated the sovereign immunity of Indian tribes by statute is a question of statutory interpretation and is reviewed de novo. 890 (1986) (
With him on the brief was Teresa J. With him on the brief were Loretta C. Circuit Judge.
This is a consolidated appeal from four summary judgments of the United States Court of Federal Claims. Penalties were improperly assessed simply because the Internal Revenue Service (the
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: We must decide whether a wholesale energy supplier is entitled to injunctive relief from orders issued by the Governor of California commandeering its contractual rights to deliver electricity to public utilities within the state. I A The electricity contracts at issue in this appeal are the products of the restructuring of the California electricity market. The CalPX was deemed a public utility under the Federal Power Act (
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: We must decide whether a wholesale energy supplier is entitled to injunctive relief from orders issued by the Governor of California commandeering its contractual rights to deliver electricity to public utilities within the state. I A The electricity contracts at issue in this appeal are the products of the restructuring of the California electricity market. The CalPX was deemed a public utility under the Federal Power Act (
OPINION/ORDER
In an earlier order that was not appealed to this Court. The bankruptcy court had determined that the lien was without value. Because Brandon's interests were not adversely affected by the district court's ruling presently before us. The sale price was calculated by The Honorable Michael J. The trustee alleged that the debt was $250. Knudson was elected to Yukon's board of directors. Were involved in the negotiations leading to the settlement. Yukon was facing tough financial times of its own. The investors were told they would receive a new secured position. Which was released by the bankruptcy court on February 11. The Brandon shares were backdated to the date on which the investors had advanced the funds.
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were David L. With her on the brief were Cynthia A. Quint were on the brief for intervenors New York Independent System Operator. Open access transmission tariffs were to contain at least equivalent terms and conditions for non discriminatory ser vice to those set out in a Commission prescribed pro forma tariff. These ISOs were to adopt transmission (and ancillary services) pricing policies to promote the efficient use of. Non profit administrator of transmission services and of the new markets for wholesale electricity transactions in New York the accompanying tariff was intended to provide a single open access tariff over the entire New York State transmission system. Transmission losses refer to the amount of electric energy lost when electricity flows across a transmission system: it is a function of the square of the amount of the current flowing on the wire and of the resis tance it encounters. The loss associated with a single transmission of electricity is primarily a function of the distance the electricity is transmitted.
Thus were not arbitrable under an express provision in the CBA. Oklahoma and PACE is the collective bargaining representative of employees at this facility. Which provides that
OPINION/ORDER
It requires NPPD to inform MEC by 2003 whether it will decommission or continue operating Cooper after 2004. Since 1984 the parties have done so. Final decommissioning costs are estimated to run as high as $600. It argues that estimated future decommissioning costs do not fit within the definition of Monthly Power Costs and as such are wholly outside the PSC. MEC argues that the district court did not have the power to hear the case. Asserting that the dispute is not yet ripe. Its
OPINION/ORDER
That is intended to protect aquatic organisms from being harmed or killed by cooling water intake structures at large. While we conclude that certain aspects of the rule are based on a reasonable interpretation of the Clean Water Act and supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. Several aspects of the rule are not consistent with the statute. Are not supported by sufficient evidence. Or were not properly subject to notice and comment. We therefore grant in part and deny in part the petitions for review and dismiss in part one aspect of the petitions for lack of jurisdiction because there is no final agency action to review. Circuit Judge: This is a case about fish and other aquatic organisms. 1 that is intended to protect fish. Concluding that certain aspects of the EPA's rule are based on a reasonable interpretation of the Act and supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. Remanding several aspects of the rule because they are inadequately explained or inconsistent with the statute.
OPINION/ORDER
ORDER The only issue raised in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (
Argued for appellant.With him on the brief were Robert D. Assistant Director.Of counsel on the brief was Marc Johnston. Argued for appellee.Of counsel were Scott James Preston. Mso bidi font family:
OPINION/ORDER
The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. The judgment is I. Quinn was. Which was in the business of drilling oil and gas wells. Tucker was executive vice president and ten percent shareholder. in United Energy wells Quinn and Tucker sold working interests to at least 285 investors. Quinn and Tucker were charged with misrepresenting the uses of investors' funds by failing to disclose. That half of the money raised was used for United Energy's operations (despite statements in the offering memoranda that all funds raised would be spent on drilling). A. A summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Such judgment is proper if the movant demonstrates there is no material fact issue and that it is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The summary judgment was proper. They admitted doing so in their answer. 3 Quinn and Tucker contend the SEC was not entitled to judgment because the undisputed facts did not establish scienter.
Petitions for review of three orders issued to it by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
OPINION/ORDER
Because we conclude that Associated is not a
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Ivan A. The Agency was to
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Joseph S. On the brief were John S. With him on 2 the brief were Adam J. Leaving FERC to create a test that will rationally and reliably distinguish between the two types of pipeline. FERC's efforts to properly classify Transco's pipeline are emblematic of its struggle to complete this task. The consequence of this ruling was that a jurisdictional pipeline (Jupiter) flowed into a nonjurisdictional pipeline (Transco). Holding that the Commission's decision was arbitrary and capricious because Jupiter's transportation pipeline sat upstream of a Transco gathering pipeline. On the grounds that the disputed 2001 orders were issued
OPINION/ORDER
The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. The judgment is I. Quinn was. Which was in the business of drilling oil and gas wells. Tucker was executive vice president and ten percent shareholder. in United Energy wells Quinn and Tucker sold working interests to at least 285 investors. Quinn and Tucker were charged with misrepresenting the uses of investors' funds by failing to disclose. That half of the money raised was used for United Energy's operations (despite statements in the offering memoranda that all funds raised would be spent on drilling). A. A summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Such judgment is proper if the movant demonstrates there is no material fact issue and that it is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The summary judgment was proper. They admitted doing so in their answer. 3 Quinn and Tucker contend the SEC was not entitled to judgment because the undisputed facts did not establish scienter.
OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I. Medicine Lake and the highlands surrounding it are of great spiritual significance to the Pit River Tribe and to the other Native American tribes in the region. Although the highlands are within the Pit River Tribe's ancestral homelands. They are not part of the tribe's reservation.
OPINION/ORDER
With her on the brief was Dennis Lane. McGrew were on the brief for intervenors California Electricity Oversight Board and California Power Exchange Corporation. All but one of the petitioners' claims have become moot. Which received control of certain power transmission assets from the state's three major inves tor owned utilities and was charged with running a single statewide transmission grid. Which was to be responsible for matching electricity buyers and sellers in the California market. Which (so far as is relevant here) was vested with review power over the composition of the ISO and PX boards and over decisions of the ISO Board. Were that the duties of the Oversight Board conflicted with the Commission's responsibilities under the Federal Power Act (
Reverse and remand to FERC for further proceedings.
OPINION/ORDER
Because MPC's lobbying efforts were not
OPINION/ORDER
The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. The judgment is I. Quinn was. Which was in the business of drilling oil and gas wells. Tucker was executive vice president and ten percent shareholder. in United Energy wells Quinn and Tucker sold working interests to at least 285 investors. Quinn and Tucker were charged with misrepresenting the uses of investors' funds by failing to disclose. That half of the money raised was used for United Energy's operations (despite statements in the offering memoranda that all funds raised would be spent on drilling). A. A summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Such judgment is proper if the movant demonstrates there is no material fact issue and that it is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The summary judgment was proper. They admitted doing so in their answer. 3 Quinn and Tucker contend the SEC was not entitled to judgment because the undisputed facts did not establish scienter.
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: The issue in this case is whether a district court may authorize the rejection of an executory 2 contract for the purchase of electricity as part of a bankruptcy reorganization. The district court held that a FERC proceeding was the proper forum for Mirant to seek relief from any of its power contracts. We find that the district court's jurisdictional ruling is erroneous. I Mirant is one of the largest regulated public utilities in the United States. PEPCO is also a regulated public entity responsible for servicing the power needs of residential and commercial consumers in the District of Columbia and Maryland. The Schedule 2.4 payments relating to these unassigned PPAs are referred to by the parties. The parties agree that the Back to Back Agreement's rate for electricity is higher than the market rate. The PPAs are long term fixed rate contracts to purchase electricity from outside suppliers that PEPCO used to supplement its energy needs before deregulation. 4 1 First. To require or coerce [Mirant] to abide by the terms of any Wholesale Contract
EIF sought a ruling from the bankruptcy court that its pre petition mortgage liens were superior to liens of the named defendants who held statutory mechanics and materialmen liens. Are appellees in these appeals. EIF was the primary creditor of Magnolia Gas Company. The actions were stayed after the debtors filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court entered orders submitted by the debtors and EIF and they were sent by general mailing to the other creditors. Four such orders were entered and sent to appellees: (1) Agreed Order Regarding Limited Use of Cash Collateral filed January 21. Nothing in the captions or the lead in statements in the orders suggested that lien priority among creditors was being re established to place EIF's pre petition lien priority in front of the mechanics and materialmen liens. The bankruptcy court found the language contained in the cash collateral orders was insufficient to provide notice to the other creditors and that binding the creditors to the language of those orders would violate their due process rights.
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: The issue in this case is whether a district court may authorize the rejection of an executory 2 contract for the purchase of electricity as part of a bankruptcy reorganization. The district court held that a FERC proceeding was the proper forum for Mirant to seek relief from any of its power contracts. We find that the district court's jurisdictional ruling is erroneous. I Mirant is one of the largest regulated public utilities in the United States. PEPCO is also a regulated public entity responsible for servicing the power needs of residential and commercial consumers in the District of Columbia and Maryland. The Schedule 2.4 payments relating to these unassigned PPAs are referred to by the parties. The parties agree that the Back to Back Agreement's rate for electricity is higher than the market rate. The PPAs are long term fixed rate contracts to purchase electricity from outside suppliers that PEPCO used to supplement its energy needs before deregulation. 4 1 First. To require or coerce [Mirant] to abide by the terms of any Wholesale Contract
OPINION/ORDER
We reverse because the district court abused its discretion when it determined that Hansen is likely to succeed on the merits. The court stated that a preliminary injunction was warranted because Hansen had shown a probability of success on the merits. DISCUSSION [1] The central issue in this appeal is whether the grant of a preliminary injunction constitutes an abuse of discretion because Hansen failed to demonstrate probable success on the merits. In an Hansen later added a count for trademark infringement that is not pertinent to this appeal. 2 HANSEN BEVERAGE v. Probable success on the merits is established by a showing that the movant's trade dress is protectable (nonfunctional and distinctive). Is whether the district court erred in finding that Freek's trade dress creates a likelihood of confusion.5 [2] National contends that the district court erred in finding a likelihood of confusion because it improperly refused to give preclusive effect to findings by the District Court for the District of Nevada in Hansen Beverage Co. v.
OPINION/ORDER
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Sterling Smokeless Coal Corporation seeks review of the Benefits Review Board's determinations (1) that Sterling Smokeless is the operator responsible for any award of benefits to claimant Bobby Ray Ballengee and (2) that Ballengee is entitled to those benefits. Green Mountain) were
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: The issue in this case is whether a district court may authorize the rejection of an executory 2 contract for the purchase of electricity as part of a bankruptcy reorganization. The district court held that a FERC proceeding was the proper forum for Mirant to seek relief from any of its power contracts. We find that the district court's jurisdictional ruling is erroneous. I Mirant is one of the largest regulated public utilities in the United States. PEPCO is also a regulated public entity responsible for servicing the power needs of residential and commercial consumers in the District of Columbia and Maryland. The Schedule 2.4 payments relating to these unassigned PPAs are referred to by the parties. The parties agree that the Back to Back Agreement's rate for electricity is higher than the market rate. The PPAs are long term fixed rate contracts to purchase electricity from outside suppliers that PEPCO used to supplement its energy needs before deregulation. 4 1 First. To require or coerce [Mirant] to abide by the terms of any Wholesale Contract
OPINION/ORDER
The petition for review is therefore denied. There is an exception from FERC jurisdiction. (2)
OPINION/ORDER
The orders were based on a 1998 United States Forest Service determination (
OPINION/ORDER
I. MAPP is a voluntary. MAPP was established so that its members may pool resources to coordinate efficient. Reliable production and distribution of electric service within its geographic region.3 Each of the parties in this case is a member of MAPP and signatory to the enabling agreementknown as the Restated Agreement. Is a public corporation and electric utility company. After Section 2.4 was enacted. Which were calculated to be $2. After the suit was filed. The Restated Agreement was amended. After Schedule F was enacted. MAPP members were permitted to charge each other a fee for transmission service over their transmission facilities. The FERC order was appealed and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed FERC's ruling.
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief was Cynthia A. The first is a feasibility study. Which preliminarily determines what system upgrades are necessary to accommodate the new interconnection. Section 37.2 imposes on the interconnection customer
OPINION/ORDER
Is required to allow anyone to transmit power over these lines. DWR is the state agency responsible for the control and management of much of California's water supply. DWR is considered a third party generator. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 825l(b) over this petition for review of an order issued by FERC. We deny DWR's petition for review because its various claims of error are unfounded. FERC's decision to categorize the facilities as
OPINION/ORDER
Posner and Rubin & Rudman were on consolidated brief for petitioner Town of Norwood. Were on consolidated brief for respondent. Whittaker and Winston & Strawn were on brief for intervenor New England Power Company. Stever and Dewey Ballantine LLP were on brief for intervenor USGen New England. I. THE HISTORY Our history of this case is drawn primarily from the administrative record. New England Power is a subsidiary of New England Electric System. Wholesale sales in interstate commerce are subject to regulation by FERC under the Federal Power Act. Those charged by Mass Electric to its business and residential customers) are subject to state regulation. Electricity sales have been regulated on the familiar public utility model: the rates have been set forth in filed tariffs. Unreasonable or unduly discriminatory rates have been forbidden. The suppliers are vertically integrated and are engaged in electricity generation. Legislators and regulators have over the last 25 years sought to introduce a greater measure of competition into the electric power industry.
Devon is an Oklahoma corporation in the business of producing oil and gas. Troubleshooting services in the Spotted Horse field.
Two provisions of the Master Service Agreement are relevant in this case. Any customer for whom operator is performing services. The nearest well was approximately 600 feet from the CDP. The farthest was approximately one mile away.
On June 5. Devon knew that the Wolff CDP 12 6 was operating without methane gas detectors. Were working on the pump. Asserting that his injuries were caused by Devon's negligence. An anti indemnity statute.
The parties stipulated that there was no dispute as to material facts and submitted cross motions for summary judgment. G performed under the Master Service Agreement were outside the scope of the Wyoming anti indemnity statute and that application of Oklahoma law did not. Summary judgment is appropriate if
OPINION/ORDER
O:\Slip\WP\2005\05 1001 Maine Pub21a.odl.wpd
OPINION/ORDER
IV were on the briefs for petitioner. Reiter were on the brief for intervenors Public Service Electric & Gas Company and Maine Public Utilities Commission in support of petitioner. Were on the brief for respondent. Smoots were on the brief of intervenors American Ref Fuel Company. Karen Paull were on the brief of intervenor Public Utilities Commission of the State of California in support of respondent.
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was Arlus J. Raskin was on the brief for amicus curiae 2 Greenpeace USA in support of petitioner. With her on the brief were Ronald E. Rattray and Patrick Muldowney were on the brief for intervenors Energy Air. Maurice Baskin was on the brief for amicus curiae Associated Builders and Contractors. Inc. a department store for which Energy Air was performing mechanical work that the Union
OPINION/ORDER
The orders were based on a 1998 United States Forest Service determination (
OPINION/ORDER
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. Because contractual interpretation is an issue of law for the court. Whichever is less. Which is less than one percent per month. Louisiana law is clear that conventional interest. Is recoverable on debt arising from contract from the date the debt becomes due until the date it is paid. Regardless of whether the debt is the subject of a lawsuit in the meantime.
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Michael F. With him on the brief was John S. With him on the brief were Michael J. Quint was on the brief for intervenor New York Independent System Operator. That FERC's approval of monthly netting for NYISO was unlawful and unreasonable. The vast majority of electricity generation in the state of New York is now performed by independent wholesale generators. New York state's transmission grid today is operated and controlled by the not for profit New York Independent System Operator. It is transmitted across the state over NYISO's transmission facilities (or grid). It is then stepped down and delivered to a retail user over a utility's local distribution lines. 4 Jurisdiction over this sale and delivery of electricity is split between the federal government and the states on the basis of the type of service being provided and the nature of the energy sale. The actual unbundling of the New York electric energy market after 1996 was made possible by FERC's Order 888. Integrated utilities were required to file with FERC open access non discriminatory transmission tariffs.
OPINION/ORDER
The Yousifs and Tanners filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases and were represented before and after these filings by Halbert. Debtors claim that Halbert was not qualified under bankruptcy law and rules to serve as counsel in the Chapter 11 proceedings. Appealed to the that enables a court of appeals to determine whether the district court's order is a final and appealable order without having first to reach the merits of the appeal. 116 F.3d at 1192 (
OPINION/ORDER
With her on the brief were Jay L. Shapiro were on the brief for intervenors Westmoreland LG & E Partners and Wheelabrator Claremont Company. That the Commission is required by s 3(17)(C)(ii) of the FPA to revoke the facility's status as a
OPINION/ORDER
Which is part of Alabama's state implementation plan (SIP) approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. The complaint alleged that there were more than 8. The reason with broader application is that all of the alleged violations at the Colbert Plant are within the forgiveness zone of the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM)'s so called
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Michael Thompson and David A. With her on the brief were John S. Morgan was on the brief for intervenor Sunoco. Transco's principal contention is that FERC lacked jurisdiction to impose this remedy because the gathering services become non jurisdictional once transferred to Williams. Which is subject to periodic change by Transco. Transco will have completed a process known as a
OPINION/ORDER
Was convicted by a jury of mail fraud. This opinion is being filed by the remaining judges of the panel pursuant to 8th Cir. Arguing that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for mail fraud. The Parties Jennings was elected to the House of Representatives for the State of Minnesota in 1984 and served through 2002. Jennings was the president of M&M Sanitation. Jennings was also a fifty percent partner with Brad Cook in Cook & Jennings The Honorable Richard H. Was a banker at the Town & Country Bank in Almelund. Poletech was attempting to develop a
The basis for the lawsuit is the plaintiffs' allegations that the defendants made misleading statements about Kinder Morgan's profitability during the class period. They claim that the defendants reported that a key business of the Company was profitable when in fact it was losing money. Section 78u 4(b)(1) requires plaintiffs to specify the statements by the defendants they allege were misleading. The reasons why the statements were misleading. If the allegations in their complaint are made upon information and belief. To state with particularity all facts supporting their belief that the statements were false or misleading. Section 78u 4(b)(2) requires that plaintiffs' allegations give rise to a strong inference of scienter.
We have previously ruled on what is required for plaintiffs to plead scienter sufficiently under
OPINION/ORDER
With them on the briefs were Thomas F. Bernard and Jeremy Kyle Kinner were on the brief of amici curiae Indigenous Environmental Network. With him on the brief were Thomas L. With him on the briefs were Alan F. Nick Goldstein were on the brief of industry intervenors in support of respondent. Henderson were on the brief of amicus curiae Washington Legal Foundation in support of respondent. Wolff were on the brief of amicus curiae John D. Circuit Judge: Petitioners are twelve states. They are opposed by the Environmental Protection Agency as respondent. The controversy is about EPA's denial of a petition asking it to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas emissions from new motor 5 vehicles under § 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act. EPA concluded that it did not have statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles and that. Have jurisdiction over citizen suits to compel EPA to perform nondiscretionary acts or duties. 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a)(2). We have jurisdiction only if EPA thereby engaged in
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Peter D. With them on the brief were Jon Devine. The district court also ordered each agency to search for and to disclose certain records created or maintained by agency employees who were paid by the agency while they were working for the NEPDG or another related task force. Although the NEPDG was not itself an
The gas company has the right to assume that this duty will be performed. Is in no way responsible for the condition in which they are maintained. Is not liable for injuries caused by leaks therein. The second motion to reconsider was identical to the first one.
On March 2. Observing that the motion was not filed within the ten day period after the entry of judgment. 961 n. 5 (10th Cir.1994) (observing that an appeal from the denial of a Rule 59 motion is sufficient to permit consideration of the merits of the underlying summary judgment ruling if the appeal is otherwise proper). They maintain that there is evidence in the record supporting their contention that Noram had actual notice of the defective furnace and that. 719 (10th Cir. 1993).
The first paragraph is replaced in its entirety by the following paragraph:
The plaintiffs Jason Fox. P. 60(b) standards.
A corrected copy of the order and judgment is attached.
Sincerely. The gas company has the right to assume that this duty will be performed. Is in no way responsible for the condition in which they are maintained. Is not liable for injuries caused by leaks therein. The second motion to reconsider was identical to the first one.
On March 2. Observing that the motion was not filed within the ten day period after the entry of judgment. 961 n. 5 (10th Cir.1994) (observing that an appeal from the denial of a Rule 59 motion is sufficient to permit consideration of the merits of the underlying summary judgment ruling if the appeal is otherwise proper). They maintain that there is evidence in the record supporting their contention that Noram had actual notice of the defective furnace and that. 719 (10th Cir. 1993).
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Salmon and steelhead1 are two of the great natural A steelhead is a rainbow trout which has spent part of its life at sea. As these dams were constructed. Only about one million fish return for spawning that is essential to the species' survival in the Columbia River system. The Bonneville Power Administration (
With her on the brief were Lauren R. Of counsel were David . Siegel had not demonstrated entitlement to recover restitution out of a special fund set up to compensate apparent victims of regulatory violations that may have been committed by Gulf Oil Company (". The district court upheld the OHA determination on the ground that it was supported by substantial evidence and had a rational basis. We agree with the district court that OHA s determination was supported by substantial evidence and had a rational basis and that no material issues of fact were genuinely disputed. The base period for any given month during the control period was the corresponding month of 1972. See 10 C.F.R. § 211.02 (1978). OHA requires that all applicants for restitution demonstrate that they were customers of the firm in question and that they were injured by the violations allegedly committed by that firm. That agree to consent orders normally do not admit any wrong doing and are not parties to the distribution proceedings.
Asserting that abandonment of Craig Field was necessary because of safety concerns. That there was any basis for the asserted safety concerns. Or that Craig Field was in a state of disrepair. Williams Gas responded to the Association's protest by filing an answer emphasizing that Craig Field was Williams Gas' oldest currently operating storage field. That casings in many of the wells were not cemented properly to their full depth. A finding by the Commission that the available supply of natural gas is depleted to the extent that the continuance of service is unwarranted. After a public hearing.
The Association asserts it was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. 717f(b) hearing requirement is to
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Lawrence A. With him on the brief was Cynthia A. Holt and Melvin Goldstein were on the brief for intervenors. The index initially picked was PPI 1. FERC said that it was making this choice because. FERC's choice of PPI 1 was not
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Michael J. With them on the briefs were Mary A. Grossman were on the brief for intervenor Transmission Dependent Utility Systems. With him on the brief was Larry D. Grossman and Barry Cohen were on the brief for intervenors American Public Power Association. Cole were on the brief for intervenor Edison Electric Institute on the passive ownership issue. The contentions of the Jurisdictional Utilities (
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Defendants appeal the district court's order denying their motion for final satisfaction of judgment. We affirm.
The facts of this case are set out in the order and judgment disposing of defendants' previous appeal. SeeU.S. The dispute now before us concerns the judgment for damages and imposition of a constructive trust pertaining to contracts to purchase uranium from members of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) which were obtained by Nukem. Some of the CIS contracts were to fulfill the supply requirements of five American utilities contracts (
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Moore v. Which Penn Castle claims is complete and unambiguous. We conclude that Moore's claim for punitive damages was properly dismissed. Penn Castle is the lessee of the subsurface mineral estate and all rights appurtenant thereto. The purpose of such agreements is to avoid litigation by compensating surface estate owners for any damage that might be caused by the use of the surface property in the extraction of minerals.<p> In 1983. These three oral understandings were not reduced to writing that day.<p> On the next day. 000 was to constitute
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-9004.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Because the parties are familiar with the facts as set forth in the Tax Court's memorandum and opinion. Walford's deduction for losses in 1981 arising from the Sav Fuel investment was properly disallowed because the partnership did not have the requisite profit motive under 26 U.S.C. 183.(2) The court further found that Mr. Walford was liable for an addition to tax and increased interest. Walford does not argue that these penalties were erroneously assessed. We will consider only his arguments challenging the Tax Court's conclusion that the Sav Fuel partnership was not engaged in a profit making activity. We affirm.(3) Whether Sav Fuel was intended as a profit making venture is a question of fact that this court will not disturb unless clearly erroneous. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous only when. We are definitely and firmly convinced that a mistake has been made. We conclude that the Tax Court's finding that Sav Fuel lacked an actual profit objective is not clearly erroneous.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july97/95-6850.opa.html">STONE & WEBSTER ENG'G CORP. V. HERMAN<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Stone & Webster Eng'g Corp. v. It is the containment structure. It is also a bulwark against a variety of disasters. A fire in a drywell is a serious matter. For extinguishing a fire gone out of control is not easy.<p> Among the people best positioned to prevent fires are the workers who tend to nuclear plants. Congress forbade employers from retaliating against employees who act in prescribed ways to ensure safety. 42 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/08/012062P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(2) are preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. (3) are unconstitutionally vague in the use of the term
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/04/993122P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was organized to build power plants and provide power for its members. Which is the subject of this litigation. The methodology Basin used for determining the cost of AVS II power was set out in Exhibit A of the contract. The Rural Utilities Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200111/00-1297a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Lee A. With him on the brief was Susan J. With him on the brief were Douglas G. FERC
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/07/056006P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The bankruptcy court found the transfer was on account of an antecedent debt. That there was no subsequent new value. We find that the transfer was not on account of an antecedent debt. The office was located at 700 Office Parkway. The Lease was for a term of three years and contained a renewal option for an additional three years at market rate. With market rate defined as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-1088a.html">LA PUB SVC CMSN V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
Fontham</i> argued the cause for petitioners. <p> With him on the briefs were <i>Noel J. With him on <p> the brief were <i>Jay L. With him on the brief was <i>J. Vincent</i> were on the <p> briefs for intervenor Occidental Chemical Corporation.<p> <p> <i>Mary W. Ortman</i> were on the brief for intervenors City of <p> New Orleans and Arkansas Public Service Commission.<p> <p> Before: Wald. To order a <p> refund from the subsidiaries that were undercharged by <p> virtue of the tariff violation to the customers of the over <p> charged subsidiaries. Entergy's <p> subsidiaries are linked by more than common parentage: <p> each subsidiary makes its capacity available to its sister <p> <p> <p> companies as a backstop for when demand exceeds self <p> generated supply. Even when it is not tapped for <p> power generation. Since the subsidiaries' retail rates are set <p> by state regulators based on principles of cost of service <p> ratemaking. It would be inequitable vis a vis a subsidiary's <p> retail customers for that subsidiary not to earn compensa <p> tion from its sister companies when it keeps capacity on hand <p> for them.<p> <p> The Entergy subsidiaries' response to this problem of cost <p> equalization <i>inter se</i> is the System Agreement.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1554.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued for defendant appellee.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july97/95-6850.opa.html">STONE & WEBSTER ENG'G CORP. V. HERMAN<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Stone & Webster Eng'g Corp. v. It is the containment structure. It is also a bulwark against a variety of disasters. A fire in a drywell is a serious matter. For extinguishing a fire gone out of control is not easy.<p> Among the people best positioned to prevent fires are the workers who tend to nuclear plants. Congress forbade employers from retaliating against employees who act in prescribed ways to ensure safety. 42 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="510"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200606/05-5302a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
O:\Slip\WP\2005\05 5302 ConEd8.oss.wpd
With him on the brief were Anthony J. With him on the brief were Thomas O. With him on the brief were Thomas W. BNSF argues first the Board should have dismissed the rate proceeding three years after the complaint was filed. We hold BNSF's first argument is forfeit and its other arguments are unpersuasive. Then it must determine whether the rate charged the shipper is
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Roscoe C. Among the thirty seven utilities were the three appellants: Consolidated Edi son. To whom we will refer collectively throughout this opinion as
OPINION/ORDER
Ollis is a member of the Assemblies of God Church. Which is a Protestant Christian church. John Smith (Smith) is the owner and president of HearthStone. Was the initial leader of Ollis's sales team to whom Ollis could direct any complaints. As well as the beliefs that everything in the universe is connected (including animals and past lives) and that uncorrected problems from past lives must be corrected in the present life. Testified he felt MBE sessions were a job requirement. 2 Ollis told Langford the MBE sessions made him uncomfortable. MBE was cultlike and conflicted with his religious beliefs. Ollis conveyed to Smith that MBE was fundamentally against his religious beliefs. The answer is
OPINION/ORDER
We reject the City's argument that the Gas Company was not a
Roger St. With him on the brief were William S. With him on the brief were
Clinton A. The Commission held that interruptible service is
properly assessed responsibility for capacity costs and. That the LPSC was not entitled to a hearing on its
complaint because it had not alleged that the overall
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Noel J. With him on the brief were Jay L. With him on the brief was J. Vincent were on the briefs for intervenor Occidental Chemical Corporation. Ortman were on the brief for intervenors City of New Orleans and Arkansas Public Service Commission. To order a refund from the subsidiaries that were undercharged by virtue of the tariff violation to the customers of the over charged subsidiaries. Entergy's subsidiaries are linked by more than common parentage: each subsidiary makes its capacity available to its sister companies as a backstop for when demand exceeds self generated supply. Even when it is not tapped for power generation. Since the subsidiaries' retail rates are set by state regulators based on principles of cost of service ratemaking. The Entergy subsidiaries' response to this problem of cost equalization inter se is the System Agreement. If the company's actual capability is less than its capability responsibility. Then the company is
OPINION/ORDER
At ultimate issue is the defendant employers' failure to hire the employees engaged at the site from the plaintiff union's hiring hall. The parties have been ceaselessly embroiled in this matter for over eight years. During this time they have appeared before the district court thrice and an arbitrator once. They are now before this Court for the third time. Given what appears to us to be the relatively modest stakes and the fact that the primary point of contention in the case will probably never recur. [fn2] it is unfortunate that their litigation strategies have prevented them from settling. We can only hope that the opinion that follows will edge them toward a swift resolution of their remaining disputes instead of propelling them back to the arbitrator for another round of pugnacious battle. One we will answer in the affirmative. Is whether the district court erred in not applying retrospectively the National Labor Relation Board's decision in John Deklewa & Sons. A host of other questions is also before us.
Frederick Beckner III argued the cause for petitioner.
OPINION/ORDER
Martinez's suit is his claim of disparate treatment on the basis of age and race or national origin. I. Factual Background The relevant facts are mainly undisputed. Martinez is a Hispanic male. Who at the time in question was over forty years old. He applied for a position as lead courier when two openings were advertised. A total of seven (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. Those claims are not before us on appeal. individuals applied for the two positions.
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was Noel J. With him on the brief were Jay L. With him on the briefs was Roger St. With him on the brief were William S. With him on the brief were Clinton A. The Commission held that interruptible service is properly assessed responsibility for capacity costs and. That the LPSC was not entitled to a hearing on its complaint because it had not alleged that the overall
OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: The final sentence of the second full paragraph on slip op. 2878 that reads.
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Moore v. Which Penn Castle claims is complete and unambiguous. We conclude that Moore's claim for punitive damages was properly dismissed. Penn Castle is the lessee of the subsurface mineral estate and all rights appurtenant thereto. The purpose of such agreements is to avoid litigation by compensating surface estate owners for any damage that might be caused by the use of the surface property in the extraction of minerals.<p> In 1983. These three oral understandings were not reduced to writing that day.<p> On the next day. 000 was to constitute
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="491"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200406/02-1287a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="491"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-1502a.html">AMER PETRO INST V. EPA<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="491"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-3064.html">WILLIAM J. MUSICK V. DEPT. OF ENERGY<BR></A><BR>
For respondent.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>David M. Assistant Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>William Peachey</u>.</p> <p class=MsoNormal><o:p> . Because he was unable to perform the duties of his position.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>On </span><st1:date Year=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="491"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/94-1579.htm">94-1579 -- SOUTHERN UTE INDIAN TRIBE V. AMOCO PRODUCTION CO. -- 07/20/1998<BR></A><BR>
) <p> for lands located within the exterior boundaries of the ) <p> Southern Ute Indian Reservation and which class ) <p> members have not obtained tribal consent to and ) <p> federal approval of said interests of rights. Which entities ) <p> have not obtained tribal consent to and federal ) <p> approval of said exploration. 2) a declaratory judgment that Tribal consent is required for CBM extraction. Sought injunctive relief to prevent the federal defendants from issuing permits to explore for and extract CBM under oil and gas leases or from otherwise acquiescing in the derogation of the Tribe's alleged ownership interest in CBM. <p> Two issues were identified as fundamental to the resolution of all claims against the Amoco defendants: 1) the determination of CBM ownership. Amoco was designated as representative of the class and. The Tribe brought a cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of CBM ownership. <p> The district court held that CBM ownership was vested unambiguously in the Amoco defendants. <u>Southern Ute Indian Tribe v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="491"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1999/983610.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Coal miners 4 who are now disabled. The main issue in this appeal is whether these miners are eligible to receive health benefits under the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit (Coal) Act of 1992. The chief issue before us was addressed in recent decisions of the Fourth and District of Columbia Circuits. The 1947 NBCWA was modified in 1950. Both the 1947 and the 1950 NBCWA's were financed by a per ton levy on coal produced by signatory operators that is. Were subject to the 5 NBCWA. The benefits were subject to cancellation or change depending on the discretionary judgment of the NBCWA's trustees. While the UMWA 1974 Benefit Plan and Trust (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="491"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200303/01-1314b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It is ORDERED that the motion for leave to exceed the page limits be granted. The Clerk is directed to file the lodged document. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the petition be granted. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the opinion in Idaho Power Co. v. Be amended as follows: Delete the last sentence of the opinion and insert in lieu thereof: 2 The case is remanded to FERC for consideration of the appropriate remedy in light of this opinion. McGrail Deputy Clerk Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Federal Reporter or U.S.App.D.C. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of any formal errors in order that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. With him on the briefs were Gary A. The court looks with disfavor upon motions to file bills of costs out of time. 2 the brief were Cynthia A. McGrane was on the brief for intervenor. APS was unable to match IP Merchant's 10 year contract bid. FERC nonetheless ruled that Idaho Power was obliged to continue providing service to APS.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="491"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2BFBC6088AF13AA98825718000723C79/$file/0374628.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="491"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200012/99-1223a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With them on the briefs were Eugene R. With him on the brief were John H. Acting Solicitor at the time the brief was filed. With him on the brief were Matthew W.S. Scott Gaille were on the brief for intervenors TAPS Carriers. Circuit Judge: The Trans Alaska Pipeline Sys tem (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="491"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/03F01A3FAB74FB7688256A6A0056719D/$file/9935581.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Opinion by Judge Wardlaw 1 Spencer Abraham is substituted for his predecessor. Pritikin sued DOE to compel it to budget for the medical monitoring program that the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="491"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/12/98-4185.htm">98-4185 -- CASCADE ENERGY & METALS CORP. V. MASUNAGA -- 12/06/1999<BR></A><BR>
The sureties assert four bases to reverse the district court's order: (1) material facts were in dispute. Summary judgment is appropriate
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="491"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199915160.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(2) that utilities must expand the capacity of their facilities to ensure that attaching entities have access to those facilities. Cable television companies have attached their distribution cables to utility poles owned and maintained by power and telephone companies. Cable companies have had little choice but to do so. The start up costs of constructing an entirely new set of poles and other distribution facilities for cable television cables are prohibitive. The barriers to such construction are insurmountable. Cable companies have long rented space from utilities on their extant poles and conduits. Conditions are just and reasonable
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="491"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022027.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That the rate schedule was arbitrary and capricious because it imposed a surcharge on plaintiffs in order to recover revenue shortages incurred during a prior rate period. The PMAs are responsible for setting rate schedules based on the recovery of costs associated with generating hydroelectric power. Plaintiffs argued that the surcharge was discriminatory and constituted illegal retroactive ratemaking. Concluded that whether or not the surcharge constituted retroactive ratemaking was not relevant because the Flood Control Act does not prohibit retroactive ratemaking. FERC also dismissed plaintiffs' argument that the surcharge was discriminatory because
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="491"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200505/02-5354b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Peter D. With them on the brief were Alex Levinson. Dawson were on the brief of amici curiae American Association for Law Libraries. We will assume familiarity with both opinions and state only the essentials. The ultimate issue is whether this court should issue a writ of mandamus ordering the district court to dismiss the case.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="491"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/nov96/95-2014.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. ADVANCED SCIENCES, INC.<BR></A><BR>
Is a former employee of the Office of the Inspector General at the U.S. The question presented here is whether a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="491"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200407/03-1027a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="491"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/97-4107.htm">97-4107 -- JEYS V. ENERGY WEST MINING CO. -- 12/19/1997<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Mr. Jeys is a pro se litigator who appeals the dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a cause of action. As the district court's action was correct. Plaintiff was injured pursuant to: Knowledge of the law (43 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="491"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1977.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1994 is amended as follows: Page 26. Line 6 should read
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="491"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B2F27EFF2D8F1A2988256EB5004E2AED/$file/0215762.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The face of American poverty is changing dramatically. Minimum wage workers are unable to support their families' basic needs. At A1 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="491"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/01/031922P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Natural gas production is a multi step process. Natural gas is unusable. Natural gasolineis referred to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="491"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1933.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LLC were on brief for petitioners.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="491"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200604/05-5089a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Peter D. With him on the brief were Thomas A. With him on the brief was Stanley O. Making claims against both the government and many of the refund beneficiaries who were not his clients. Con Ed V about $35 4 million (which may overlap with the $264 million).1 We have. In the event that any fees are awarded. The degree to which they are attributable to the one court decision left standing as conceivably justifying a fee (Con Ed IV). Will not be simple. 1 5 The fee claims under review were asserted in a motion in Con Ed V and in two separate lawsuits. In doing so it said it was applying the law of the case doctrine. (We have discovered no request by Kalodner in these cases for more than 10%.). Because Kalodner's efforts in that case may have satisfied the causal requirements for a common fund recovery. Because it is clear that that lawsuit failed to yield any court ordered relief and more generally played no material role in the successes claimed. As the record makes clear that there was no such victory in Con Ed V.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="491"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/98-6209a.htm">98-6209A -- TOSCO CORPORATION V. KOCH INDUSTRIES, INC. -- 05/26/2000<BR></A><BR>
On the relative period during which the Refinery was operated while under Koch's ownership. <p> Upon consideration. An amended opinion is attached to this order. <p> <strong>Entered by the Court:</strong> <p> <strong> WADE BRORBY</strong> <p> <strong> </strong>United States Circuit Judge <p> <strong><img src=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="491"></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-4.gif" ALT="491"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200208/00-1355a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With them on the briefs were David G. With him on the briefs were T. With him on the brief were Cynthia A. With him on the brief were David P. 1 (hereinafter
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="491"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/01/951526P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are organized under the laws of North Dakota. This possessory interest tax The Secretary of the Interior is authorized and empowered to grant a right of way. Or through any lands which have been allotted in severalty to any individual Indian under any law or treaty. Which have not been conveyed to the allottee with full power of alienation. Where such lines are not subject to State or Territorial taxation the company or owner of the line shall pay to the Secretary of the Interior. That incorporated cities and towns into or through which such telephone or telegraphic lines may be constructed shall have the power to regulate the manner of construction therein. Nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to deny the right of municipal taxation in such towns and cities. 3 is assessed on 100 percent of the actual value of the possessory interest as determined by the Tribal Tax Commission (Tax Commission). Such appeals are conditioned upon prepayment of the taxes assessed by the Tax Commission. The Cooperatives' property interests situated within the Reservation are subject to the possessory interest tax and to the Tax Code's remedies and appeal provisions.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="491"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sep1999/99a2282.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because we conclude that Manus was entitled to relief because of excusable neglect on its part. We will reverse. 1. Is a corporation which. Appellees in this case are referred to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="491"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9D4BD0C60C51461B88256E5A00707B90/$file/9935581.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Opinion by Judge Wardlaw 1 Spencer Abraham is substituted for his predecessor. Pritikin sued DOE to compel it to budget for the medical monitoring program that the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="491"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1204.html">PATRICK ROEDLER V. DEPT OF ENERGY<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1995/95a0975p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will reverse. We will vacate the district court's judgment and remand so that the district court may determine whether the regulations can be upheld despite their discriminatory effect.[fn1] I. The facts of this case are generally not in dispute.[fn2] The necessary factual background concerns New Jersey's waste management system and Atlantic Coast's activities. Or was in the process of closing. Was at the forefront of both the problem and the solution. A number of additional counties were forced by the continuing capacity shortages to make disposal arrangements with out of state facilities. New Jersey waste was banned. New Jersey's existing statutory and regulatory waste management system is the result of attempts to respond to this crisis.[fn3] The two major statutory provisions of New Jersey's solid waste management system are the Solid Waste Management Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-1426a.html">ENVIROCARE OF UTAH V. NRC<BR></A><BR>
With him </P> <P>on the briefs was Lynda L. With him on </P> <P>the brief were Lois J. Rader were on </P> <P>the brief for intervenors.</P> <P> Before: Edwards. Permit persons to intervene in administrative </P> <P>proceedings even though these persons would not have stand </P> <P>ing to challenge the agency's final action in federal court. </P> <P>Agencies. Are not constrained by Article III of the </P> <P>Constitution. Nor are they governed by judicially created </P> <P>standing doctrines restricting access to the federal courts. </P> <P>The criteria for establishing
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200706/04-1238a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the briefs was Gerald A. With him on the brief were John S. With him on the brief were David C. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission determined that anticompetitive and market manipulative practices were making market based electricity transmission rates unjust and unreasonable. The Market Behavior Rules were not issued in the form of Commission regulations. Are fundamentally incompatible with market based tariffs. The Commission argues that intervening events have mooted Consumer Advocates' claim. After the petition was filed. Some of which were issued under its new EPAct authority. Were Consumer 4 Advocates' legal theory correct. There is thus still an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-1333c.html">INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
Eastment argued the cause for petitioners Opposing Lifting of Rate Cap.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-2150_015.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Caused it to transfer shares to McNamee and other persons by sales that purportedly were exempt from registration under §4(2) of the 1933 Act. Because they were not part of a public distribution. Demonstrating that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1356.html">SIERRA APPLIED SCIENCES, INC. V. ADVANCED ENERGY INDUSTRIES, INC.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The briefs were submitted by <u>Susan E. For the appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Bruce E. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Kristen M. Haney</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Craig A. Mso pagination:widow orphan no line numbers'><span style='mso tab count:1'> </span>The following facts are uncontested. Including power supplies designed for use in reactive sputtering.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>AEI describes reactive sputtering as a process whereby the surface of an item is coated with a thin film formed through chemical reactions in the presence of a plasma of charged particles in a vacuum chamber. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Reactive sputtering is used in. The occurrence of elec
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/03/99-1351.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
HOLLOWAY </strong>and <strong>HARTZ</strong></a><a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199806/97-1352a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nolan was on brief. Were on brief. We dismiss both challenges because we conclude that (1) PIHA is not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1009.html">TEGAL CORPORATION V. TOKYO ELECTRON AMERICA, INC<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200204/98-1333c.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were John P. With him on the briefs were John J. With them on the briefs were Joan Dreskin. With him on the briefs were Steve Stojic. With him on the briefs were E. With them on the briefs were Bruce F. Mallory were on the briefs for petitioners and intervenors. With him on the briefs were Joshua B. With him on the briefs were C. Myers were on the brief for intervenors in support of Lifting the Rate Cap. Corman were on the brief for intervenor Interstate Pipeline. With him on the brief were Peter G. Lewis and Niki Kuckes were on the brief for intervenors Amoco Production Company. With the following exceptions: we reverse and remand with respect to the five year cap on the mandatory right of first refusal and in part with respect to the limitations on pre arranged releases (is sues V.A.1 and VIII in the Table of Contents). Waiver of the rate ceilings for short term capacity releases by shippers The heart of Order No. 637 was the Commission's decision to lift for a two year period the cost based rate ceilings that it previously imposed on short term
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0214p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That the agency arbitrarily concluded that the proposed mining would have no significant impact on the region's environment. Because the administrative record shows that the agency in effect did consider other options to the coal company's license request (primarily modifications to the application that would diminish the environmental consequences of the mining) and because plaintiffs on appeal have not identified any concrete alternatives that the agency should have considered (but did not). Concluding that plaintiffs had failed to show that the agency's environmental assessment and its decision to issue a finding of no significant impact were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199807/97-5253a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on brief. Wright and Audrey Byrd Mosley were on brief. Glitzenstein was on brief. Circuit Judge: This appeal poses the recurring question of what remedy is appropriate for a federal agency's violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Which committee both the Department and the Academy concede was orga nized and operated in violation of FACA. Because we have serious doubts whether the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0976n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(2) Defendants NAS and SMS Demag were immune under the Kentucky Workers' Compensation Act. The electrode arm was designed to retract and raise out of a melting structure in the event of a power loss. The complaint generally alleged that the Defendants were negligent in failing to monitor and inspect the accident area and to take adequate 2 No. 04 5340 Smith v. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence submitted shows
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0755n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chilson (collectively
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1503.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.A. was on brief for petitioner. Were on brief for respondent. Or operate such dam or other project works until it shall have applied for and shall have received a license under the provisions of this chapter. If no public lands or reservations are affected. Permission is granted to construct such dam or other project works in such stream upon compliance with State 2 2 FERC's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200610/04-1398a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Michael R. With her on the 2 brief were John S.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></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-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1508.html">EMI GROUP NA V. CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199811/97-1725a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Rodney O. With him on the brief were Jay L. Bartholomot were on the brief for amicus curiae Edison Electric Institute. Although the plant will deteriorate from use from year to year. Depreciation charges are the means by which a utility recovers over time the capital invested in the facilities or plant used in producing power. Where R is the utility's total revenue require ments. O is its operating costs. Including all types of operating and would expect both the Commission and the utilities it regu lates to have a keen interest in the accurate measurement of depreciation. It is not surprising. Where depreciation accounting is not implicated in a rate making proceeding. That is not to say that the Commission lacks the statutory authority to do so. V is the original cost or value of its investments in facilities. D is accumulat ed depreciation. R is the reasonable rate of return. The Commission is also autho rized to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-5055.html">DEL-RIO DRILLING V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0135p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Timothy Mellen and Elizabeth Lentsch were convicted of trespassing on Department of Energy property in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2278a(c) and 10 C.F.R. §§ 860.3 and 860.5.1 They appeal their convictions. The statute provides: (a) The [Atomic Energy] Commission is authorized to issue regulations relating to the entry upon . . . any facility. 000. (c) W hoever shall willfully violate any regulation of the Commission issued pursuant to subsection (a) of this section with respect to any installation or other property which is enclo sed b y a fence. The functions of the Atomic Energy Commission have been transferred to the Administrator of the Energy Research and D evelopment Administration. Nos. 02 6192/6193 arguing that they were deprived of due process because the information failed to allege an essential element of 10 C.F.R. § 860.5 that the property they entered upon was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-1061a.html">OXY USA INC V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1351.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case is before us after the Supreme Court granted Rockwell International Corporation's petition for writ of certiorari and reversed the portion of our prior judgment in favor of plaintiff James S. ORDER AFTER LIMITED REMAND The disposition of the instant appeals by published opinion for a divided panel was suspended on petition for rehearing. Is reported. We will not attempt to summarize in this order the complex factual and legal background of this matter which is outlined in that opinion. At which all counsel agreed that the record was adequate to enable the judge to make the findings and conclusions necessary. Defendant avers that this point is (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. R. 36.3. (2) Judge Hartz has replaced the late Judge Politz on the panel. (1) See 31 U.S.C. 3730(e)(4). (2) These terms are explained in our published opinion. <hr> moot because the verdict for the time frame including this claim was in its favor. Stone had conceded that he did not make pre filing disclosure to the government of any knowledge he may have had underlying his claims with respect to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200605/04-1343a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Steven H. With her on the brief were Thomas O. Melvin Goldstein was on the brief of intervenors Big West Oil. Barr were on the brief of intervenors Frontier Pipeline Company and Express Pipeline LLC. Senior Circuit Judge: Before us are petitions for review of orders of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission requiring certain crude oil carriers to pay shippers reparations for excessive rates. The next year provided that oil pipelines were to be regulated under the version of the ICA that prevailed on October 1. All references to the ICA in this opinion are to the 1977 version. The parties agree that decisions of the ICC applying the ICA prior to the 1977 legislation are treated as if they were FERC decisions. Under which ceiling levels for pipeline rates are adjusted annually on the basis of a formula predicting annual percentage changes in industry wide pipeline costs. A single pipeline's cost reduction is unlikely to much affect the industry wide index. The original ceiling level from which this process begins is determined either by reference to the rate in effect on December 31.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-1642a.html">WE RESOURCES INC V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-1566a.html">TN VALLEY MUNI GAS V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D29A5C3876E991CB88256BED006F110A/$file/0115449oa.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2002 is amended as follows: At slip opinion page 5765. The fourth sentence that begins
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/june97/95-2121.wpd.html">KERR-MCGEE V. FARLEY<BR></A><BR>
Names of counsel appearing on the appellees' supplemental brief were omitted from the attorney designation list. A corrected version of that page of the opinion is attached for your convenience. Arguing that the Navajo Tribal Court is without jurisdiction to adjudicate nuclear tort claims against Kerr McGee. Who are members of the Navajo Tribe and residents of the reservation. Because there is no explicit mention of exclusive federal court jurisdiction over Price Anderson claims. It concluded that the proper practice was to stay the federal court proceedings until the tribal court had determined its jurisdiction. We are unaware of any appeal by Kerr McGee of the Navajo District Court order. DISCUSSION The scope of a tribal court's jurisdiction is a federal question over which federal district courts have jurisdiction. The district court's determination of the proper scope of the tribal exhaustion rule is reviewed de novo. A The tribal exhaustion rule was created in National Farmers. The Supreme Court concluded: [T]he existence and extent of a tribal court's jurisdiction will require a careful examination of tribal sovereignty.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200602/04-1340a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Raymond B. With her on the brief were Cynthia A. Eilbott were on the brief for intervenor in support of respondent. 2 Before: TATEL and GRIFFITH. Senior Circuit Judge: This is a dispute between a utility and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission over the rate for sending electricity over certain low voltage facilities not covered by the relevant Open Access Transmission Tariff. The Allegheny utility operating in Pennsylvania is West Penn Power Company. Is an organization through which fourteen local distribution cooperatives in Pennsylvania buy their electricity. It is a wholesale customer of Allegheny. One of the types of service provided under the contract and the only one that concerns us here is known as partial requirements service. Such bundling was commonplace in contracts between vertically integrated utilities and their customers. Such a schedule is known as an Open Access Transmission Tariff (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AC1549B881DDD62A882571BE00509BBC/$file/PUC+v.+FERC+pressrelease.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which was to operate pursuant to a FERC approved tariff and FERC wholesale rate schedules. Investor owned utilities were required to purchase all the electrical energy that they required from the CalPX markets and to conduct all of their sales through the CalPX market. Was responsible for managing California's electricity transmission grid and balancing electrical supply and demand. FERC may Page 1 of 2 investigate whether electric rates are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-1381a.html">FLORIDA MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
Jablon argued the cause for petitioner.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the briefs was Daniel I. Argued the cause for respondent.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on <br clear=all style='page break before:always'> the brief were Cynthia A. Solicitor. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Clifford (Mike) Naeve was on the brief for intervenor. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Before:<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Sentelle. We deny the petition. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>I. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>After determining that utilities were discriminatorily deny ing power suppliers access to electricity transmission lines. 547. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Three additional features of Order No. 888 are relevant to this case.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>First. The costs of the transmission system are allocated on the basis of the ratio of the network customer's load to the transmission provider's entire load on its transmission system.".
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CC516F062D5456A788256CE1005ED1DC/$file/0056673.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2003 is hereby amended as follows: 1. 2. After
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/09/99-1351.htm">99-1351 -- U.S. V. ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORP. -- 09/24/2001<BR></A><BR>
Rockwell was compensated on a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1134.html">CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK V. SPENCER ABRAHAM<BR></A><BR>
DOE promulgated an eligibility rule that was later revised in 1992.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200511/03-1403a.pdf">O:\BENCH_MO\2005-2006\CORKRAN\SEPTEMBER CASES\CONSUMERS ENERGY V. FERC\CONSUMERS ENERGY CO OPINION (12-22-05) (WEST).WPD<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were Cynthia A. FERC clarified that it would
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5083.html">MARITRANS INC., V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Laurie Frost Wilson</u>. <st1:State>Virginia</st1:State></st1:place>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Arthur J. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Douglas N. Line height:200%'>Maritrans Inc. is a marine petroleum transport company.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Maritrans Inc. Mso bidi language:AR SA'>[1]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a><span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Maritrans asserted that the vessels were taken by the double hull requirement imposed by section 4115 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (". As far as twenty nine of the single hull tank vessels were concerned. Maritrans' takings claim was not ripe for adjudication.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>Maritrans Inc. v. </u><st1:country region><st1:place><u>United States</u></st1:place></st1:country region>.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTMyNTEtYmtfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3251-bk_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That its belated filing was the result of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTMyNTEtYmsgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/04-3251-bk%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That its belated filing was the result of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1237.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. We affirm the court's grant of Fujitsu's motion for summary judgment that the non clamping claims of the '400 patent are invalid because of anticipation. That claims 5 11 of the '349 patent are invalid because of indefiniteness. Are both entitled
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1173a.html">FOURTH BR ASSOC V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Frances E. Argued the cause for respondent.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199910/98-1426a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Lynda L. With him on the brief were Lois J. Rader were on the brief for intervenors. Permit persons to intervene in administrative proceedings even though these persons would not have stand ing to challenge the agency's final action in federal court. Are not constrained by Article III of the Constitution. Nor are they governed by judicially created standing doctrines restricting access to the federal courts. Is the converse true? This is the ultimate question posed in these consolidated petitions for judicial review of two orders of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission refusing to grant Envirocare of Utah. I Envirocare was the first commercial facility in the nation the Commission licensed to dispose of certain radioactive byproduct material from offsite sources.2 The Commission had licensed other companies to dispose of such radioactive waste. Only if the waste was produced onsite. Envirocare's basic complaint was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2002/002525.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Companies argue that the Act is unconstitutional as applied to them pursuant to Eastern Enterprises v. We conclude that the assignments are not unconstitutional as applied. It will be helpful to explain the historical background and context of this dispute. I. THE COAL ACT The Coal Act was enacted in 1992
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1363.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Jamie H. Of counsel were Justin M. With him on the brief were Gordon G. EEI stipulated that the patents in suit were valid and enforceable for purposes of the litigation. The court partially granted EEI's motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of the '151 patent by holding that there was no genuine issue of material fact that EEI literally infringed the '151 patent. That there was a sufficient issue of fact regarding Conoco's remaining claims for doctrine of equivalents infringement. That defendants Eaton and Grabois did not have personal liability for the infringement.1 Conoco. A. The Patents in Suit BACKGROUND The patents in suit encompass processes for making drag reducing agents (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/03/99-1351.htm">99-1351 -- U.S. V. ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORP. -- 03/04/2002<BR></A><BR>
Was circulated to the members of the panel and all circuit judges of the court in regular service. That suggestion is denied. <p> The petition for rehearing by the panel has been considered by the panel and it has been determined that rehearing is granted for the limited purpose of modifying the opinion and ordering a limited remand to the district court as provided herein. The limited remand to the district court is for the purpose of that court making findings of fact and conclusions concerning the issue of disclosure prior to filing of this action in accordance with the False Claims Act. A supplemental record will be transmitted to this court containing the additional findings and conclusions made on this limited remand. This court will otherwise retain jurisdiction of this cause. The rulings made previously in our opinion are undisturbed. Final disposition of these appeals will be made. <p> The court's opinion as modified on rehearing by the panel is being filed along with this order. <p> ENTERED FOR THE COURT <p> <p> Patrick Fisher.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4AF470DEE51F871D88256B9C007E0A4F/$file/0115449.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The Transmission Agency of Northern California (TANC) is a joint exercise of powers agency composed of over a dozen Northern and Central California municipalities. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.§ 1291. All facts alleged in TANC's complaint are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to it. Which was to be constructed by defendant Sierra Pacific. If the Alturas Intertie is operating at its maximum 300 MW capacity. Alleging that the Alturas Intertie would create a megawatt formegawatt reduction in the capacity of the California Oregon 2 The Pacific AC Intertie is located south of the California Oregon border and is owned by utilities not parties to this litigation. It was already connected to the Northwest AC Intertie. TANC requested that FERC ensure that procedures were put in place to protect the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200002/98-1245a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were John P. Wilcox argued the cause and was on the briefs for petitioner Washington Water Power Company. With him on the brief were Jay L. With him on the brief were Joseph H. Was the main shipper on the line. This so called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/746D7C92546BD66488256CB50057F4FE/$file/0056673.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs Appellants in these consolidated cases allege that they were forced to work as slave laborers for German and Japanese corporations during the Second World War. Defendants Appellees are corporations (or successors or affiliates of those corporations) that allegedly committed these atrocities. These claims are not time barred if commenced on or before December 31. All raise section 354.6 as the primary basis for bringing their suits so many years after the alleged wrongs were committed. We hold that section 354.6 is invalid under the United States Constitution and that in its absence Appellants' remaining claims are time barred. The slave workers were often underfed. Many were murdered. Among these slave laborers were. A phenomenon that is still thriving in all too many parts of the world today.2 Although the statute distinguishes between
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200504/04-1133a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Were on brief for the intervenor. 2 Before: SENTELLE. Most of which is privately owned. Expressing concern that some of the land that Rhinelander owned and proposed to remove might
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200311/01-1503a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7EA83AC64E12A4DE88257145006F2945/$file/0473240.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
BACKGROUND BPA is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1390.html">CITGO V. U.S. FOREIGN TRADE-ZONES<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200308/02-1132a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200304/02-1141a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200501/03-1228a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Richard C. With him on the brief were Cynthia A. With him on the brief were Susan E. Edison Mission says that the rulings will cut back price increments that are due to scarcity rather than to any exercise of market power. As a result will impair the growth of needed power supply. We reverse and remand the orders. * * * 3 The NYISO is a non profit corporation that operates the bulk power transmission system in New York. First is the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200106/00-1173a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Frances E. With her on the brief was Dennis Lane. Mertens was on the brief for intervenor. Fourth Branch filed a complaint with the Commission alleging that Niagara Mo hawk was engaging in anticompetitive conduct in violation of the Federal Power Act. Explaining that the two parties were unable to continue operating the plant because one is unwilling (Niagara Mohawk) and the other unable (Fourth Branch) the Commission gave notice of its intent to accept the parties' implied surrender of the Mechanicville license. It contends that the finding of implied surrender is unreason able. It maintains that the dismissal of its anticompetitiveness complaint was arbitrary and capricious and not supported by substantial evidence. We do not have jurisdiction to consider the implied surrender finding. Is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Until recently it was the oldest continuously operating hydroelectric plant in the country. The Mechanicville plant is also at the heart of a protracted battle between Fourth Branch and Niagara Mohawk.1 At various times.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200301/01-1381a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Daniel I. With her on the brief were Cynthia A. Clifford (Mike) Naeve was on the brief for intervenor. I. After determining that utilities were discriminatorily deny ing power suppliers access to electricity transmission lines. Three additional features of Order No. 888 are relevant to this case. The costs of the transmission system are allocated on the basis of the ratio of the network customer's load to the transmission provider's entire load on its transmission system.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200212/01-1314a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Gary A. With him on the brief were Cynthia A. McGrane was on the brief for intervenor. APS was unable to match IP Merchant's 10 year contract bid. FERC nonetheless ruled that Idaho Power was obliged to continue providing service to APS. Because the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F8F25FC93000BD9C88256C83006210DC/$file/0116637.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The purpose of the lease suspensions was to extend the lives of the leases and to allow the lessees to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1212r.html">FAG ITALIA S.P.A V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant FAG Bearings Corporation and FAG Italia S.p.A.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5008.html">FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were <U>John H. With him on the brief were <U>David W. The dismissal order was entered on the government s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Because we conclude that the government is not entitled to judgment at this stage of the case. The contracts were administered and performed through the Department of Energy (DOE).</P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1995/94a0975p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will reverse. We will vacate the district court's judgment and remand so that the district court may determine whether the regulations can be upheld despite their discriminatory effect.[fn1] I. The facts of this case are generally not in dispute.[fn2] The necessary factual background concerns New Jersey's waste management system and Atlantic Coast's activities. Or was in the process of closing. Was at the forefront of both the problem and the solution. A number of additional counties were forced by the continuing capacity shortages to make disposal arrangements with out of state facilities. New Jersey waste was banned. New Jersey's existing statutory and regulatory waste management system is the result of attempts to respond to this crisis.[fn3] The two major statutory provisions of New Jersey's solid waste management system are the Solid Waste Management Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/06/962120P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
After finding that both sets of plaintiffs have standing. We hold that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200012/99-1203a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
David D'Alessandro was on brief for the petitioner. Were on brief for the respondent. Borrasca were on brief for intervenor Kansas Pipeline Com pany. Circuit Judge: Petitioner Mis souri Public Service Commission (MoPSC) seeks review of three orders of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) setting initial rates for natural gas transportation by the Kansas Pipeline Company (KPC or Company).1 The petitioner argues that FERC failed to dem onstrate the approved rates are in the public interest. Failed to reach a conclusion that is the product of reasoned decisionmaking. . . . unless there is in force with respect to such natural gas company a certificate of public convenience and 1 The orders under review are Kansas Pipeline Co. [or] operation . . . is or will be required by the present or future public convenience and necessity.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1203a.html">PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF CALIF. V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
Gallagher argued the cause for petitioner.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/98-6209.htm">98-6209 -- TOSCO CORP. V. KOCH INDUSTRIES INC. -- 05/02/2000<BR></A><BR>
The district court declared Koch responsible for its fair share (fifteen percent) of all past and future response costs and damages Tosco incurred or will incur while investigating and remediating environmental contamination at the abandoned Duncan. Resource Recovery Company and Energy Realty International are the current owners of the Refinery. <p> <u>Refinery Operations</u> <p> Koch. Koch's asphalt plant was shutdown after Sunray built the coker in 1954. <p> Refinery operations. These areas are probable sources of underground contamination. That further investigation and remedial action was necessary and requested that Tosco and Sun conduct such activity jointly. Total costs are likely to exceed $2. Resource Recovery and Energy Realty were tried to the court in February 1998. Koch was the only defendant that appeared and defended these remaining claims. Energy Realty either no longer exist or are insolvent. <p> In March 1998. Tosco is entitled to recover response costs from any person who is liable or potentially liable under CERCLA
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F2123EC61ABB9D688825735300509F5D/$file/0535408.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This appeal challenges an injunction limiting but not entirely prohibiting coal bed methane development while the Bureau of Land Management expands an environmental impact statement.1 Facts The Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming is the largest coal deposit in the United States and among the largest in the world. Farmers and ranchers generally have surface rights to the land involved in this case. The land is thought to cover vast amount of methane. This coal bed methane is a natural gas generated by coal deposits and trapped in coal seams by groundwater. Coal bed methane is extracted by pumping the groundwater out of the land and into rivers. As the water is removed. The hydraulic pressure on the gas is relieved. So the gas percolates and is piped to the surface. This opinion is written in ordinary English. The pollution of the rivers and streams into which the groundwater is pumped. So that ranchers' and farmers' (and expanding suburban developers') wells run dry unless they are drilled deeper.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-7250a.html">WORLD WIDE MINERALS V. REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN<BR></A><BR>
Keller argued the cause for appellants.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07b0004n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The precedential effect of this decision is limited to the case and parties pursuant to 6th Cir. I. ISSUES ON APPEAL This appeal raises the following issues: (1) whether a bankruptcy court is required to hold a separate hearing to determine the amount of sanctions to be awarded. An order is final if it
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/04/97-9544.htm">97-9544 -- TRIMMER V. U.S. STATES DEPT. OF LABOR -- 04/06/1999<BR></A><BR>
Which is owned by the Department of Energy but run by the University of California. In the summer of 1988 a doctor determined that Trimmer was fit for light duty work. A process for finding injured employees new positions suitable to their new physical limitations and work restrictions.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200101/99-1390a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With them on the briefs were Mary Anne Mason. With her on the brief were John H. With him on the brief were Richard C. FERC abused its discretion and acted arbi trarily and capriciously by (1) not adhering more closely to 1 Petitioners are the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/921DE70202D8450E882572CF007EEEB3/$file/0373426.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argues that the WP 02 rates are not sufficient to satisfy BPA's fish and wildlife obligations.1 Petitioner Canby Utility Board raises an issue specific to its contract with BPA. Are not supported by substantial evidence. I. Background BPA is a federal agency that markets power generated primarily by federal hydroelectric projects in the Columbia River basin. The parties asked us to rule that the claim was not ripe for review in the present WP 02 appeal. BPA periodically determines the wholesale power rates it will charge its customers. When the rate ceiling for preference customers is triggered. BPA's proposed rates do not become effective until they are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971376.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Statement of the Case The City of Summersville is located in Nicholas County. Which was granted following appropriate environmental review. The proposed corridor for the line would have a maximum width of 80 feet. The FERC notices provided that comments and motions to intervene from interested parties were to be submitted by December 4. Public notice of the meeting was given. It was held as scheduled. FERC observed that public notice was also given in connection with its meeting on September 19. It found that any defect in the notice procedure which remained had also been cured by the fact that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/231135295B45B74088256C3D00602467/$file/0156879.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The idea animating AB 1890 was that deregulation would foster competition in electrical generation. The goal of AB 1890 was to create a deregulated market in which price would be established by competition and consumers could select their electrical power supplier. Stranded costs are those costs an electrical supplier incurs in anticipation of serving customers that later become unrecoverable because the supplier either cannot The legislation is summarized in Cal. LYNCH charge a rate that allows cost recovery or is unable to sell sufficient power. This most typically occurs when there is a shift in utility rate philosophy from a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/03/97-9029.htm">97-9029 -- TRUE OIL CO. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE -- 03/23/1999<BR></A><BR>
Is the tax matters partner<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1554.html">ENERCON GMBH V. USITC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052250np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. FACTS and PROCEDURAL HISTORY Caldon produces the LEFM Flow Measurement System (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/97-7104.htm">97-7104 -- CITY OF STILWELL V. OZARKS RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE CORP. -- 01/26/1999<BR></A><BR>
The case was later removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. It contends the commissioners appointed by the court to calculate just compensation are not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-1632a.html">TRANS GAS PIPE LINE V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200404/03-1026a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/02/971081P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a consolidated action involving MidAmerican Energy Company (MidAmerican). This opinion is consistent with the views he expressed at our post argument conference. 11 1 the issue was not ripe for adjudication. MidAmerican was shipping the coal from origin to destination under contract with the Union Pacific Railroad (UP). This contract was scheduled to expire at the end of 1997. The only other carrier offering rail service originating in the Powder River Basin is the Burlington Northern Railroad (BN). Such a rail segment is commonly termed a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-1048a.html">PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE COMPANY V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
With </p> <p>him on the briefs were Merlin E. With him on </p> <p>the brief were Jay L. Winter was on the brief for intervenors River </p> <p>side Pipeline Company. Thompson </p> <p>were on the brief for amicus curiae Transcontinental Gas Pipe </p> <p>Line Corporation.</p> <p>Before: Silberman. 825 (1993) (refusing to require pipeline to construct </p> <p>mid point tap because requester was ". Criterion on the ground that it </p> <p>was ". Criterion on the ground that it was </p> <p>". Allow Panhandle to deny an inter </p> <p>connect to a future requester that would have received one </p> <p>under the similarly situated standard. Its policy of requiring the construction of </p> <p>interconnects only when requesters were similarly situated to </p> <p>parties whose requests had previously been granted. 81 </p> <p>F.E.R.C. at 62. There was no conflict or change. The requesting party </p> <p>[still would have] to meet numerous requirements. FERC's counsel agreed with </p> <p>Panhandle's contention that the pipeline would be required to </p> <p>construct a requested interconnect if the FERC modified </p> <p>criteria in the new tariff were met.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-1855a.html">IN MUNI POWER AGCY V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F34FF7AEFD9CFE4488256D88007885E6/$file/0170616.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction over Bell's timely filed petition under 16 U.S.C. § 839f(e). I. BPA is a federal agency designated as the marketing authority for almost all electric power generated in federal 11794 BELL v. While the DSI had the option to curtail the amount of power it was obligated to buy. The original contracts gave BPA no authority to curtail the amount of power it was obligated to sell. The result was a financial disaster: a contractual obligation to buy high and sell low. The plan was an astounding success. (2) BPA's decision was arbitrary. Our power of review is limited. We may set aside BPA's decision only if it is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1995/95a0990p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Internal Revenue Service contended the settlement agreement was not an executory contract. We will affirm. I. The facts are undisputed. TCO is Columbia Gas System's principal gas purchaser from producers in the Southwest. The district court certified as a class[fn2] the producers of natural gas in the Appalachian region who were parties to gas purchase contracts with TCO. For five years there was extensive discovery. At such time as this Order of the Court approving the Settlement as final is non appealable. Jurisdiction is hereby retained as to matters related to the interpretation. TCO was to pay $15 million into escrow by March 21. This schedule was apparently set for TCO's convenience. TCO's duty to make the second payment was not contingent on the class members' performance of any of their obligations. Class members were entitled to receive their share of the escrow monies only after they executed a release of claims and a supplemental contract. The settlement agreement stated
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1444.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The parties have been litigating issues related to the confirmation and enforcement of the amended arbitration award. Which was affirmed by this court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 and vacate and remand to the district court for further remand to the arbitration panel for clarification of the arbitration award. (1) The Honorable Ted Stewart. As follows: Plaintiff USECC is a joint venture comprised of two uranium mining companies. [Cycle Resource Investment Corp. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200107/00-1203a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Arocles Aguilar. With her on the brief was Dennis Lane. Lonian were on the brief for intervenors Northern California Power Agency and California Independent System Operator Corporation. The Commission rejected the argument that a s 205 filing was required. That even if it is a valid formula rate. S 205 requires re filing when the formula is changed. Is misplaced because the availability of review under s 206 does not abrogate the s 205 filing requirement. We hold that the Commission could properly determine that although the RMR contracts are components of the formula rate or affect the ultimate rates charged pursuant to the formula. S 205 filing was not required and s 206 affords an adequate statutory remedy. The ISO is required to maintain transmission system reliability. The Northern California Power Agency (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200107/96-1336a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Jill M. With her on the brief were Jay L. Solicitor at the time the brief was filed. With him on the brief was Steven W. With him on the briefs were Edward A. With her on the brief was Dennis Lane. With him on the brief were Steven W. Petitioners are seeking review of the relevant rate increase. Which because of later filings by Northwest was in effect only from April 1. One of the cases involves issues that were resolved before we remanded to the Commission to consider the effect of a Commission policy change. The Commis 1 The five are: Opinion No. 396. Finding that Northwest was entitled to a re weighting of the short and long term growth rates in the equity return calculation. 88 FERC p 61. All FERC orders cited in this decision have the title
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200208/00-7250a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Marshall Lee Miller. M. Melissa Glassman was on the brief. With him on the brief was Thomas B. With her on the brief were Francis A. 18 U.S.C. s 1961 et seq.1 The defendants in this case are Kazakhstan and two of its instrumentalities. Are also plaintiffs in this case. Holding that it did not have personal jurisdiction over that New York corporation because World Wide's injuries did not arise out of any act that took place in the District of Colum bia. As to those claims where there was no waiver. We agree with the district court that the act of state doctrine is fatal to World Wide's suit. Because the dismissal of the claims against Nukem was based on a misunderstanding regarding the date upon which World Wide alleges that officials of Nukem and Kazakhstan met in the District of Columbia to conspire against it. We remand those claims to permit the district court to determine whether the facts are sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. World Wide submitted a proposal 2 The facts set out in this Part are taken from World Wide's amended complaint and documents incorporated by reference there in.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3E063293B15D827F882573370056C89D/$file/0535648.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Hanford Reservation was a plutonium production facility that helped make the atomic bomb that dropped on Nagasaki. A regrettable Hanford byproduct was the radioiodine emitted into the surrounding area. The plaintiffs in this litigation are over two thousand residents who now claim that these emissions. Claiming they were entitled to damages for injuries arising from a nuclear IN RE: HANFORD NUCLEAR RESERVATION LITIGATION 9797 incident pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2210. The history is discussed in our earlier opinions in In re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation. The trial was designed to produce a verdict that would highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the parties' respective cases and thus focused on six plaintiffs (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972362.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
UNITED STATES ATTOR *Judge Ervin heard oral argument in this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Was employed by the defendant Department of Energy in 1983. Gilyard was serving as a Contractor Industrial Relations Specialist. The case was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina and assigned to a United States Magistrate Judge for report and recommendation. The Department of Energy conceded that Gilyard was qualified for the position that he sought. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. 2 Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue of material fact. The moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Gilyard argues that a genuine dispute existed as to retaliatory actions taken by the Department upon learning that he was filing a claim with the EEOC. Gilyard alleges that Miss Larson was unqualified for the position and that he presented evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of this material fact.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1995/95a1181p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199801/96-1200a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ward were on the joint briefs. Lange was on the briefs. Zolet were on the briefs. Whittle was on the briefs. Brackett was on the briefs. Were on the brief. Wallbillich were on the brief. Whittle were on the brief. Were not otherwise arbitrary and capri cious. FERC tradition ally approved pipelines' proposals to roll expansion costs into their general rates (thereby allocating expansion costs to all users pro rata regardless of the extent to which they use the new facilities) so long as the pipeline could show both that the system was integrated and that qualitative benefits accrued to all customers as a consequence of the expansion. Claiming that FERC's orders were arbitrary. While not holding that the commensurate benefits test was itself invalid. Arguing that the outcome was inequitable and not mandated by TransCanada. We do not consider what effect its application would have had. decision to apply a commensurate benefits test was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199806/97-1035a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the briefs were Christopher J. With him on the brief were Jay L. With him on the brief were Benga L. Which have facilities near the nation's major sources of natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico and the South west. Columbia provided UGI with what UGI claims was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/042737P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The main stem dams and reservoirs are Fort Peck Dam (Fort Peck Lake) in Montana. Environmental groups have attempted to force the Corps to operate the system to produce more
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1532.html">CARDIAC PACEMAKERS, INC., ET AL. V. ST. JUDE MEDICAL, INC., ET AL.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Jeffrey B. Of counsel on the brief was <u>Richard R. Font family:Arial'>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Also on the brief were <u>J. Argued for defendants cross appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>H. Mark Lyon</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Also on the brief was <u>Mark A. Font family:Arial'>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Jeffrey M. Font family:Arial'>This patent infringement action was brought by Cardiac Pacemakers. Or quivering fashion (fibrillation).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Arrhythmias may occur in varying degrees.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>In treating such heart abnormalities it is important to determine the form and degree of arrhythmia present. Font family:Arial'>The inventions subject of this lawsuit are implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) that are permanently installed under the skin.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1573.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The complaint was served upon the administrator of the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy Resources (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/01/99-9513.htm">99-9513 -- PIERSON V. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION -- 01/11/2000<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Petitioner Jacqueline Lee Pierson has filed this petition seeking review of a decision of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) denying her application<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0673n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
When the power was restored. [that KU] is a wholly owned subsidiary of LG&E Energy.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1997/97a1572p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This case comes before us a second time for a determination whether New Jersey's regulation of the disposal of solid waste is constitutional under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Are Atlantic Coast Demolition & Recycling. The latter two plaintiffs are. The defendants are the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). The Carbone plaintiffs and the defendants have appealed the district court's decision. We will affirm the district court's findings that New Jersey's flow control laws and regulations are unconstitutional insofar as they discriminate against out of state waste processing facilities. We will not. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. I. FACTS As this nation's prosperity and consumption have increased over the years. States have attempted to meet those concerns by limiting or banning the importation of solid waste. States and municipalities have erected barriers to the exportation of solid waste in the hope that in state control of solid waste facilities will protect their communities from environmental harm.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/08/001819P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Devils Lake is a large. A brief overview of the facts at this juncture will serve to frame our discussion. The proper interpretation is critical. If the boundary is the northern shore. The 1867 treaty is ambiguous. The government claims that Devils Lake was not included in the 1867 treaty that formed the reservation. The court held that the Tribe's suit against the federal government was time barred. 1814 (2001) (distinguishing claim preclusion and issue preclusion). 4 1 Devils Lake because the Tribe could have raised that issue (but did not) in a 1951 ICC suit. The court determined that the government was an indispensable party to the proceedings. That QTA relief is not available because the Tribe failed to comply with the pertinent statute of limitations. Which provides that an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/991234.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It appeals the District Court's decision that it was not entitled to such a refund. The Internal Revenue Code provided that qualifying taxpayers were 2 entitled to an income tax credit for qualified investments in certain tangible property. Among the credits that were eliminated were investment tax credits on property brought into service after December 31. One of these transitional rules is the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-1390a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With them on the briefs were Mary Anne </P> <P>Mason. With her on </P> <P>the brief were John H. With him on the brief were Richard C. FERC abused its discretion and acted arbi </P> <P>trarily and capriciously by (1) not adhering more closely to </P> <P> </P> <P> 1 Petitioners are the Public Utilities Commission of the State of </P> <P>California (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199802/96-1497a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Harrison were on the briefs. Wood were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Cheatham III were on the brief for intervenor Natural Gas Supply Association. Was on the brief for intervenor National Mining Association. Were on the brief for amici curiae New York. We invalidated the first set of these emission limits as exceed ing EPA's statutory authority.2 We are now presented with a challenge by a number of electric utilities and industry groups 3 to the next group of nitrogen oxides emission limits promulgated under the Act: a more stringent revision of the first set of emission limits and a new set of emission limits for a second group of boilers. Was Title IV. Which was designed to reduce the adverse effects of acid deposition (more com monly known as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/96opinions/96-1336a.html">CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF PETROLEUM PRODUCERS V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
Et al. in No. 96 1336.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/03/981959P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Iverson was associated with Johnson Gas Appliance Company (Johnson Gas) for many years. Arguing that he should have been allowed to conduct discovery and to amend his complaint and that genuine disputes over material issues of fact precluded summary judgment. I. Johnson Gas is an Iowa corporation which manufactures gas furnaces and highefficiency gas fireplaces. Its principal place of business is Cedar Rapids. Barnes O'Donnell is the president and owner. Iverson was associated with Johnson Gas for many years. The first formal employment contract between Johnson Gas and Iverson in the record is a 1995 agreement in which Johnson Gas employed Iverson as a national sales manager for its Mendota Hearth Division for two years. He was to receive commissions and a percentage of the profits. All of the financial accounting for the stores appears to have been handled by Johnson Gas. 2 The 1987 management agreement was replaced on January 1. The agreement also gave Iverson specific rights if the business were to be sold.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5019.html">CONSOLIDATED COAL COMPANY, ET AL. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Et al.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Steven H. Was <u>John Y. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>On the brief were <u>David M. Deputy Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>John Smathers</u>. Whichever is less. Whichever is less.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoBlockText><span style='font family:Arial. Mso bidi font family:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199805/97-1028a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Pedersen were on the joint briefs. Barr were on the joint briefs for petitioners Southern California Gas Co. Were on the brief. Leif were on the joint brief for intervenors Amoco Energy Trading Corporation. Barr were on the joint brief for intervenors Public Utilities Commission of the State of California. This delay was arbitrary and capricious. It could and should have ordered the intrastate pipeline to refund the charge. This case would never have reached this court. CPUC concluded that a refund was inappropriate because the interstate shippers had re ceived service and use of the interconnection facilities from SoCal. The gas was transported to local end users under contracts between SoCal and the end users. No refund was appropriate because the interstate shippers nominated deliveries into the intercon nection facility. CPUC reasoned: It is obvious to us that these nominators are customers of SoCalGas. Service was provided to the interstate ship per. In California they nominate in writing to SoCalGas for SoCalGas to transport gas to be delivered by the 1 The interstate shippers who appear as Petitioners before this court are: Amoco Energy Trading Corporation.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200311/02-1115a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200701/05-1231a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Glen L. With her on the brief were John S. Gardiner were on the brief for intervenors California Independent System Operator Corporation. While non firm service permits the utility to cut service when there is not enough excess capacity.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1997/97a1767p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that the Secretary of Labor does not have the authority. We will grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings. Williams was 62 years of age at the time of the settlement. It was decided that Williams would take an early retirement. The policy would have paid the required amount per month. Remarking that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200504/04-1111a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1948.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for petitioner. Were on brief for respondent. Senior Circuit Judge. this case is whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) complied with our mandate in Northeast Utilities Service Co. v. Before us also was the objection of Northeast Utilities Service Company (NUSCO) to the Commission's modification of the rate schedules filed by NUSCO. The rate schedules were part of a wholesale electric power contract (the Seabrook Power Contract) among NU. Each party also agreed
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200312230.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nor that damages were incidental to equitable and declaratory relief or that common questions of law or fact predominated. We are persuaded by none of the plaintiffs' arguments The plaintiffs/appellants are Cornelius Cooper. I. The complex facts and procedural history underlying this appeal are these. Who are The plaintiffs subsequently amended their Complaint in August. Throughout this opinion references to the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/04/01-1139.htm">01-1139 -- MCDONALD V. KINDER-MORGAN INC. -- 04/23/2002<BR></A><BR>
They asserted that statements in KM's<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200007/99-1222a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. Kirkwood was on brief. Had been accepted and was therefore not supposed to be eliminat ed. Is comprised of four operating companies (CSW): Southwestern Electric Power Company. To assure that rates are not unduly discriminatory. The Commission claims that its Tariff Order makes clear the decision was left to CSW's discretion. The Commission failed to explain why the revised tariff was lawful. That is. Given that the revision at issue could not fairly have been anticipated by Texas Electric. The Commission erred in summarily approv ing that part of the Compliance Tariff without explaining whether the new rates were just and reasonable. Two are entirely within SPP and the other two are entirely within ERCOT.2 CSW's facilities are interconnected. Who are members of regis tered public utilities holding companies.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200401/02-1253a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199911/98-1048a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Merlin E. With him on the brief were Jay L. Winter was on the brief for intervenors River side Pipeline Company. Thompson were on the brief for amicus curiae Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation. 825 (1993) (refusing to require pipeline to construct mid point tap because requester was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200507/02-1374a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Mark D. With him on the briefs were Glen L. Ward were on the brief for intervenor California Independent System Operator Corporation in support of petitioners. With him on the brief was Cynthia A. We find the order to have been arbitrary and capricious and grant the petitions for review.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1245.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Rodio was on brief for appellant. Powers with whom Marc DeSisto was on brief for appellee. Who had refused to continue a work assignment on a boat at a city pond due to his fear of capsizing and was subsequently terminated. BACKGROUND Marques was hired as a laborer by the city of East Providence in June 1993.1 On December 22. Marques was assigned to work at Jones Pond. Who is unable to swim. Was told by Gammell not to worry about it. Marques noticed that there were no life preservers in the boat. This life preserver was not forthcoming.2 Marques nevertheless performed the assignment. Told lead worker Robert Barlow (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1269.html">DARREL A. MAZZARI V. JAMES ROGAN<BR></A><BR>
For defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Sydney O. On summary judgment in favor of the United States Patent and Trademark Office ( PTO ) that Mazzari and Sheedy s claims are unpatentable.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Because no genuine issue of material fact as to the grounds of rejection exists and the district court correctly
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/82F394E9E95F5C1388256A6B005BE8DE/$file/9970373.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from the summary dismissal by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1999.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.A. were on brief. With whom Thompson & Bowie was on brief. The first is the 1997 Ordinance itself. Although the Town's contractor is permitted to dispose of collected trash at any proper disposal site. Residents who choose to self haul are required to take their refuse to a repository designated by the Town Council. 28 U.S.C. 1331 there is no other readily apparent jurisdictional basis the plaintiffs challenged the 1997 Ordinance under. Concluding that the plaintiffs were unlikely to prevail on the merits. The court subsequently granted summary judgment for the Town on the four claims with which we are concerned. An unincorporated nonprofit association that was formed. Two respected courts recently have held that individual garbage generators lacked standing to challenge schemes similar to Houlton's under the Commerce Clause. These courts emphasized that the purpose of the dormant Commerce Clause is to curtail states' abilities to hinder interstate trade. That the injury claimed by the individual garbage generators being compelled to pay higher prices for services they neither required nor desired was not even marginally related to this purpose.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200110216.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The proposed connection will allow Beaulieu to bypass Dalton. Dalton contends that FERC's orders are unlawful for several reasons. Including that they violate Southern's tariff and that they were impermissible under various sections of the Natural Gas Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/07/973802P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Because we are reviewing a summary judgment motion. Kelley indicated that dramatic changes were on the way. Kelley allegedly stated that:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/11/98-9016.htm">98-9016 -- TUCEK V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE -- 11/02/1999<BR></A><BR>
Depending on whether the mixed question is primarily factual or legal. <u>See</u> <u>Anderson v. All partners have a right for a limited period of time to participate in settlements offered to other partners. <u>See</u> 26 U.S.C. <p>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A26B09A7FE5D810288256C1E0002E85F/$file/0070357.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because the proposed projects were located in Washington's coastal zone. FERC needed the State of Washington to certify that the projects were consistent with the state's Coastal Zone Management Program before FERC could consider the license applications. Required approval from the county where the projects were sited before it would consider whether to certify the projects' consistency with state coastal protection. Despite being advised by the State of Washington and by FERC that a county Shoreline Management Act (SMA) permit was needed to process the state certifications. We have explained. FERC provide such [hydroelectric power] licenses . . . is not unlimited.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTQ5NDBfc28ucGRm/05-4940_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0041p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The specific claim is that he was dismissed in retaliation for raising complaints about the air quality at the employer's facility in Ohio. Common law claims of wrongful discharge in violation of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0112p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Kentucky were exposed over many years to dangerous radioactive substances without their knowledge. Four such workers and members of their families have sued General Electric (GE). Factual background The Paducah Gas Diffusion Plant (PDGP) is a sprawling industrial plant located on a 3. It was built by the federal government in the early 1950s as part of an initial foray into uranium processing. Its three successive operators have all been named as defendants in this suit. They are Union Carbide (formerly known as Carbide and Chemicals Company. 800 individuals have been employed by the PGDP at any one time. The primary purpose of the PGDP is and always has been to enrich uranium. The solid uranium is then converted into a gaseous form and forced through a series of membranes that increase the concentration of uranium 235. This
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0479p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Page 2 Relator Walburn alleges that he was employed as a security officer at the Portsmouth Plant. The plant is owned by the United States and leased by the United States Enrichment Corporation. Employees at the plant were required to wear thermoluminescent dosimeters that would mechanically measure individual doses of radiation exposure. Lockheed was required to keep records of the dosimeter readings together with a record of each employee's dosage. Walburn alleges that after he was exposed to gases at the plant in 1994. That this was just one of at least 400 to 600 such changes Lockheed made to employees' dosage readings each year. The action was unsealed. The district court concluded that Walburn's allegations were encompassed by the allegations in United States ex rel. Because the Brooks complaint was filed first. Because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. A qui tam plaintiff must disclose to the government the information on which his or her claim is based. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2). Two of which are relevant here: the first to file bar of 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(5) and the public disclosure bar of 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(A).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199712/96-1442a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Telleen were on the briefs. Were on the brief. This direct link was important because it would allow Northern Border to deliver gas directly to Natu ral facilities. Following a proceeding at which Northern Border's customers were provided with an opportunity to comment on the proposed transaction. The sale was consummated on November 1. The specific accounting procedures governing a natural gas company's purchase of an existing gas facility are found in Gas Plant Instruction No. 5 of the Commission's Uniform System of Accounts. 18 C.F.R. pt. 201. One of which is to transfer the depreciation applicable to the original cost of the facility to a separate account. This is not just a technical bookkeeping dispute. This means that Northern Border's rate is automatically calculated by a FERC approved formula. Which includes the specific cost elements on which charges to customers will be based. In turn raised Northern Bor der's rates higher than they would have been had the compa ny complied with the Uniform System.1 FERC.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1373.html">VANGUARD RESEARCH, INC V. PEAT, INC.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3502_025.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The creditors' committee all agreed the settlement was in the 2 No. 05 3502 best interest of the estate. The bankruptcy court held the settlement was in the best interest of the estate and approved it. I. Background Desnick was the owner and sole shareholder of Doctors Hospital and a number of other entities. Because the loan was. It was secured by the Hospital's equipment and (like the Daiwa loan) by the Hospital's accounts receivable. The proceeds some $48.5 million after administrative fees were deposited into an No. 05 3502 3 account bearing the name of Desnick and his wife. Twelve of the other defendants were Desnick controlled entities2 and four were former corporate officers or directors3 of the Hospital whom Desnick had effectively agreed to indemnify for their losses.4 The gist of the complaint was that Desnick and the other officers and directors caused the Hospital's bankruptcy through mismanagement and a series of fraudulent transactions to the tune of about $34 million which benefitted Desnick.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-1397b.html">FPL ENERGY MAINE HYDRO LLC V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
Connors argued the cause for petitioner.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-1397a.html">FPL ENERGY MAINE HYDRO LLC V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
Connors argued the cause for petitioner.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/08/013527P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Edmund contends that he first was demoted and then was passed over for a promotion because of his sex. Edmund did not understand
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-5058.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. The Air Force awarded Waste Management a contract for solid waste disposal at Fairchild Air Force Base (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/02/021780P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
BACKGROUND GSI is a Minnesota corporation that operates as a natural gas marketing company. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-20767.0.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. Petrobras is not entitled to foreign sovereign immunity. The MOU expired one year after it was signed unless extended by the parties. After Petrobras confirmed the projects were available. 000 to purchase technical information to assist their evaluation of the projects they were to bid upon. The ATA was an addendum to the MOU and adopted its terms. After Petrobras informed Strata that its ATA proposals were accepted. Because both the MOU and the ATA were preliminary agreements. The parties were required to negotiate another agreement: the Technical Assistance Contract (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/96opinions/96-1086a.html">ST WI V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-3070.html">CYNTHIA D. VENEZIANO V. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief was <u>Stephen M. On the brief were <u>David M. She contends that her retention rights were improperly determined and that she was selected for separation in retaliation for protected conduct. She was transferred to the Department's headquarters in Washington. Veneziano was assigned to work on value engineering
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-1520c.html">EXXON V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
With him on the joint briefs were Eugene </P> <P> . With him on the briefs was </P> <P>Jeffrey G. With him on </P> <P>the brief were Joel I. With him on the brief were Matthew W.S. </P> <P>Estes. Scott Gaille </P> <P>were on the brief for intervenors TAPS Carriers. The TAPS carriers file tariffs specifying how the shippers</P> <P>will compensate each other for these differences in quality. The </P> <P>TAPS Quality Bank is an arrangement that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-1520a.html">EXXON CO USA V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
With him on the joint briefs were <i>Eugene </i></p> <p><i>R. With him on the briefs was <i></p> <p>Jeffrey G. With him on </p> <p>the brief were <i>Joel I. With him on the brief were <i>Matthew W.S. </p> <p>Estes. Scott Gaille</i> </p> <p>were on the brief for intervenors TAPS Carriers. <i>Marvin T. </p> <p>Griff</i> and <i>Dean H. The TAPS carriers file tariffs specifying how they </p> <p>will compensate each other for these differences in quality. The </p> <p>TAPS Quality Bank is an arrangement that ". While this is simple </p> <p>enough in concept. Determining the relative value of the </p> <p>injected streams is in fact a complex technical task. There is </p> <p>no independent market to set the relative price of the various </p> <p>streams of North Slope crude because the crude is not sold </p> <p>until after it is commingled and brought to Valdez. When the </p> <p>system was originally created. The relative value of oil was </p> <p>determined by the ". </p> <p>high gravity crude is generally more valuable than heavier.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1303.html">VIVID TECHNOLOGIES V. AMERICAN SCIENCE & ENGINEERING<BR></A><BR>
Of counsel on the brief was <U>Wendy E. With him on the brief was <U>Louis J. E asserts that the district court's claim construction was incorrect. Was based on harmful procedural error as well as incorrect in law.</P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-1486a.html">MI VALLEY GAS CO V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-1059a.html">EL PASO NAT GAS CO V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-20645.0.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. Petrobras is not entitled to foreign sovereign immunity. The MOU expired one year after it was signed unless extended by the parties. After Petrobras confirmed the projects were available. 000 to purchase technical information to assist their evaluation of the projects they were to bid upon. The ATA was an addendum to the MOU and adopted its terms. After Petrobras informed Strata that its ATA proposals were accepted. Because both the MOU and the ATA were preliminary agreements. The parties were required to negotiate another agreement: the Technical Assistance Contract (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-5047.html">HARBERT/LUMMUS V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-1210a.html">COMPET ENT INST V. TRAN<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199903/98-1216a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Lichstein were on brief for the intervenor. IES and IPC filed an application to merge IES and IPC into WPL which was then to be renamed Interstate Energy Corp. At the time of the application WPL was the holding company of Wisconsin Power & Light Com pany. Which was both a public utility providing electricity in southern and central Wisconsin and itself the holding compa ny of South Beloit Water. IES was the holding company of IES Utilities. IPC was a public utility providing gas and electrici ty to customers in Minnesota. Under the merger proposal Interstate was to become the holding compa ny of WP&L (which would in turn continue to hold South Beloit Water. During 1997 the merger was approved separately by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (November 12. Accept its interpretation of PUHCA if it
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-1299b.html">ALABAMA MUNICIPAL DISTRIBUTORS GROUP V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
Menter argued the cause for petitioners and supporting intervenors.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-1234a.html">CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
Argued the cause for petitioner.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-1187a.html">PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
Roberts argued the causes for utility petitioners.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-1163a.html">DUKE ENERGY V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
Argued the cause for respondent.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on <br clear=all style='page break before:always'> the brief were Cynthia A. Rednik were on the brief for intervenor.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Carl M. E sells two primary types of natural gas transportation capacity firm and interruptible.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Firm capacity is purchased on a monthly basis and cannot be interrupted or curtailed except in limited circumstances. Such as firm customers.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Interruptible capacity is bid for as needed. Is derived by multiplying the per mile bid by the number of miles the gas is to be transported. <br clear=all style='page break before:always'> <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Prior to the proceedings under review. Were broken according to a shipper's position in the IT queue.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Thus. If two shippers' bids were tied. The shipper with the higher position in the queue would be allocated the IT capacity.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span> Queue positions were determined by a lottery held by PG&.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-1139a.html">CLIFTON POWER CORPORATION V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199907/95-1520a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the joint briefs were Eugene R. With him on the briefs was Jeffrey G. With him on the brief were Joel I. With him on the brief were Matthew W.S. Scott Gaille were on the brief for intervenors TAPS Carriers. The TAPS carriers file tariffs specifying how they will compensate each other for these differences in quality. The TAPS Quality Bank is an arrangement that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199910/95-1520c.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the joint briefs were Eugene R. With him on the briefs was Jeffrey G. With him on the brief were Joel I. With him on the brief were Matthew W.S. Scott Gaille were on the brief for intervenors TAPS Carriers. The TAPS carriers file tariffs specifying how the shippers will compensate each other for these differences in quality. The TAPS Quality Bank is an arrangement that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1492a.html">AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY AND BP ENERGY COMPANY V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
Brunenkant argued the cause for petitioners.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1421a.html">ENRON POWER MARKETING V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
Argued the cause for respondent.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1371b.html">NATIONAL RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION V. SEC<BR></A><BR>
<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199910/98-1241a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Judy A. With her on the briefs were Frederick T. With him on the briefs was Mari M. With her on the brief were. McCotter were on the brief for intervenor El Paso Natural Gas Company in partial support of respondent. Ramsey were on the brief for intervenor Williams Field Services Group. Chief Judge: Numerous issues have been raised in this case. Is whether a natural gas compressor. Is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1020a.html">DEK ENERGY V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
Argued the cause for respondent.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200003/98-1594a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for petitioner State of Wisconsin. Was on brief for the respondent. The City argues that the Commission improperly determined that: (1) the City's li cense application was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200005/99-1209a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Allen C. With her on the brief was John H. Belter were on the brief for intervenors FirstEnergy Corp. We conclude that FERC's decision to dismiss the complaint was a reasonable exercise of its authority. Which was com prised of Ohio Edison Company and Pennsylvania Power Company. The agreement was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200006/98-1532a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were David E. With him on the brief were Jay L. Acting through what is known as Order 888. These contracts were normally extended at the end of their term. These costs will become
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200006/99-1169a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were John H. That and the underlying orders are attacked from two sides. Which we will collectively call the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200006/99-1273a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Joseph E. With her on the brief were John H. The Project was harmful to the fish. FERC does not dispute that the study will cost Centralia up to $300. FERC has no meaningful hard evidence to prove that the hydroelectric project is harmful to fish. The petition for review is granted. Filed a complaint claiming that the Yelm Project was harming the fishery. Was required to file for a license. Not long after the settlement was signed. The Tribe submit ted a letter to Centralia stating that it did not believe that a tailrace barrier was either necessary or desirable.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5122.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-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200105/00-1020a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the brief was Dennis Lane. With him on the brief were Marisa A. Oregon was transferred from Pacific Interstate Transmission Company to Pan Alberta's affiliate. Pan Alberta US will enjoy a lower rate for this service than DEK believes would prevail if FERC had not made various legal errors. DEK claims that it will suffer a competitive injury if the gas in question ends up being sold in Northern California. Be cause DEK has not shown that any competitive injury is more than highly speculative. The sales obligation to SoCal picked up by Pan Alberta US was reduced to 144. Virtually all shippers will pay the same rates.). Have been subjected to the highest rate. Including its view that Pan Alberta US was not truly a new or replace ment shipper intended to be covered by the generic capacity release rate policy. Was rebuffed again. It argues that DEK's challenge is a collateral attack on a 1996 rate settlement order. Article III requires that a petitioner seeking access to federal courts must allege an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200111/00-1492a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Cheryl J. With her on the brief was Dennis Lane. Gordon Penning ton were on the brief for intervenor. Which was severed so that it could litigate its interests independently. 339 (1999) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200201/00-1371b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was David S. With him on the brief was Eric Summergrad. With him on the brief were Samuel T. Two electric utility associations argue that the post acquisition company will violate section 10 of the Public Utility Holding Company Act. Which requires that any registered public utility holding company comprise a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/378BBBBD1280C1DF88256E5A00707B97/$file/9970373.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from the summary dismissal by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200205/99-1397a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the briefs was Matthew D. Amara was on the brief for amici curiae Clifton Power Corporation and New England Legal Founda tion in support of petitioner. With her on the brief were Cynthia A. Squire and IJay Palansky were on the brief for intervenors American Rivers. The first determining that FPL is subject to licensing because the Messalonskee Stream on which FPL is located is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200205/99-1397b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the briefs was Matthew D. Amara was on the brief for amici curiae Clifton Power Corporation and New England Legal Founda tion in support of petitioner. With her on the brief were Cynthia A. Squire and IJay Palansky were on the brief for intervenors American Rivers. The first determining that FPL is subject to licensing because the Messalonskee Stream on which FPL is located is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200207/00-1421a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the brief was Dennis Lane. Norton IV were on the brief for intervenors Entergy Services. Entergy states that the source can be the control area where the generator unit is located. The sink can be the control area where the load is located. Nor a generation only control area will be accepted as a valid sink. Loads and load only control areas will not be accepted as valid sources. Entergy also outlines the procedures to be used in the event that the source and sink identified on the OASIS reservation is different from the source and sink provid ed in the transmission schedule. Entergy asserts that Attachment M is intended to im prove reliability and congestion management. 91 F.E.R.C. at 61. Who argued that Attachment M was in fact not necessary on reliability grounds and that it discriminated between Entergy and petitioners. Discussion The petitioners have raised two issues: the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200301/01-1163a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the brief were Cynthia A. Rednik were on the brief for intervenor. Firm capacity is purchased on a monthly basis and cannot be interrupted or curtailed except in limited circumstances. Interruptible capacity is bid for as needed. Is derived by multiplying the per mile bid by the number of miles the gas is to be transported. Were broken according to a shipper's position in the IT queue. If two shippers' bids were tied. Queue positions were determined by a lottery held by PG&E in 1987. Capacity would be allocated pro rata that is. The rejection was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/08/053833P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
While the federal action was pending. The federal action was arbitrated and. Judgment was entered in favor of GSI for $2. GSI argued the fee dispute was governed by a March 13. Foster argued the dispute was governed by a February 26. Before the state appeal was completed. Bajwa sent Foster a second fax indicating he was contemplating a global settlement with Howard. Foster was told. Bajwa was attempting to settle his claim with Howard but the contemplated settlement would not involve any cash payment. 3 detailing the difficulties he was having in reaching a settlement with Howard. I will petition [appellate counsel] to release the funds to GSI based on the settlement language. My goal is to get the matter resolved if I can.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/alpha-idx.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Eleventh Circuit
OPINION/ORDER
Is a wholly owned subsidiary of Teal Energy. Its only domestic office is located in Houston. GT is a Nevada corporation that supplies seismic information and funding for land acquisition. The two cases were then consolidated into a single action. The case was assigned to a magistrate judge after both parties consented to trial before her. Both were citizens of Texas for diversity purposes. As the portion of the court's order remanding the Hildago County action is nonreviewable. PRO. 12(b)(1). 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). 3 2 The district court found that both Teal USA's and GT's principal places of business were in Texas. factual determinations for clear error.3 III. LAW AND ANALYSIS We review these Section 1332(a) provides that a corporation is a citizen of both its state of incorporation and the state of its principal place of business for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.4 Teal USA argues that the court erred in finding that the situs of its principal place of business was Texas rather than Canada. It argues that the court erred in determining that GT's principal place of business was Texas.
OPINION/ORDER
Argued that California's MTBE ban is preempted by the federal Clean Air Act. Which was granted by the district court. Though the MTBE ban is not expressly exempted from preemption by the Clean Air Act. The ban nonetheless is not preempted because it does not conflict with the goals and purposes of the Clean Air Act. DAVIS 7423 mentation and enforcement responsibilities under the Clean Air Act are shared between the federal government and state governments. While the states have the authority to devise implementation plans to meet those standards. One of the specific aims of the Clean Air Act is to reduce air pollution by reducing motor vehicle emissions. § 211 requires that gasoline sold in certain areas of the country have an oxygen content that equals or exceeds 2.0 percent by weight. Gasoline sold in certain areas have an oxygen content that equals or exceeds 2.7 percent by weight. MTBE and ethanol are the two most widely used oxygenates. Was originally scheduled to take effect on December 31. That the ban conflicts with the objectives of the Clean Air Act and is therefore preempted.
OPINION/ORDER
The issue in these appeals is the scope of bankruptcy court jurisdiction. Was executed by Debtor and Safeco. Was renewable for four additional one year periods unless Safeco gave ninety days notice of its intent to cancel or not to renew. The ADM bond further provided: It is understood and agreed that [ADM] may recover the full amount of the Bond (less any previous amounts paid to [ADM] under the Bond) if [Safeco] cancels or nonrenews the Bond and. Because Debtor was now in bankruptcy. The agreement reflected in the Term Sheet was a post petition security credit agreement that required bankruptcy court approval. 3 In late July and early August. Although the new arrangements were later approved by the bankruptcy court. The ADM bond is in full force and effect. There have never been any claims against it. Safeco's original complaint sought a declaratory judgment determining that ADM was not entitled to forfeiture of the penal sum of five million dollars and an injunction preventing ADM from continuing to demand payment.
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Larry F. With him on the brief were Cynthia A. The regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (the
OPINION/ORDER
This is a whistleblower action brought by Adrienne Anderson (Anderson) against Metro Wastewater Reclamation District (Metro) pursuant to various environmental statutes which prohibit discrimination against
OPINION/ORDER
With her on the brief were Cynthia A. Ottinger were on the brief for intervenor. 2 Before: RANDOLPH and ROBERTS. FERC approved the amendment over the opposition of petitioners two lakefront homeowners who argued that the expansion was not in the public interest. They maintained that the cove where the marina is located had exceeded its
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Richard B. With him on the brief were Michelle M. Fred Wertheimer. 2 Trevor Potter was on the brief for amici curiae John McCain. Federal campaign finance law is complex. BCRA is no exception. Though few of its details are important to this litigation (and those that are we describe later in our analysis).
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Glen L. Grammer were on the brief for California Department of Water Resources. With 2 him on the brief were Cynthia A. Berman were on the brief for intervenors California Independent System Operator. Commercial relations between Sacramento and the California utilities are governed by private contractual arrangements made in accordance with public tariffs approved by the Commission.
Because we conclude that this action is based in part upon publicly disclosed allegations and transactions and because Mr. Fine was not an original source of that information. I. Sandia National Laboratory is one of nine multiprogram laboratories owned by the United States government and operated by private or university contractors under the DOE's administrative oversight. A laboratory imposing a two percent tax will earmark two percent of its total funding for use in R&D. The report suggested that it was not the first to discover the practice: Officials from DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management are aware of the laboratories' practice of assessing monies spent at the laboratories for their discretionary R&D activities. Who has not yet determined whether the practice is permissible. The report indicates that the DOE knew some of its laboratories were
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was Linda S. With her on the brief were Cynthia A. Were on the brief for intervenor United States Department of the Interior. 2 Charles Owen Verrill. Tomalty were on the brief for intervenors American Rivers. (The project's annual revenues were approximately $165. There was some doubt whether the fish pump was a viable alternative. The Commission stated that
Argued for plaintiffs cross appellants in 99 1523 and 00 1141.
OPINION/ORDER
We will resolve the issues according to our perception of California law. The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to transmit. The parties and amici are directed to file with the Supreme Court of California copies of all briefs and excerpts of record submitted to this Court. This case is withdrawn from submission until further order of the Court. Before which this appeal is pending. The answers to the certified questions will be determinative of a part of this appeal. I. Caption of the Case The caption of the case is: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY. CV 00 12056 RSWL Counsel for the parties are as follows: Robert E. Statement of Facts A brief description of the factual background of this case is contained in the panel opinion that accompanies this Order. The Need for Certification All parties agree that the instant litigation is of the utmost importance to the California utility regulation and the California economy. We have resolved all of the pending federal questions. The only issues left for resolution are ones of state law.
OPINION/ORDER
Three cases are consolidated for purposes of this appeal. King now appeals the district court's: (1) determination that the noncompete provisions were enforceable. I PA is a professional consulting firm with offices in 20 countries and over 3400 employees. Although it is a New Jersey corporation with a human resources office in that state. PA is headquartered in Washington. King was a Senior Vice President (
OPINION/ORDER
With her on the brief were John S. I. Background The Commission is required by law to charge regulated entities an annual fee calculated to recoup its cost of regulating them. 42 U.S.C. § 7178. The fee charged a public utility is based upon its share of the megawatt hours transmitted in interstate commerce by all public utilities. 18 C.F.R. § 382.201(a) (b). The Commission requires each public utility to file a Form 582 by April 30 reporting the number of megawatt hours it transmitted in interstate commerce in the preceding year and permits the utility to correct its report until the end of the calendar year in which the report was filed. 2003 more than two months after the filing deadline and five months before the audit was completed a Form 582 corrected
OPINION/ORDER
ORDER The opinion reported at 253 F.3d 1161 is amended as follows: On page 1162. Delete
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Paul L. With him on the brief was Monique L. With her on the brief were Paul R. To those Operating Companies that were burdened by such inclusion. (3) refusing to determine in this proceeding whether Entergy should have included the opportunity cost of allowances for emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) in its calculation of each Operating Company's peak load responsibility. I. Background Entergy is a public utility holding company with five subsidiary operating companies** that generate and sell electricity in Arkansas. Who was a member of the panel at the time the case was argued. Each Operating Company was liable to make an
OPINION/ORDER
With them on the briefs were James H. Were on the brief for intervenor Gerdau Ameristeel Corp. and amici curiae New Jersey Division of the Ratepayer Advocate and New Jersey Board of Public Utilities in support of petitioners. With him on the brief were John S. With him on the brief was Donna M. Senior Circuit Judge: PJM Interconnection LLC is a regional transmission organization (
Argued for plaintiffs appellees.With him on the brief were Greg A. Walters.Also on the brief was Dennis D. Argued for defendant appellant.With him on the brief were Leigh O. Of counsel on the brief were John P. plaintiffs ) that ConAgra was liable for attempted monopolization and for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. Properly found the 027 Patent invalid and unenforceable for reasons of both prior use and prior sale under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).The district court was also correct. Announced that it was making the 027 Patent and corresponding patents that may issue available for license at a royalty rate of
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: These are appeals from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee. That were damaged on January 17. All of them received payments for the damage and their claims were closed by Allstate over the next two years. The Homeowners learned that there were questions regarding the authenticity of the engineering reports they had received from Allstate during the claims adjustment process. The
OPINION/ORDER
Bender's and Brown's liability for these costs was joint and several. The district court stated that it was imposing these sanctions under Rule 11. Martin's case against Brown was stayed under the automatic stay of Bankruptcy Code § 362. Which is still pending. We hold that we have appellate jurisdiction over Bender's appeal despite the fact that the district court dismissed the underlying action
OPINION/ORDER
We review a decision of the National Labor Relations Board that seven workers were not supervisors under the National Labor Relations Act. We conclude that the Board's decision is not supported by substantial evidence. 2 Accordingly. We will grant the Petition for Review and deny the Board's Cross Application to Enforce. Surplus electricity is sold to Jersey Central Power & Light Company. The plant was built for the specific purpose of supplying Marcal with its energy needs. Any disruption in the steam or electricity supply will cause mill operations to halt abruptly. Shut downs are extremely costly because of lost production time and possible equipment damage. Plant personnel are organized into the following positions: Plant Manager. Those with the title of
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel was Mark A. Morgan is. Morgan was in reprisal for his having made the protected disclosures. Since the agency's adverse action was otherwise unjustified. Morgan's case was pending. He allegedly was subjected to eleven further adverse personnel actions: a performance evaluation in 1994. Alleging that these eleven personnel actions were taken against him in further reprisal for the same three disclosures at issue in the first case. Morgan asserted that the agency was continuing to pick on him. For having made the earlier disclosures. 04 3400 2 II In order for the Board to have jurisdiction over a WPA claim. An individual must make non frivolous allegations that he has made a protected disclosure and that his disclosure was a contributing factor in the agency's decision to take an adverse action against him. If the agency cannot show by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same adverse action or actions against the employee. The employee prevails and is entitled to appropriate relief.
OPINION/ORDER
1998.1 Several actions were filed as a result of this disclosure. The PRIDES litigation was subsequently consolidated with the other pending Cendant actions. The District Court ruled that separate lead plaintiffs and lead counsel were to represent the interests of the PRIDES shareholders. (
OPINION/ORDER
That is capable of holding some ten million gallons of gas and that. Turner was the only employee at the facility and was responsible for the security of the facility and for monitoring the stability of the liquid natural gas on hand. Because he was the only employee on duty and because liquid natural gas is a volatile substance. He was not permitted to leave without being relieved. The plant manager was unable to contact Turner at work and subsequently discovered Turner's absence when he went to the plant to investigate. Turner eventually returned to work at about three thirty in the morning and was suspended on the spot and later fired. MidAmerican was obliged to selfreport the incident and was exposed to potential fines. Aside from the major dereliction of duty we have just described. Turner's work record was excellent. After Turner was fired. MidAmerican refused to reinstate Turner because it maintained his termination was
OPINION/ORDER
The parties to this dispute came together for the purpose of The constructing and operating a tribal casino on trust lands within the boundaries of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in North Dakota. modern era of tribal gaming in this country was ushered in with the 1988 passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Whereby Lien was to assist in the financing. The agreement was submitted to the Area Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Said agency having interim authority under IGRA to The agreement was executed by Wilbur Wilkinson and John Rabbithead on behalf of the Tribes. Arikara collectively comprise the Three Affiliated Tribes and are federally recognized Indian tribes which exercise their sovereignty under a federally approved constitution adopted pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. At the time the agreement was executed Wilkinson and Rabbithead were the TBC's Chairman and Secretary. Which was granted overall regulatory authority for Indian gaming conducted pursuant to IGRA. 25 U.S.C. § 2704.
OPINION/ORDER
Nguyen contended that his plea was involuntary. One of its clients was the Yakima Indian Nation (
Presenting a view of the record with as much resemblance to reality as an ancient prospector's memories of what might have been. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
OPINION/ORDER
With her on the briefs were Bill Lockyer. On the briefs were Wallace L. With her on the brief were Cynthia A. Ward were on the joint brief for intervenors California Independent System Operator Corporation and Southern California Edison Company. The last question we must decide in this petition for judicial review of an order of the Federal Energy Regulatory Com mission is whether we have jurisdiction. California Independent System Operator Corporation (the California ISO) operates a grid comprising the transmission systems of several public utilities that have turned over operational control of their facilities to it. Public utilities and contractual rightsholders joining the Cali fornia ISO are called transmission owners. Transmission owners are required to develop pricing mechanisms.1 ISO Revised Tariff s 7.1. The ISO auctions transmission paths that are subject to congestion. 87 F.E.R.C. at 61. Auction revenues are distributed to the transmission owner that owns. Transmission owners receiving auction revenues are required to deduct these reve nues from the costs they seek to recoup from the California ISO.
They claim that Hispanic landowners were denied compensation granted to Anglo landowners under similar circumstances. They further allege that some plaintiffs were falsely imprisoned and others were forced to work on the Manhattan Project without proper compensation. That some plaintiffs were subjected to medical experimentation by being exposed to high levels of radiation. Plaintiffs sought to have this action certified as a class action.
The district court dismissed the case. The court noted that the Fifth Amendment was the only relevant constitutional amendment permitting monetary awards against the United States and that the applicable statute of limitations. Is six years.
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Kevin J. With him on the brief were Jay L. With him on the brief were Judy A. Circuit Judge: Petitioner Southern California Edison Company (
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Kevin J. With him on the brief were Jay L. With him on the brief were Judy A. Circuit Judge: Petitioner Southern California Edison Company (
OPINION/ORDER
Whose name in this complaint will be Dakota Allen v. Bowman
With him on the brief was Andrew C. With him on the brief was Gregory P. We reversed the holding by the district court that there was no genuine issue of material fact that the invention of claim 20 of the
OPINION/ORDER
Garcia Rodon was on brief. If that power is upheld. Fernandez is essentially uninsured on the malpractice claim and it may be that the malpractice plaintiffs will recover nothing regardless of the merits of their claim. PCFA had been dissolved by an act of the legislature and was no longer liable on Dr. Dr. 2 2 Fernandez was covered by PCFA under an occurrence policy.1 However. PCFA was abolished before Mercado Boneta filed his claim against Dr. Which provides coverage for occurrences within the policy period regardless of when the claim is made. Is distinguished from a claims made policy. Which only covers the insured for claims that are actually made during the policy period. 2. Veronica was born on January 1. Was treated by Dr. Was taken several times to Dr. Fernandez was negligent in failing to properly diagnose Veronica's condition and in failing to hospitalize her. Submits that Veronica's hearing impairment was the likely result of head trauma Veronica suffered when she fell from a slide in January of 1986.
OPINION/ORDER
The pegs are square. The holes are round. The fit is inexact. The obvious bar to arbitrability is the abecedarian tenet that a party cannot be forced to arbitrate if it has not agreed to do so. The facts are not disputed.
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Hilton Oil Trans. v. We conclude that there were genuine issues of material facts concerning the alleged breach of the trading warranty which precluded the entry of a summary judgment. It was towed to Amuay. Barge
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19976365.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ronald David Chandler was convicted of. Chandler was also convicted of engaging in a criminal enterprise. Which was imposed pursuant to his conviction for causing an intentional killing. In which Chandler stated that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/06/001221P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2 appeals from the order of the District Court granting the United States summary judgment on IES's claim for tax refunds to which IES contends it is entitled as a result of securities trades that the court held to be sham transactions. That IES is entitled to deduct fifteen years' worth of environmental cleanup cost assessments in the tax year in which the amount of the liability was determined. Will affirm if the record shows no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The material facts are undisputed. The question of law before us is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/09/042978P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were engaged in the liquified petroleum business and jointly formed SYN. Which was also engaged in the liquified petroleum business. Lindsey discovered NGC and SYN were in acquisition negotiations with another propane company. Lindsey also discovered that NGC's intentions were that EGC would not manage SYN in the future. Kristen Lindsey is a named party because she filed joint federal tax returns with her husband. Her first name is spelled
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb96/94-5254.opa.html">HILTON OIL TRANS. V. JONAS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hilton Oil Trans. v. We conclude that there were genuine issues of material facts concerning the alleged breach of the trading warranty which precluded the entry of a summary judgment. It was towed to Amuay. Barge
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-3155.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Because the Board's decision is supported by substantial evidence. Alley was placed on various work related restrictions which prevented him from performing the normal duties of a lineman. Alley was not fit for duty. Alley filed a claim in 2002 complaining of pain in his neck and arms after a pole
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200608/05-1054a.pdf">O:\CUMMING\05-1054--CITY OF TACOMA WA V. FERC\FINAL OPINION.WPD<BR></A><BR>
With them on the briefs were Michael A. With him on the brief were John S. With her on the brief was M. Squire was on the brief for intervenors American Rivers. This license was designated a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct99/97-6365.man.html">CHANDLER V. UNITED STATES (10/29/1999, NO. 97-6365)<BR></A><BR>
Ronald David Chandler was convicted of. In which Chandler stated that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199906/98-1276a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the briefs were Thomas L. With him on the brief was Jay L. Ray were on the brief for intervenor Upper Peninsula Power Company. Among the rejected recommen dations were license conditions requiring additional studies designed to reduce the number of fish trapped in the project's turbines and to compensate Michigan for the fish killed. The Commis sion rejected the Michigan recommendations after finding that Mead's study method was a reasonable means of assess ing the project's impact on fishery resources. Asserting that the Commission should have considered the Michigan recommendations under s 10(j). The Commission denied rehearing after reiterating that Michi gan's recommendations were not subject to s 10(j). The case was docketed as No. 96 1453. The Commission filed an unopposed motion for volun tary remand so that the Commission could reconsider wheth er it should have reviewed Michigan's recommendations un der s 10(j). The Commission's motion was prompted. Section 313(a) of the Federal Power Act provides that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/09/006066P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The consideration for the transfer was stated as ten dollars with love and admiration. The deed was not recorded. The deed was recorded on June 30. Was recorded on July 3. That after the transfer the debtor was left with an unreasonably small amount of capital with which to operate his farming business in violation of Ark. The state court found that the debtor was a single person when he transferred the property to his son in The Honorable Mary Davies Scott. That the conveyance was not ineffective as to Paula Marlar Davis and that there was no evidence when the deed was transferred in 1986 that the debtor intended to defraud his creditors. The state court opined: The fact that the deed from John Marlar to Brad Marlar was not recorded does not render it ineffective. If it was executed and delivered and for sufficient consideration then title to the land was effectively conveyed from the grantor to the grantee. The state court ruled that there was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/06/984079P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that we do not have jurisdiction to review the final two orders. Since we are deciding the underlying substantive question. I. Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company is an interstate natural gas pipeline company that operates in Montana. Williston generally uses what is referred to as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200001/98-1603a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Griff was on the briefs. Were on the briefs. Lawrence were on the briefs. Two unincorporated associations have filed petitions for review of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission orders granting Southern Natural Gas Company's application to construct a natural gas pipeline and denying Midcoast's alter native proposals for serving the same markets. Such a certificate shall be issued to any qualified applicant therefor ... if it is found that the applicant is able and willing properly to do the acts and to perform the service proposed ... and that the proposed service ... is or will be required by the present or future public convenience and necessity. In the course of which all the factors are weighed prior to final determination.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199906/98-1194a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Alex A. With her on the brief were Joel I. With him on the briefs was Kevin Hawley. A purchaser such as Rio Grande is only permitted to include the seller's depreciated original cost in its cost of service calculations. Rio Grande pointed out that this transaction was different. Be cause the pipeline was purchased for a new use and the purchase price was less than the cost of constructing a comparable facility. Claiming that FERC's decision is flatly at odds with the benefits rule and that the agency's judgment defies reason. We must first resolve three threshold issues: (1) whether Longhorn Partners Pipeline (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2618.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Parties No. 02 2618 The plaintiffs in this case are Alliant Energy Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200505/04-1079a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Christopher M. With her on the brief were Cynthia A. Claiming to have accepted
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199803/93-1705a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gilman was on the briefs. Were on the brief. Circuit Judge: The Georgia Industrial Group (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200206/01-1151a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Bar bara K. On the brief were Cynthia A. Nelson were on the brief for intervenor Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company. The Com mission may hold a hearing to determine whether the pipeline has met its burden to show that the amended rates and charges are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200510/04-1250a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Paul F. With her on the brief were Cynthia A. Pavlou were on the brief for intervenor Northern Natural Gas Company in support of respondent. The resulting imbalances are adjusted by a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200206/01-1139a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the briefs was Paul V. With her on the brief were Cynthia A. Because the petition is incurably premature. 000 proposed by the staff of the Commission being $200 for each of 740 days of noncompliance was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2000/991324.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Enough is Enough. At issue is COPA's constitutionality. A statute designed to protect minors from
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/11/033291P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-3211.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Zabel's fees were not reasonable because the work performed to incur those fees related to a case filed in a federal district court and did not significantly contribute to Mr. Zabel's fee requests are not reasonable. Alleging that the agency had retaliated against him for disclosures he had made that were protected under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8). The action at the district court was dismissed as moot after Mr. (2) a statement from each attorney as to whether the legal services claimed was [sic] provided predominantly for the federal court action as distinguished from the Board proceedings. (3) a statement . . . explaining how the work claimed by the attorneys who were not of record [in the Board proceeding] contributed to his successful efforts before the Board in the hearing concluded in July. Zabel's fees for work on an amicus brief that was never submitted. Zabel's fees for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3238_026.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200612/05-1353a.pdf">JUDICIAL WATCH V. SENATE, NO. 04-5422<BR></A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Paul M. With her on the briefs were Jonathan F. With them on the brief were John C. Schulze were on the brief for industry intervenors Utility Air Regulatory Group and Center for Energy and Economic Development in support of respondent in Case No. 05 1354. Is less than 30 kilometers. The Haze Rule requires that under specified circumstances states impose best available retrofit technology (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200505/04-5098a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Richard Rosenberg. With him on the brief were Kenneth L. The gravamen of this case is Venetian's contention that EEOC follows an unlawful rule or practice (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></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-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0086p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude that the district court's ruling on the statute of limitations was in error. Regulatory Framework The primary purpose of the Clean Air Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200411/03-1153a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/9_opinions/92-1532b.html">CTY CLEVELAND OH V. NRC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1265.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Shaw Lake Vegetation Project (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/oct95/94-8056.html">UNITED STATES V. CUSUMANO<BR></A><BR>
There is no doubt that Messrs. The Defendants contend that this warrant was supported by data and opinions drawn from the results of a warrantless thermal scan of their home. Probable cause to support the warrant was lacking. The district court was not swayed by the Defendants' reasoning and denied the motion to suppress. The windows set into this wall were blocked from visual observation by a large camper shell leaning against the wall of the garage. That the number and location of these
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1038.html">MEHL/BIOPHILE INTERNATIONAL CORP. V. SANDY MILGRAUM, M.D.<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were <u>Michael Aschen</u> and <u>Anthony J. Of counsel on the brief was <u>George A. With him on the brief were <u>William F. Of counsel on the brief was <u>Thomas A. 192 patent claims were anticipated by an instruction manual for the Spectrum RD 1200 laser and by a 1987 Journal of Investigative Dermatology article authored by Dr. A Q switched ruby laser aimed at the hair follicle will penetrate the skin and reach the papillary melanin. The laser will heat up and destroy the papilla without damaging surrounding tissue.</p> <p ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0532n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Horizon Natural Resources with Massey was a provision that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/06/053399U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have nothing to add to the analysis.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200502/03-1206a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With them on the briefs were Janice Alward. With her on the brief were Cynthia A. With him on the brief were Seth M. Koury were on the brief for intervenors. The reservation charges of the CD shippers were based on the capacity they reserved. While 4 the FR shippers' were based on 1996
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199711/97-1064a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on the briefs. Were on the briefs. Were on the brief for intervenor Virginia State Corporation Commission. Bauser was on the brief for intervenor North east Utilities Service Company. That DOE's current approach toward contractual remedies is inconsistent with the NWPA and with our prior decision in Indiana Michigan. Created a scheme whereby the federal government would have the responsibility to provide for the permanent disposal of the SNF. The plan provided that the owners and generators of the SNF would have the primary responsibility to provide and pay for its interim storage until the Secretary of Energy accepts the material
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/lognameprint.php">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jerome Wayne Johnson</td> <td align=left valign=top>03 13595 / 03 00036 CR J 25 TEM</td> <td align=left valign=top><font color=red>07 12 2004</font></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align=left valign=top>In re: Will C. Bowman</td> <td align=left valign=top>02 13050 / 01 01345 CV BU E</td> <td align=left valign=top><font color=red>08 13 2003</font></td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr bgcolor=cccccc> <td colspan=3> </td> </tr> <tr> <td align=left valign=top>In re: Will C. Whose name in this complaint will be Dakota Allen v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1496.html">BJ SERVICES COMPANY V. HALLIBURTON<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Claudia Wilson Frost</u>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text align:justify'><span style='font family:Arial. Argued for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Allen M. 855 ( 855 patent ) is not invalid and infringed.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>BJ Serv. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>2002).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Because the district court did not err on the law and the jury s verdict is supported by substantial evidence. Wherein the hydratable polymer is a guar polymer having carboxymethyl substituents and a C* value of about 0.06 percent by weight. Is described by the patent as that concentration necessary to cause polymer chain overlap.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Suitable polymer chain overlap to effectively obtain a crosslinked gel is thoug
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200205/99-1348a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the joint briefs were Paul M. With him on the joint briefs were Peter Glaser. Were on the briefs for intervenor State of Michigan. With them on the brief was M. With him on the joint brief were Ann Brewster Weeks. McCord were on the joint brief for Industry and State intervenors. McMicha el were on the brief for amici curiae State of Utah and State of New Mexico Environment Department. The Haze Rule calls for states to play the lead role in designing and implementing regional haze programs to clear the air in national parks and wilderness areas that have been classified as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1631.html">NEOMAGIC CORPORATION V. TRIDENT MICROSYSTEMS<BR></A><BR>
Will &. Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199912/98-1409a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Mary A. With her on the brief were Jay L. Implores this court to vacate two opinions of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D6D97F8B7B9FAE018825730D00567A4F/$file/0356601.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Richard Sherman (Sherman) was the attorney for several defendants in an enforcement action brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and in other actions in which those defendants were parties. Maintaining that there was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199807/97-1101a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Rutherford were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Thomp son was on the brief. Would have an anticompetitive effect on the formation of market centers. We have set forth comprehensive histories of this process on prior occasions and have no need to rehash it now. That is. The Commission sought to remedy this
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992137.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: These appeals were consolidated for oral argument pursuant to U.S. They were given lower annual evaluations and correspondingly lower annual raises from 1994 to 1998. Were denied other professional opportunities incident to their employment at VSU.1 The cases were consolidated by the district court for discovery and trial. Their claims are not a part of this appeal. 2 Farley was named as a defendant in Saleh's case only. Epps was named as a defendant in Mbagwu's case only. Saleh's discrimination and retaliation claims against Demers were presented to the jury and a verdict was returned in Demers' favor. 1 SALEH v. The district court determined that the underlying factual allegations were subject to Virginia's two year statute of limitations. The district court found that evidence respecting the time barred allegations was relevant to prove discriminatory intent as to the claims surviving summary judgment. The matter was tried before a jury.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054521p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This action was initiated by the Township of Piscataway and a group of homeowners to prevent Duke Energy Operating Company. The companies claimed that it was necessary to remove the trees for the safe inspection and maintenance of three high pressure. Because we conclude that there are genuine issues of material 2 fact as to (1) whether removal of the trees is reasonably necessary to the maintenance of the pipelines. (2) whether Duke and Texas Eastern are barred by the doctrine of laches from asserting a right to remove the trees pursuant to an easement grant. We will vacate the District Court's judgment and remand for further proceedings. The 1944 grant required Defense Plant: to bury such pipelines so that they will not interfere with the cultivation or drainage of the land. Are predecessors in title to the homeowners in this case. 3 1 third pipeline across the property. The 1960 grant imposed the following restrictions on the parties: The said Grantor is to fully use and enjoy the said premises. Or that will interfere with the construction.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1994/94a0831p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lawrence Seidman (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-3018.html">JULIE A. BUCHANAN V. DEPT OF ENERGY<BR></A><BR>
DC.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/723F66BAA5A5C9B788256D640074FB2F/$file/0271477.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200512/03-1251a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Cynthia A. Catherine O'Harra were on the brief for intervenor East Tennessee Natural Gas. The proposed extension was known as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200210/01-1187a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With them on the briefs was Jennifer L. With her on the brief were Cynthia A. Jr. was on the brief for intervenor City of Vernon. Circuit Judge: The principal issue in this appeal is whether the review conducted by the Federal Energy Regu latory Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1518.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Et Al.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19945254.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude that there were genuine issues of material facts concerning the alleged breach of the trading warranty which precluded the entry of a summary judgment. It was towed to Amuay. Barge
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQ3NDQtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-4744-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: When a state is sued for allegedly impairing the contractual obligations of one of its political subdivisions even though it is not a signatory to the contract. The state will not be held liable for violating the Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution unless plaintiffs produce evidence that the state's self interest rather than the general welfare of the public motivated the state's conduct. Plaintiffs have the burden of proof because the record of what and why the state has acted is laid out in committee hearings. The record of why the state acted is available. Plaintiffs have not met their burden. Plaintiffs are the Buffalo Teachers Union and a number of other unions in Buffalo. Defendants are the Buffalo Fiscal Stability Authority (Buffalo Fiscal Authority. The comptroller concluded Buffalo was not in a position to resolve its fiscal woes on its own. The board would have powers and duties similar to those given to boards that already oversaw the budgets of other fiscally troubled municipalities in New York State.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/05/952779P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Salvador Hernandez was killed when he became caught in a loin saddle table that he was cleaning at the IBP. Hernandez was an employee of DCS. Which was in operation while it was being cleaned.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Mar2002/001589.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
In these proceedings Hydro contests the finding of liability while Doyle contends that the ARB should have awarded him a tax enhancement to compensate for the burden of receiving a lump sum award of back pay. We will grant Hydro's petition. We will dismiss Doyle's petition as moot. Factual History The factual synopsis we detail below is not controverted. The pay rate for this job was to be modest. Their clients for whom the investigation is being performed and any organization listed above furnishing or receiving any information pertaining to me from any and all liability or claim as results [sic] of furnishing or receiving such information pursuant to this authorization. Hydro Nuclear Services is authorized to utilize the information it obtains for the purpose of evaluation. Doyle's concern largely was attributable to his belief that his former employer. Implicitly was included in the release. [Hydro] in requiring all employees including[Doyle] to sign its release was exercising an essential step in performing its duty of responsible investigation and screening of employees. 6 JA at 10 11.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/06/97-5216.htm">97-5216 -- BOYD ROSENE AND ASSOCIATES INC. V. KANSAS MUNICIPAL GAS AGENCY -- 06/02/1999<BR></A><BR>
Its petition seeks withdrawal of the panel's decision and certification of the sole issue to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. <p> This dispute's long and tortuous path is pertinent to the pending petition. <p> In <em>Boyd Rosene &. 936) was procedural under Oklahoma choice of law and awarded just over $134. Holding that the Oklahoma attorney's fee statute is substantive and thus inapplicable in this case. <em>See Boyd Rosene &. The court did not have the benefit or assistance of any controlling Oklahoma precedent. <p> The issue which KMGA now seeks to be certified to the Oklahoma Supreme Court has been the subject of three opinions in this court and addressed twice by the district court. No party has even hinted at the prospect of certification nor suggested that they were anything but content to have the federal courts decide the question of whether Oklahoma's attorney's fee statute is applicable. Late requests for certification are rarely granted by this court and are generally disapproved. 1331 (10<sup>th</sup> Cir. 1994) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-1151a.html">PROCESS GAS CONSUMERS GROUP V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
Bushee argued the cause for petitioners and supporting intervenors.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510816.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Concluding that Giddens was entitled to payment under the policies for one of his claims. If more than one) in which you are regularly engaged for gain or profit at the time you become disabled.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2003/031268p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an action seeking an injunction against a planned Medicare audit of New Jersey teaching hospitals by the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services. The District Court held that it did not have standing to consider plaintiffs' claims under the Administrative Procedures Act. We will affirm. Plaintiffs contend defendant's planned audit of their billing records would use an improper standard and should be enjoined.1 The Medicare program is the responsibility of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. The program is administered by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Plaintiffs are the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey and two corporations associated with it: the Cooper Health System. The claims of all parties are based on the proposed audit of the university's teaching hospitals. 4 the carriers handle the billing and payment. They have initial responsibility for ensuring compliance with the statutes and regulations governing Medicare billing of individually billable services.2 Medicare payments to healthcare providers fall under two categories.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200512/04-1226a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Melissa E. Thompson were on the brief for petitioner Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation. With him on the brief was Cynthia A. Kyzmir were on the brief of intervenors The Brooklyn Union Gas Company. Innumerable children have been born into the cause. Innumerable young people have married into it. While FERC's new variations on its theme have not rendered this already convoluted proceeding any less opaque (perhaps an understandable result of multiple remands). The pipeline is divided into six zones. Where the gas is collected at pooling points. Pipelines were required to start offering customers the ability to transform their entitlements to sales of gas into transportation only service. Customers would have old people have died out of it. Bleak House 6 (Modern Library 2002) (1853). 4 equal access to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021106.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Unsubstantiated statements in opposition to the employer's evidence in this regard is insufficient to stave off summary judgment. We cannot say that the district court's finding of non discrimination was clearly erroneous. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></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-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/may96/94-8056.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. CUSUMANO<BR></A><BR>
Detective Bohlig concluded that Defendants Cusumano and Porco were growing marijuana for sale in the basement of their rented residence. Defendants stated to the landlord that a grow light in the basement's furnace room was used to grow fresh vegetables. Power company reports indicated that the residence was consuming twice the amount of electricity as similar structures in the area. The electrician also reported that the use of power equipment to provide electricity to an alleged sound stage placed over the basement's indoor swimming pool was inconsistent with existing wiring. Defendants were operating a generator in the garage of the residence purportedly to provide supplemental electricity for musical equipment in the basement. Though no such equipment was ever observed. A thermal imager scan of the residence indicated that Defendants were emitting high levels of heat from the residence. Detective Bohlig concluded in his affidavit that Defendants Cusumano and Porco were growing marijuana in the basement's swimming pool.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/may96/94-6325.wpd.html">PANHANDLE E. PIPELINE CO. V. OKLAHOMA<BR></A><BR>
When it was effectively repealed and replaced by legislation that is not challenged by these parties. Because we agree that SB 160 is unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause. Conclude that SB 160 is preempted by federal law insofar as it burdens interstate purchasers of natural gas. We further conclude that the invalid provisions of SB 160 are not severable from the remainder of the statute. Thus we conclude that SB 160 is unconstitutional in its entirety. Background The Appellee pipeline companies (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1055.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for petitioner.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5096.html">UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Howard N. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Peter D. Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Marc E. 106 Stat. 2776 (codified as amended in various sections of 42 U.S.C.) ( EPACT ).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>EPACT imposes special monetary assessments on domestic utility companies that have purchased government enriched uranium for the purpose of commercial electricity generation. 535 U.S. 1095 (2002).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>This case presents the question whether the assessments constitute unconstitutionally unapportioned direct taxes.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>This issue was raised in passing in <u>Maine Yankee</u>. On the merits we hold that the EPACT special assessments are not direct taxes and do not therefore require apportionment in accordance with the Direct Tax Clauses of the Constitution.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-1167a.html">PG&E GAS TRANSMISSION V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
Krantz argued the cause for petitioner.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the briefs were Lee A. Argued the cause for respondent.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were Cynthia A. E's petition is moot because FERC later approved an alternative method of allocating capacity.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>We disagree. E sells two primary types of natural gas transportation capacity firm and interruptible.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Firm capacity is purchased on a monthly basis and cannot be interrupted or curtailed except in limited circumstances.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Interruptible transportation (IT) capacity can be interrupted when necessary to provide service to higher priority customers. Such as firm customers.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>IT capacity is bid for as needed. Is derived by multi <br clear=all style='page break before:always'> plying the per mile bid by the number of miles the gas is to be transported. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Prior to the proceedings under review.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19944067.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Senior Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from the Secretary of Labor's determination that petitioner violated the employee protection provisions of the Energy Reorganization Act. Petitioner Bechtel Construction Company (Bechtel) claims that the Secretary of Labor's finding that Bechtel discharged one of its employees for engaging in whistleblower activities is not supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner further claims that the employee's conduct was not protected activity as a matter of law. I. Bechtel is a contractor at the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Honorable Ralph B. Turkey Point is owned and operated by the Florida Power and Light Company (FPL). Which is licensed to operate the facility by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The facility is divided into two areas. Approximately every 18 months the nuclear units at Turkey Point are shut down for refueling. These periods are called refueling outages. The RCA is supervised and controlled pursuant to NRC requirements and handling of radiation contaminated guidelines and regulations.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/01/99-6355.htm">99-6355 -- MASON V. YOUNG -- 01/16/2001<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-30700.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
PER CURIAM:* At issue in these consolidated interlocutory appeals is whether the district courts erred in finding that appellee had complied with the requirements of La. Stat. § 9:5555 are satisfied.** Here. The affidavit supplied by appellee is Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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. There is no requirement that a note or other written obligation secured by a mortgage be paraphed for identification with the mortgage in order for the mortgagee to have the right to foreclose ** * Nos. 02 30700. There is no variance between the note in issue and the mortgage and no break in the chain of evidence. Because there is no requirement that all of the terms of the note be written in the note and that the note cannot incorporate terms from a security agreement. The judgments of the district courts are affirmed. under the mortgage utilizing Louisiana executory process procedures. The creditor whose claim is secured by the privilege.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5156.html">MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant in 99 5159.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/04/951754P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At issue is whether an amendment to a Minnesota statute. Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Minnesota. The Association is a nonprofit Minnesota corporation created pursuant to the Minnesota Life and Health Insurance Guaranty Association Act (the Act). The Investment Plus Plan of Honeywell the Honeywell plans is First Trust National Association. App. 1987). business in Minnesota are To provide this protection. Who was a Minnesota resident (as is the current trustee). GICs are unallocated annuity contracts. Or Id. annuity contracts
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/mar96/94-7135.html">CITY OF STILWELL V. OZARKS RURAL ELEC. COOP.<BR></A><BR>
Will & Emery. Was preempted under the Supremacy Clause. I. Plaintiff appellant City of Stilwell is a municipality located in Adair County. Included among the areas recently annexed by Stilwell is a section which includes 154 consumers serviced by Ozarks. Ozarks is an Arkansas corporation. Which was granted an exclusive right to furnish electric service to customers in its territory under the Oklahoma Rural Electric Supplier Certified Territory Act. 1 which was created by the REAct to provide financing to power suppliers as an inducement to provide economical electric power to rural America. It sought to have Ozarks transfer its facilities and service rights in the annexed area to the City. Section 473.2. 1 The REA is now known as the Rural Utilities Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-5016.html">WASHINGTON V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8DAA9CEFEDC07B038825726D00782797/$file/0416387.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
CHEVRONTEXACO 985 Because these obligations were not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200504/04-1049a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the briefs were Debra Ann Palmer. With him on the brief were Cynthia A. Sanders was on the brief for intervenor. 2 Before: TATEL. [Columbia] will install. Operate and maintain measuring stations and equipment by which the volumes of natural gas or quantities of energy received by [Columbia] are determined.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200310/97-1300a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200310/02-5265a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200407/03-1111a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E1924E76EF2F80478825713A000137CE/$file/0356601.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Richard Sherman (Sherman) was the attorney for several defendants in an enforcement action brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and in other actions in which those defendants were parties. Maintaining that there was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200507/03-1252a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Jennifer M. With him on the brief was Cynthia A. Goldberg was on the brief for intervenor. 2 Before: GINSBURG. That applying it to those agreements is therefore arbitrary and capricious. FERC contends that the requirement was contained in two industry wide orders issued prior to the execution of Southern's original service agreements Order Nos. 888 and 888 A and that Southern's objections thus are untimely collateral attacks on those orders. There are two separate agreements at issue here: one between Southern and Williams Energy Marketing & Trading Company. We conclude that Southern's petition regarding the Williams orders is moot because the Williams agreement has since expired. Is neither moot nor a collateral attack on Order Nos. 888 and 888 A. Because we find that FERC's original agreement requirement was not contained in either Order No. 888 or Order No. 888 A. FERC offers no 3 other reason why the requirement is properly applied to the Oglethorpe agreement. Order No. 888 generally requires utilities to allow their firm transmission customers to roll over service agreements1 that have a duration of one year or longer.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-7105.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Only when (1) the plaintiffs have given proper notice of the alleged violation to the defendants. The state in which the alleged CWA violations have occurred. (2) the EPA is not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200306/02-1034a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct99/97-6365.man.html">CHANDLER V. UNITED STATES (10/29/1999, NO. 97-6365)<BR></A><BR>
Ronald David Chandler was convicted of. In which Chandler stated that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2000/99-2307.opn.html">MURATORE V. UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT (8/15/2000, NO. 99-2307)<BR></A><BR>
1215 (9th Cir. 1994) (stating that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19976365.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ronald David Chandler was convicted of. Chandler was also convicted of engaging in a criminal enterprise. Which was imposed pursuant to his conviction for causing an intentional killing. In which Chandler stated that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200304/01-1408a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-5339a.html">PHILIP P. KALODNER V. SPENCER ABRAHAM<BR></A><BR>
Argued the cause for appellees.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-1224a.html">TRUNKLINE LNG CO. V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
With </P> <P>him on the briefs were Bruce W. With </P> <P>her on the brief were John H. Be permitted to recover equity related </P> <P> </P> <P> 1 Trunkline's original application was filed with the Federal Pow </P> <P>er Commission (FPC). </P> <P>1977 and most of its functions were transferred to FERC. Due to the </P> <P>high cost of the LNG it was obtaining from Algeria. Trunkline was unable to recover $106.9 million in </P> <P>depreciation costs during this period.</P> <P> On October 16. Trunkline's proposed </P> <P>rates were predicated upon a rate base that included the </P> <P>$106.9 million in depreciation the company had been unable to </P> <P>recover from 1984 through 1989.</P> <P> Although FERC granted Trunkline's request for a certifi </P> <P>cate. FERC also directed </P> <P> </P> <P> 2 During periods in which operations were reduced but not sus </P> <P>pended. Is that it did </P> <P>have the opportunity to recover that depreciation if it had </P> <P>provided service from 1984 through 1989. Trunkline's failure </P> <P>to recover is simply a consequence of its failure to provide </P> <P>that service.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200705/05-1382a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Jill M. With her on the brief were R. Petitioners assert that the Policy Statement is arbitrary and capricious and contrary to our decision in BP West Coast Products. Petitioners have brought a facial challenge to the Policy Statement. The Commission argues that petitioners have not suffered Article III injury in fact as a result of the promulgation of the statement. The Commission contends that the Policy Statement is not ripe for review because the statement. Will not have an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/99-9542.htm">99-9542 -- PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF COLORADO V. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY -- 08/29/2000<BR></A><BR>
INTRODUCTION</strong> <p> <strong> </strong>The Environmental Protection Agency (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199910/98-1224a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Bruce W. With her on the brief were John H. Be permitted to recover equity related 1 Trunkline's original application was filed with the Federal Pow er Commission (FPC). 1977 and most of its functions were transferred to FERC. Due to the high cost of the LNG it was obtaining from Algeria. Trunkline was unable to recover $106.9 million in depreciation costs during this period. Trunkline's proposed rates were predicated upon a rate base that included the $106.9 million in depreciation the company had been unable to recover from 1984 through 1989. FERC also directed 2 During periods in which operations were reduced but not sus pended. Is that it did have the opportunity to recover that depreciation if it had provided service from 1984 through 1989. Trunkline's failure to recover is simply a consequence of its failure to provide that service. The risk allocation reflected in that tariff was not an unreasonable one. Also bore part of the risk since it would have to continue to pay under the minimum bill even if it received no service.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199806/93-1663a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on the brief. Provide a one part volumetric (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200402/03-1018a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr95/94-4067.opa.html">BECHTEL CONSTR. V. SECRETARY OF LABOR<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bechtel Constr. v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This is an appeal from the Secretary of Labor's determination that petitioner violated the employee protection provisions of the Energy Reorganization Act. Petitioner Bechtel Construction Company (Bechtel) claims that the Secretary of Labor's finding that Bechtel discharged one of its employees for engaging in whistleblower activities is not supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner further claims that the employee's conduct was not protected activity as a matter of law.<p> Our review of the record convinces us that the Secretary should be affirmed.<p> I.<p> <p> Bechtel is a contractor at the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Facility at Florida City. Turkey Point is owned and operated by the Florida Power and Light Company (FPL). Which is licensed to operate the facility by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The facility is divided into two areas. The radiation control area and the non radiation area.<p> Approximately every 18 months the nuclear units at Turkey Point are shut down for refueling.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-1409a.html">PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE CO. V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
With </P> <P>him on the briefs were Mary A. With her on </P> <P>the brief were Jay L. Implores this court to vacate two </P> <P>opinions of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission </P> <P>(
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2000/99-2307.opn.html">MURATORE V. UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT (8/15/2000, NO. 99-2307)<BR></A><BR>
1215 (9th Cir. 1994) (stating that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/july97/94-1579.wpd.html">SOUTHERN UTE INDIAN TRIBE V. AMOCO PROD. CO.<BR></A><BR>
Which entities have not obtained ) tribal consent to and federal approval of said explora ) tion. ) for lands located within the exterior boundaries of the ) Southern Ute Indian Reservation and which class ) members have not obtained tribal consent to and ) federal approval of said interests of rights. 2) (1) Our reversal will require the district court to address the defenses asserted by defendants to preclude recovery by the Tribe. 2) a declaratory judgment that Tribal consent is required for CBM extraction. Two issues were identified as fundamental to the resolution of all claims against the Amoco defendants: 1) the determination of CBM ownership. Amoco was designated as representative of the class and. The district court held that CBM ownership was vested unambiguously in the Amoco defendants. Or reach the federal defendants' claims that the Tribe's action was barred by the statute of limitations. It is from these rulings that the Tribe appeals.(2) II. The single issue which is determinative of this appeal is whether the Tribe.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/03/023162P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
MHC would have until September 16. To tender the put and then Racom was required to meet the obligation with cash within ninety days of receiving MHC's notice of exercising its right. Dividends were deferred for the first two years. 3 2 Beginning in mid 2001. MHC estimated that Racom was obligated to pay $15. That several agreements between MHC and Racom were invalid. Concluding that further discovery was not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/07/011071P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Lake is part of a hydropower project on the Osage River that is owned and operated by Intervenor Union Electric Company under a license from FERC that authorizes Union Electric to allow certain uses of the Lake for the benefit of the public and to recoup its costs of doing so. That the fees were unreasonable. The Water Power Act was the outgrowth of a widely supported effort of the conservationists to secure enactment of a complete scheme of national regulation which would promote the comprehensive development of the water resources of the Nation. In so far as it was within the reach of the federal power to do so. Take into account not only the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-3318.html">PAUL L. TERBAN V. DEPT. OF ENERGY<BR></A><BR>
With her on the brief were <u>David W. S decision.</p> <p ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-1785a.html">TOWN NORWOOD MA V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr95/94-4067.opa.html">BECHTEL CONSTR. V. SECRETARY OF LABOR<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bechtel Constr. v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This is an appeal from the Secretary of Labor's determination that petitioner violated the employee protection provisions of the Energy Reorganization Act. Petitioner Bechtel Construction Company (Bechtel) claims that the Secretary of Labor's finding that Bechtel discharged one of its employees for engaging in whistleblower activities is not supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner further claims that the employee's conduct was not protected activity as a matter of law.<p> Our review of the record convinces us that the Secretary should be affirmed.<p> I.<p> <p> Bechtel is a contractor at the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Facility at Florida City. Turkey Point is owned and operated by the Florida Power and Light Company (FPL). Which is licensed to operate the facility by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The facility is divided into two areas. The radiation control area and the non radiation area.<p> Approximately every 18 months the nuclear units at Turkey Point are shut down for refueling.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200301/01-1167a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Lee A. With her on the brief were Cynthia A. FERC claims that PG&E's petition is moot because FERC later approved an alternative method of allocating capacity. Firm capacity is purchased on a monthly basis and cannot be interrupted or curtailed except in limited circumstances. IT capacity is bid for as needed. Is derived by multi plying the per mile bid by the number of miles the gas is to be transported. Were broken according to a shipper's position in the IT queue. If two shippers' bids were tied. Queue positions were determined by a lottery held by PG&E in 1987. Capacity would be allocated pro rata that is. Asked PG&E to provide further
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200212/01-1299b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Wil liam T. With her on the brief were Cynthia A. Shahan were on the brief for intervenors Southern Natural Gas Company. Senior Circuit Judge: Petitioners either are purchasers or represent purchasers of gas transported on Southern Natural Gas Company's pipeline system. Their specific objection is to FERC's having certificated the transaction at discount rates. SCS sought to have the gas delivered as economically as possible. At least two potential carriers were available. Over objections by petition ers that the appearance of competition was illusory. Hence in seeking certification Southern claimed that it could not have won the SCS business without offering discounted rates. The Commission was persuaded. Specifically whether they have suffered or are in imminent peril of suffering injury in fact
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200211/01-5339a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was William Kanter. Directs the Secretary
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200605/04-1374a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the briefs were Lee A. With her on the briefs 2 were Debra Ann Palmer. With him on the brief were John S. Todd Piczak were on the brief for intervenor Virginia Natural Gas. Krieger were on the brief for intervenor Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation in support of respondent. The LNG is pumped from Columbia's storage tank to vaporizers. The tank and pump system is designed to maintain a certain minimum level of LNG inventory both to ensure that there is enough gas to meet customers' demands and to ensure that the pumps operate effectively. The vents are essential because the LNG system pumps liquefied natural gas. The pumps will malfunction (a problem known as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1848.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. LNC argues that the Commission's certification of the project was tainted by its failure to assess adequately the full environmental impact of the proposed undertaking. The Commission shall issue such certificates to qualified applicants once it determines that the proposed service
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200706/06-1089a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Jennifer L. On the brief was Daniel M. With him on the brief were Ronald E. Donathen were on the brief for intervenor E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. Kovalik was on the brief for intervenors United Steel. That because the subcontracting impasse was unlawful. So too the collective bargaining agreement impasse was unlawful. That there was a lawful impasse on the subcontracting issue. Corian is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="382"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021639.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That six metric tons2 of surplus plutonium will be transferred from Rocky Flats to SRS for long term storage. That it had failed to comply with NEPA procedures prior Plutonium is a highly radioactive. Pits) at the core of modern nuclear weapons are largely composed (at least 93%) of a particular type of plutonium Plutonium 239. We will review the pertinent facts and legal principles governing the NEPA issues presented.5 II. When these requests were denied. 2002. 5 Certain national and local media were Parties in Interest in the district court. That ruling is not at issue in this appeal. That ruling is also not before us. 3 6 HODGES v. Unilaterally announced that a total of 38.2 metric tons of our plutonium was no longer necessary for defense purposes. The use of the terms
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199804/93-1566a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the briefs were Jack M. With him on the briefs were Stefan M. With him on the brief were Jay L. With him on the brief was Jeanne M. Rosner were on the brief for intervenors Indicated Shippers. Eligibility that is for a discount subsidized by other pipeline customers. Point out that after restruc turing they are in the same position as the pipeline's former
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/03/02-3096.htm">02-3096 -- HILL V. KANSAS GAS SERVICE COMPANY -- 03/26/2003<BR></A><BR>
Are local natural gas public utilities<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan2001/003387.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania may seek to revisit those issues in consolidated administrative appeals in its own permitting process in a costly pr oceeding that will delay NE Hub's construction of the Facility. Principally on the jurisdictional gr ound that it was not ripe for decision before the state pr ocess concluded. We disagr ee with the district court on the ripeness issue and accordingly will reverse its order dismissing the action and will remand the case for further proceedings. The construction is a substantial undertaking requiring NE Hub to drill through the Oriskany sand formation which contains competing storage facilities owned by Penn Fuel Gas. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3707.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chemetall claims that the district court's 2 No. 01 3707 denial of Fraval's pretrial motion is unreviewable on appeal. We conclude that the motion was properly denied and finding no other error. I. BACKGROUND Fraval was employed by Morton International (and its predecessors). Where for 20 years he was involved in the production and marketing of zirconium powder. The agreement was to be effective during and after his employment and was to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1998/98a1890p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm the decision of the district court. 1. Is hereby declared to be illegal.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199802/97-1024a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on the brief. The Commission held that Koch's accounting system was violative of its tariff and ordered Koch to refund over $3 million in net revenues to its customers. 186 (1997). equal footing.2 Its primary method for achieving greater competition was to require that pipelines unbundle (i.e. Pipelines were thus required to provide transportation service at equivalent levels of quality without regard to whether the gas had been purchased from the pipeline or from another supplier. As we have recently noted. Because customers were permitted to purchase trans portation as a separate service. Pipelines might find it difficult to regulate imbalances in the amount of gas that was being delivered to. It must
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1800.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Hill & Barlow were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. Circuit Judge. underlying dispute over who is to pay for some $14 million in repairs to a coal cargo ship requires us to resolve one question: whether claims asserted by defendant appellee New England Power Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0571n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court also granted summary judgment to Cargill on the loss of consortium claim because the action was derivative of the intentional tort claim. Because both conclusions were correct. I. BACKGROUND The pertinent facts of this case are simple and undisputed. Lockout/tagout refers to a safety procedure whereby an employee may perform maintenance on a piece of equipment only after completing several other steps: notify other affected employees that the equipment will be shut down. Test the controls to ensure that no energy is flowing to the equipment. Eilerman was aware that the lockout/tagout procedure was part of the plant's safety rules and expected to be disciplined if he did not follow it. 2 Eilerman had personally performed the lockout/tagout procedure every time he performed maintenance on a piece of equipment. Eilerman and Danzig were responsible for loading rail cars with meal. So the only evidence in the record of the relevant events is Danzig's deposition testimony. Which is what the meal falls into and takes it to load it.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/05/96-5113.htm">96-5113 -- DALRYMPLE V. GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY -- 05/28/1998<BR></A><BR>
Individually and as representatives of a class consisting of all persons and entities located upstream of Pensacola Dam who have been injured by floods caused or increased by the Dam since September 1992. Is a conservation and reclamation district created pursuant to Oklahoma statute
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1436.html">HONEYWELL V. VICTOR COMPANY OF JAPAN<BR></A><BR>
Argued for defendants appellees.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199712/93-1662a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Povilaitis were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Chief Judge: At issue in this case is a claim by the Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0356a-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Challenging the validity of certain state tax credits and local property tax abatements that were granted to DaimlerChrysler Corporation as an inducement to the company to expand its business operations in Toledo. The total value of the tax incentives was estimated to be $280 million. Provided that the new manufacturing machinery and equipment are installed in [Ohio].
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0293p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Challenging the validity of certain state tax credits and local property tax abatements that were granted to DaimlerChrysler Corporation as an inducement to the company to expand its business operations in Toledo. The total value of the tax incentives was estimated to be $280 million. Provided that the new manufacturing machinery and equipment are installed in [Ohio].
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1995/95a1187p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It seeks to have the County's flow control plan declared unconstitutional under the dormant Commerce Clause. Pennsylvania was no exception. Methods less protective of the environment generally have lower capital and operating costs. Most waste disposal facilities were privately owned and operated.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0308p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Contending that state provisions differentiating between in state and out of state wineries violate the Commerce Clause.1 Those regulations prohibit 1 Similar actions have been brought challenging direct shipment bans in North Carolina. Is not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/11/99-1037.htm">99-1037 -- LPG HOLDINGS INC. V. CASINO AMERICA INC. -- 11/01/2000<BR></A><BR>
The district court held that LPG's claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing were foreclosed by the unambiguous language of the parties' agreement. LPG acquired the property because it was interested in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053054np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The District Court determined that the defendants were not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042096p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge Appellants in this case are owners and operators of industrial facilities located throughout the United States that are contaminated with hazardous waste. They admit they are responsible for some of the contamination at these sites (which they cleaned up voluntarily). Allege the United States 3 Government is also responsible for some part. The Supreme Court held that § 113 by its express terms is not available to parties that clean up sites voluntarily. Because appellants are themselves partly responsible for the contamination at the subject sites. Their cleanups were voluntary. It is necessary first to understand the applicable legal framework. CERCLA is a broad remedial statute that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001185.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 4 the name
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AC0C1BB751EBAA1288256BDB007C34E3/$file/9935979.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: This appeal is a companion to In re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation. The facts underlying these claims are set forth in detail in our opinion in In re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation. Were severed from Hanford during the second phase of discovery on September 20. The record in this appeal includes an expert's report that is not in the Hanford record. Also on the erroneous premise that only those plaintiffs who were shown to have been exposed to radiation that exceeded what is termed a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A0B18BFB1437346F8825707A004DE706/$file/0435105.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We agree with the district court that relevant decisions regarding fire prevention were encompassed in the government's contracts with Fluor Daniel Hanford. The action is therefore barred by the independent contractor exception to the FTCA. We do not reach whether the suit is also barred by the discretionary function exception in 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). The wildfire was triggered by an automobile crash on Washington State Route 24 (SR 24). SR 24 is located on an easement over federal property granted by the United States 13002 AUTERY v. The ALE Reserve is an ecologically sensitive area with significant natural and cultural resources. The terms of the transfer are set forth in a June 20. Specific control of the ALE is important here because the fire started on the ALE or. Plaintiffs' primary FTCA claim is that the United States (either the DOE or the FWS) negligently maintained firebreaks near SR 24 along the ALE and such negligence caused fire to spread from SR 24 onto the ALE and ultimately to Plaintiffs' properties.1 The DOE had a large (over $2.8 billion.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/10/98-5197.htm">98-5197 -- BLAGG V. MILLER -- 10/19/1999<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Through their attorney. Alleging that venue was proper in that district because the husband/debtor was employed there. We conclude that the BAP order is not final. That we are therefore without jurisdiction to hear this appeal. <p> As mentioned above.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021024.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Nor have North Carolina courts recognized such a private cause of action arising independently out of the statute. She argues there is no
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B5A836BA1BA84CA488256E5A00707B11/$file/9955576.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because appellants have failed to demonstrate by the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/03/026053P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That the amount now due and payable was $937. The trustee responded that she was talking to several potential purchasers of the lease. She also stated that the lease was the only asset of value in the estate. No extension was necessary. The trustee stated that AgriProcessors was interested in purchasing the lease from the bankruptcy estate. In so doing the court noted that the lease was Tama's most significant asset. The Bankruptcy Estate agrees that if the Agreement is terminated pursuant to Section 8(d) above. AgriProcessors objected to the trustee's motion to amend the motion to assume and assign on the grounds that the negotiating procedures were not clearly spelled out in her motion. The court further noted that outside of bankruptcy AgriProcessors would not have been entitled to be paid its cost of making its offer if it lost the bidding. Giving due regard to the opportunity of the bankruptcy court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.3 The decision to award administrative expense priority is within the discretion of the bankruptcy judge.4 We review such a decision for abuse No one questioned Iowa Beef's participation at the hearing of July 9.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B5BCBF70AFF9A7E688256D95005CA9A5/$file/0171736.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction over Petitioners' timely filed petitions under 16 U.S.C. § 839f(e). BPA is the marketing authority for almost all federally generated electric power in the Pacific Northwest. 16 U.S.C. § 838f. BPA's actions may be set aside if they are arbitrary. Agency action is arbitrary and capricious if the agency has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider. Or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise. BPA's interpretation will be upheld if it is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1909.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Associates</SPAN> was on brief. Solicitor were on brief. Knott's Riverdale Mills Project (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1928.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Were on brief. The tubes were used by Wellons. Wellons was awarded some but not all of what it sought. Saint Gobain filed for declaratory relief that it was not liable under warranties it provided in the contract selling the tubes to Wellons. Saint Gobain claimed that the breakage was not caused by a defect in the tubes and that. The date by which the parties agreed delivery of all the tubes was complete. </FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7C0ED6058FC7BF228825704A00770660/$file/0535569.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I The Columbia River is the fourth largest river on the North American continent. The Snake River is the Columbia River's main tributary. Salmon runs have declined to a small percentage of their historic abundance. There are now thirteen species of Columbia. Willamette River salmon and steelhead that are protected by the Endangered Species Act.2 The district court found in this case that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200112164.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Filed a complaint in federal district court alleging that the County was taking endangered sea turtles in violation of the ESA. (2) the County's ordinance restricting artificial beachfront lighting was ineffective in preventing takes. Was reasonably likely to result in future takes of sea turtles. That the County was not responsible for takes by its municipalities. The district court found that beach driving was reasonably likely to result in future taking of sea turtles. The district court held that both types of takes were covered by the ITP. Arguing that their suit was the catalyst for improved protection of sea turtles. Arguing that the Turtles' suit did not have a catalytic effect on the County's ITP application.2 With respect to the beach lighting claim. That enactment of County Ordinances 99 12 and 99 13 was Although the ITP permitted incidental takes. Presumably because the ITP carefully delimited the scope of permissible takes and set forth fifteen categories of measures the County was required to undertake to minimize and mitigate such takes.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/12/963653P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Determined that the Consent Decree was procedurally and substantively fair. Was consistent with CERCLA. The Intervenors also contend that the district court abused its discretion when it determined that the Consent Decree was procedurally and substantively fair. The two cases were consolidated. BACKGROUND The following summary of facts is largely taken from the district court's published Order and Memorandum. The MEW Site was owned at all relevant times by Missouri Electrical Works. The total amount of transformer oil that was not recycled during MEW's operation is estimated at 28. Apparently were disposed of at the MEW Site. Was contaminated. The PRPs were given an opportunity to object to the ultimate settlement package. The Intervenors are service shop owners and their trade association. Settling PRPs must pay for all costs but will be reimbursed by the government for twenty percent of some costs incurred in the design and construction of the remedial action. Additional response actions that are necessary to achieve certain performance standards.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/01/98-1478a.htm">98-1478A -- INVESTMENTS V. BENTON -- 01/28/2000<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200310/02-1166a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200307/02-1107a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1376A.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200306/02-1087a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200306/01-1327a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2002/01-12164.opn.html">LOGGERHEAD TURTLE V. COUNTY COUNCIL (9/30/2002, NO. 01-12164)<BR></A><BR>
Filed a complaint in federal district court alleging that the County was taking endangered sea turtles in violation of the ESA. (2) the County's ordinance restricting artificial beachfront lighting was ineffective in preventing takes. Was reasonably likely to result in future takes of sea turtles. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1791.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Cordova</SPAN> was on brief. Rodriguez</SPAN> was on brief. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept99/97-5380.man.html">LEVAN V. CAPITAL CITIES/ABC (9/29/1999, NO. 97-5380)<BR></A><BR>
That ABC and Willson therefore were liable for injuries that appellees suffered as a result of the story. We conclude that ABC and Willson are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Was insufficient to establish one of the elements of appellees' claim: that ABC and Willson broadcast the story with actual malice. Were engaged in the business of organizing and managing commercial real estate limited partnerships. The idea behind these partnerships was that small investors. It was anticipated that the partnerships would hold onto the properties for a period of time ranging from between four to nine years and then sell the properties and distribute the proceeds among the investors. There was a severe nationwide decline in the value of real estate. The properties held by Levan's limited partnerships were no exception. Levan and BFC offered their limited partners the two exchanges that are at the center of this dispute. Which were completed in 1989 and 1991. Were of a type referred to in the industry as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/01/99-6059.htm">99-6059 -- PATTERSON V. SPEARS -- 01/31/2000<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> This appeal arises out of an adversary proceeding commenced by Appellee Kenneth Spears. Who is Denton's mother. The matter was tried to the bankruptcy court along with another adversary proceeding commenced by one of Denton's creditors. So the alleged oral revocation of the trust was of no effect. Who was the trustee of the spendthrift trust. Claims that she had contributed virtually all of the corpus of the trust and that the trust was revoked. Both parties agree that all the issues raised on appeal are governed by Oklahoma law. We note that our review of this appeal was hindered by Patterson's failure to comply with 10th . Which requires her to refer to the specific places in the record where each issue was raised and ruled on. That the trust was revoked by oral consent of all the interested parties in the early 1990s. Because Oklahoma's Trust Act requires the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200402/02-1257a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200304/01-1329a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar96/94-4323.opa.html">TEC COGENERATION INC. V. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>TEC Cogeneration Inc. v. As they are partners in South Florida Cogeneration Associates. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This is an appeal from the denial of a motion for summary judgment by the district court.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001243.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We have reviewed the record and the district court's orders and find no reversible error. Summary judgment was correctly entered for the various
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200302/01-1028a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200404/03-1166a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200301/01-1407a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Douglas W. With him on the briefs were Michael J. With him on the brief were Cynthia A. With him on the brief were James H. Even if the locations are not specified in their contracts. This is called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200301/01-1345a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Denise C. With him on the brief were Cynthia A. Shoneman were on the brief for intervenors Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation. Petitioners argue that the disputed Orders are unreason able. Petitioners contend that FERC was obliged to apply the more recent policy statement. Because it was issued while the Transco case was still pend ing. The application of a newly adopted policy statement to a pending case is not presumed unless the policy change has the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/04/062406P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Reiterating those claims and asserting that the district court should have admitted the deposition testimony of the president of the Iowa Lottery Authority (the Lottery). A TouchPlay machine is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul15/03-60028-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Employees of Mason & Hanger Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1222.html">PPG V. GUARDIAN<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july98/97-5195.man.html">ROBERTS V. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. (7/22/1998, NO. 97-5195)<BR></A><BR>
Congress subsequently determined that it was in the national interest to encourage the private sector to participate in this effort. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 established the Atomic Energy Commission and gave it authority to license and regulate nuclear power plants. <EM>See</EM> 42 U.S.C. § 2011 <EM>et seq.</EM> Private power companies were reluctant to invest in nuclear facilities. Unless such law is inconsistent with the provisions of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july98/97-2959.man.html">AQUATHERM INDUS., INC. V. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. (7/8/1998, NO. 97-2959)<BR></A><BR>
We affirm.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> Aquatherm is a Delaware corporation that manufactures solar powered heating systems for swimming pools. FPL is the exclusive provider of electric power in approximately two thirds of the state of Florida. Its admitted sole purpose was to increase use of electrical power. Or 2) wrongly interfered with the pool heater market in order to increase its profits.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200205/01-1052a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Andrew J. With him on the brief were Maurice H. With him on the briefs were Julie C. French were on the briefs for Engine Manufacturer petitioners. With them on the briefs were Kenneth C. Walke were on the brief for intervenors American Lung Association. McBride were on the brief for intervenor American Petroleum Institute. Voge were on the brief for intervenors State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Ad ministrators. Shapiro were on the brief for intervenors International Truck and Engine Corporation. PER CURIAM:1 We have here a set of challenges to an EPA rule affecting diesel fuel and engines. All of which are 1 Parts I and II of the opinion are by Senior Judge Williams. Part III is by Judge Sentelle. Parts IV and V are by Judge Tatel. harmful to the environment and human health (as no party disputes). The new standards are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200203/01-5075a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Robert D. At the time he was 58 years old and an 18 year veteran of the Department. Among the five were Crockett and Gary Stern. Although the revisions have been made. The court clearly credited the Department's explanation that Stern was more experienced and qualified than Crockett in the areas deemed most critical for the position. None of the issues raised by Crockett suggests that the court's assess ment of the facts was clearly erroneous. A grant of summary judgment for the government was therefore appropriate. The position was not filled for a number of reasons. Crockett first contends that Sullivan's account of the Merit Staff Committee's tepid assessment of the candidates is contradicted by a letter from Robert Rabben. Thus even a Superior candidate may have serious deficiencies. Crockett suggests that Sullivan's explanations at an earlier deposition were vague and that they contradicted her declaration. Memo rable facts that (if true) he surely should have remembered and mentioned the first time around.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ED482DD84D44CDCC88256A3B005ADD5C/$file/9955576.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because appellants have failed to demonstrate by the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july98/97-2959.man.html">AQUATHERM INDUS., INC. V. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. (7/8/1998, NO. 97-2959)<BR></A><BR>
We affirm.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> Aquatherm is a Delaware corporation that manufactures solar powered heating systems for swimming pools. FPL is the exclusive provider of electric power in approximately two thirds of the state of Florida. Its admitted sole purpose was to increase use of electrical power. Or 2) wrongly interfered with the pool heater market in order to increase its profits.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EC4485C713A66BAB88256CF60060DA13/$file/0270660.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission decided that because a reservoir was not necessary or appropriate to the operation of power projects. It did not have jurisdiction over that reservoir. Even though it did have jurisdiction over the power projects themselves.1 Bear Lake Watch. Water is withdrawn from the river. It is pumped out of the lake at the Lifton Pump Station and PacifiCorp. The result was that the rights of Telluride's successors to store and use the Bear River water at Bear Lake was recognized as long as that did not interfere with any senior users' rights. Although Bear Lake does have a maximum usable storage capacity of 1. Its operators2 have targeted a level of 5. That is seen as a level that will allow the meeting of irrigation needs without posing a flood risk. The end result of all of this is that. Whatever might have been Telluride's original intent. Bear Lake is now primarily used for irrigation and flood control purposes. When water is released for irrigation purposes.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july98/97-5195.man.html">ROBERTS V. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. (7/22/1998, NO. 97-5195)<BR></A><BR>
Congress subsequently determined that it was in the national interest to encourage the private sector to participate in this effort. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 established the Atomic Energy Commission and gave it authority to license and regulate nuclear power plants. <EM>See</EM> 42 U.S.C. § 2011 <EM>et seq.</EM> Private power companies were reluctant to invest in nuclear facilities. Unless such law is inconsistent with the provisions of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/08/052570P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which until 2004 was based in Minnesota. Is in the business of generating. It asserted that this action in the federal district court in Minnesota is barred by the bankruptcy court orders issued in the Chapter 11 case. NRG claimed further that the bankruptcy court has exclusive jurisdiction over the matter because the facts underlying the Commission's complaint are the same facts on which its proof of claim was based. The motion was referred to a magistrate judge who recommended that the case be dismissed or transferred. After concluding that this action is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200106/00-1270a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for the respondent. Husqvarna contends that the final rule is arbitrary and capricious because the EPA failed to select the emission standards that represent the best balance of the factors identified in CAA section 213. It also maintains that the regulatory alternative chosen by the EPA is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. The EPA missed the statutory deadline and a lawsuit to enforce the statute was filed. A two stroke engine is an internal combustion engine that accomplishes the operations of intake. In January 1998 the EPA proposed Phase 2 emission standards for handheld engines that were slightly more stringent than those in Phase 1. 63 Fed. The proposed Phase 2 standards were expected to reduce hydrocarbons (HC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions by 30 per cent beyond Phase 1 standards by the year 2025.3 63 Fed. Handheld engines are smaller and are used in equipment such as chainsaws. Leaf blowers and weed trimmers. 2 An engine family is a grouping of engines within a manufac turer's product line.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200106/00-1031a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Jennifer N. With her on the brief was Dennis Lane. Krieger were on the brief for intervenors Columbia Gulf Transmission Corporation and Columbia Gulf Transmission Company. Because FERC's decision to settle is committed to the agency's nonreviewable discretion under Heckler v. FERC discovered that the available capacity on one of Columbia's pipelines was lower than the level at which it had been certificated. FERC suspected that the decline in the pipeline's capacity was due to Columbia's failure to re place deteriorated compressor units. The centerpiece remedy was the requirement that Columbia conduct a 30 day
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200106/00-1005a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Marisa A. On the brief were John H. With him on the brief were Steven W. Pan Alberta argues that the orders are not based upon substantial evidence in the record. Its income is fixed at the price originally agreed upon with the releasing shipper. Because Northwest charges a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200501/03-1340a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5108.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Kathy Bailey. With her on the brief were Thomas L. Of counsel was Susan V. With her on the brief was Roger J. Did not have a cognizable property interest
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200502/03-1092b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Thomas C. With her on the brief was Cynthia A. Reed were on the brief for intervenors in support of respondent. What are the necessary elements in such an inquiry. Will always be an embarrassing question.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200101/97-1557a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Michael D. With him on the briefs was John H. With him on the briefs were Lois J. As they govern areas that are not part of any
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200502/03-1222a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Peter S. With him on the brief were John C. With him on the brief were Terry Goddard. Bloomfield were on the brief for intervenors Phelps Dodge Corporation. Senior Circuit Judge: Haze obscuring the Grand Canyon and various other national parks and wilderness areas in the west is a multi state problem. To determine whether the rule was better than BART. EPA was to consider four factors
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar96/94-4323.opa.html">TEC COGENERATION INC. V. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>TEC Cogeneration Inc. v. As they are partners in South Florida Cogeneration Associates. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This is an appeal from the denial of a motion for summary judgment by the district court.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1562.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C. were on brief for petitioner. Were on brief for respondent. Was on brief for intervenor. The Regulatory Framework Operators of nuclear power plants must have a license issued by the NRC. Unless the modification is inconsistent with the license or involves an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200005/99-1342a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Willard was on the briefs for petitioner. Shapiro were on the brief for amicus curiae. Were on the brief for respondents. That is. Without re gard to whether a repository was available to begin dispos ing of SNF on January 31. The DOE acted to frustrate that decision by holding that its failure to perform was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200003/99-1113a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was John W. With her on the brief were John H. Solicitor at the time the brief was filed. Dennis Holbrook were on the brief of intervenors Colum bia Gas Transmission Corporation and Norse Pipeline. Such facilities are exempt from FERC jurisdiction under section 1(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA). Lomak contends that FERC's determination that the Project Penny facilities primarily perform a gathering function was arbitrary and 1 Section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act. I The Project Penny facilities are located in western New York and northwestern Pennsylvania. They are composed of approximately 336 miles of 2 to 12 inch diameter pipeline. All of which were the subject of certificates of public convenience and necessity issued by FERC during the period of Colum bia's ownership. Because the facilities were not on its system. Before the connections were constructed the Commission implemented its major open access orders. Wherein the costs of all facili ties to move gas from the wellhead to the customer were reflected in the pipeline's sales rates.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200003/99-1010a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were G. With her on the brief were Jay L. With her on the brief were Matthew Merrill Schreck. Most of whom are in the Midwest. Manta Ray is owned by affiliates of Shell Offshore. The proposed line was to run from Block 207 to an onshore station in Garden City. Required a comparative hearing because its application and the Nautilus application were mutually exclusive. Since it contended the capacity of the Manta Ray system was not sufficient to supply gas to both projects. The Commission denied ANR's motion for consolidation and a comparative hearing because in its view the two pro jects were not necessarily mutually exclusive and the public interest could best be served by allowing market forces to channel demand. At the same time it issued a preliminary determination that ANR's application was also in the public interest. Petitioner claims that the Commission was obliged under the Ashbacker doctrine to hold a comparative hearing before it granted the Nautilus certificate. Applies only if the certificates are.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200003/97-1092a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Marc C. With him on the brief were Jay L. Downey were on the brief for intervenors. Parties with firm rights to buy natural gas in the downstream areas served by Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-5132.html">BASS ENTERPRISES V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200001/98-1398a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on the briefs for petitioner. Were on the brief for respondent. Jr. and Gunnar Birgisson were on the brief for intervenor. We hold that we have jurisdiction to review the Certificate Order. Because the Commission's decision was not arbitrary and capricious. The farm was established by an ancestor of Mr. Martin's in the early 1830s and the farmhouse and surrounding 112 acre tract are characteristic of early 19th century building and farming patterns. The property was listed in the National Register of Historic Places one year after the Commission authorized Portland to construct the pipeline. We must determine whether we have jurisdiction to hear his claim. It is clear from Mr. That what he really wants is review of the Certificate Order. Which is the order actually authorizing Portland to construct the pipeline across his property. Martin is aggrieved by the Certificate Order. An order denying rehearing is unreviewable except insofar as the request for rehearing was based upon new evidence or changed circumstances.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2002/01-12164.opn.html">LOGGERHEAD TURTLE V. COUNTY COUNCIL (9/30/2002, NO. 01-12164)<BR></A><BR>
Filed a complaint in federal district court alleging that the County was taking endangered sea turtles in violation of the ESA. (2) the County's ordinance restricting artificial beachfront lighting was ineffective in preventing takes. Was reasonably likely to result in future takes of sea turtles. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200506/04-1116a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Daniel I. With her on the brief were Cynthia A. Baran were on the brief for intervenor. 2 Before: GINSBURG. Petitions this court for review of two Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200506/04-1135a.pdf">O:\OPN\KELLY\TOCA PRODUCERS\TOCA PRODUCERS V. FERC FINAL TO FULL COURT.WPD<BR></A><BR>
With her on the briefs were John Paul Floom. With him on the brief were Cynthia A. Menter were on the brief 2 for intervenors Southern Natural Gas Company. That Southern Natural Gas Co. be ordered to revise its tariff to include a safe harbor gas quality standard that specifies a hydrocarbon dewpoint at which Southern will guarantee the transportation of gas. For that reason § 3.1(b) of Southern's tariff provides that Southern will not accept gas containing more than 0.3 gallons per thousand cubic feet of isopentane and heavier hydrocarbons. Ordinarily § 3.1(b) is of no consequence because it is in the producers' economic interest to extract hydrocarbons at the 3 processing plants for the purpose of selling them as liquid natural gas. Southern notified all producers that: In the event the processing capacity is reduced significantly ... Individual producers that do not meet the quality specification will be ... required to reduce or shut in their production. Asserting Southern's threatened refusal to accept their gas was discriminatory within the meaning of §§ 4 and 5 because.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept99/97-5380.man.html">LEVAN V. CAPITAL CITIES/ABC (9/29/1999, NO. 97-5380)<BR></A><BR>
That ABC and Willson therefore were liable for injuries that appellees suffered as a result of the story. We conclude that ABC and Willson are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Was insufficient to establish one of the elements of appellees' claim: that ABC and Willson broadcast the story with actual malice. Were engaged in the business of organizing and managing commercial real estate limited partnerships. The idea behind these partnerships was that small investors. It was anticipated that the partnerships would hold onto the properties for a period of time ranging from between four to nine years and then sell the properties and distribute the proceeds among the investors. There was a severe nationwide decline in the value of real estate. The properties held by Levan's limited partnerships were no exception. Levan and BFC offered their limited partners the two exchanges that are at the center of this dispute. Which were completed in 1989 and 1991. Were of a type referred to in the industry as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199911/98-1275b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Alan I. With him on the briefs were Gary D. Borrasca argued the cause and was on the brief for intervenor The Snake River Power Association. With her on the brief were Douglas W. IV were on the brief for intervenor Public Utilities District No. 2 of Grant County. I. The Priest Rapids Project is a federally licensed hydroelec tric development located in Grant County. The Commission decided that the case was ripe. Noting that Grant and the purchasers group were al ready engaged in negotiations for post relicensing power sales. Montana is sufficiently mentioned in the legislative history that it should be deemed neighboring for purposes of the Act. 1 noting that the percentages proposed by the parties were self serving and that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1005a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Staffier argued the cause for petitioner.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1031a.html">BALT GAS ELEC CO V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
Lesch argued the cause for petitioners.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199910/98-1275a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Alan I. With him on the briefs were Gary D. Borrasca argued the cause and was on the brief for intervenor The Snake River Power Association. With her on the brief were Douglas W. IV were on the brief for intervenor Public Utilities District No. 2 of Grant County. I. The Priest Rapids Project is a federally licensed hydroelec tric development located in Grant County. The Commission decided that the case was ripe. Noting that Grant and the purchasers group were al ready engaged in negotiations for post relicensing power sales. Montana is sufficiently mentioned in the legislative history that it should be deemed neighboring for purposes of the Act. 1 noting that the percentages proposed by the parties were self serving and that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1270a.html">HUSQVARNA AB V. EPA<BR></A><BR>
Were on brief for the respondent. <span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199910/98-1227a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
On the briefs were John McNish and Richard G. With him on the briefs were Gordon Gooch. With him on the brief were Jay L. With her on the brief were James D. Circuit Judge: Petitioners in these consolidated cases are natural gas producers. Four issues are pre sented. Although we will presuppose knowledge of our opinion in Public Service and its predecessor. Eliminating the price limitations Title I of the NGPA had imposed. the Kansas ad valorem tax was not the equivalent of a severance tax attributable to production and therefore pro ducers already charging the maximum price could not recover the tax from their customers. The date when all interested parties were given notice in the Federal Register that the recoverability of the Kansas tax under s 110 of the NGPA was at issue.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1498a.html">CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF PETROLEUM PRODUCERS V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
Argued the cause for respondent.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199908/98-1075b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Gregory K. With him on the brief were Jay L. With him on the brief was Shemin V. For which delivery is guaranteed. For which delivery can be delayed if all the capacity on the pipeline is in use.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1551.html">KUMAR V. OVONIC BATTERY CO., INC., ET AL.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for defendants appellees.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Troy E. Meaning that their molecules were arranged in a regular repeating pattern.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>These prior art crystalline alloys degraded severely with the repeated cycles of hydrogen storage and release that accompanied recharging.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Kumar found that certain alloys with a less ordered molecular structure were immune to material fracture and had improved hydrogen storage capacity.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Kumar applied for a patent on this invention in 1981. Sought patents in the same field.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Ovonic is the owner of U.S. Where there is no ordering of molecules) and that Ovonic did not infringe the 686 patent because the batteries produced under its licenses did not use completely amorphous alloys.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>Kumar v. 2002).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Kumar urged that the term amorphous was not limited to completely amorphous alloys.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200508/04-5177a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nelson and Brian Wolfman were on the brief for amicus curiae Public Citizen. With him on the brief were Peter D. We reverse the court's determination that she was ineligible for an award of attorney's fees.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/55186241F1A246B788256E010054505B/$file/0156879.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The questions posed on certification were as follows: 1. Did the Commissioners of the California Public Utilities Commission have the authority to propose the stipulated judgment in light of the provisions of Assembly Bill No. 1890 (1995 1996 Reg. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200510/04-1094a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With them on the briefs were M. With her on the brief were Cynthia A. With him on the brief were Catherine O'Harra. Was on the brief for intervenor Piedmont Natural Gas Company. The first issue is whether FERC's pre granted abandonment scheme
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2314.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Finding DOE's actions were not arbitrary and capricious. Concluding disposal of radioactive wastes at WIPP was the preferred alternative to other options and authorizing disposal at the site. 63 Fed. The waste repository for the WIPP is located 2. Among the issues studied were site geology and hydrology. Transportation. <hr> WIPP is a fractured layer of dolomite rock called the Culebra Dolomite. The Culebra is the first layer above the Salado Formation with a continuous body of groundwater. These formations are arrayed as follows: Geologic Layer Depth Below the Surface in Feet Surface 0 to 538 to Forty Niner Forty Niner 538 to 596 Magenta 596 to 621 Dolomite Tamarisk 621 to 707 Culebra 707 to 729 Dolomite Lower 729 to 844 Part of Rustler Formation Upper 844 to 1. App. at 144 The possibility of radioactive material from the WIPP escaping into the local environment via groundwater was a risk factor considered by the DOE in SEIS II. Because prior studies included in the SEIS II record led DOE to conclude the Culebra was the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199906/97-1430b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Richard M. With her on the brief were Jay L. With her on the brief was Frederic J. Because this appeal is not ripe for review. Which established a presump tion in favor of rolled in rates where the rate impact is five percent or less and the pipeline shows specific system wide operational and financial benefits to its customers. In rejecting NYSEG's arguments that Columbia's rate impact study was flawed and that a substantial part of its operational benefits were withdrawn. The Commission con cluded that Columbia had sufficiently demonstrated that the rate impact of the Expansion Project was below the five percent threshold and that Columbia had
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5101.html">AMERICAN PELAGIC FISHING COMPANY, L.P. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Eileen Penner</u>. DC.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Laurie Frost Wilson</u>. Argued for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>Peter D. That American Pelagic did not suffer the taking of a property interest that is legally cognizable under the Fifth Amendment.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>We therefore reverse the decision with regard to liability. 1983).</p> <p class=MsoBodyTextIndent3>The pertinent facts are not in dispute.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Throughout the 1990s. Mso bidi language:AR SA'>[1]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a> reported that mackerel and herring stocks in the Atlantic Ocean were at record highs and were substantially underfished.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>Am. Explaining that stocks were extremely high and harvesting low.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u><span style='mso bidi font size:10.0pt.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199906/97-1430a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Richard M. With her on the brief were Jay L. With her on the brief was Frederic J. Because this appeal is not ripe for review. Which established a presump tion in favor of rolled in rates where the rate impact is five percent or less and the pipeline shows specific system wide operational and financial benefits to its customers. In rejecting NYSEG's arguments that Columbia's rate impact study was flawed and that a substantial part of its operational benefits were withdrawn. The Commission con cluded that Columbia had sufficiently demonstrated that the rate impact of the Expansion Project was below the five percent threshold and that Columbia had
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199905/98-1075a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Gregory K. With him on the brief were Jay L. With him on the brief was Shemin V. For which delivery is guaranteed. For which delivery can be delayed if all the capacity on the pipeline is in use.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1269.html">ETHICON,INC. V. U.S. SURGICAL<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961557.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Died prior to the time the opinion was issued. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). 7 Affirmed in part. Senior Circuit Judge: The primary question before us in this appeal is whether a debtor in bankruptcy operating under the aegis of Chapter 11 may. Continue to reap the benefits of its bargain without concern that the non debtor party will be made whole for the debtor's unfulfilled prepetition obligations. All of which are affiliates or subsidiaries of Adventure Resources. The Adventure companies are involved. Among the myriad of Adventure's creditors were six trusts established to provide pension. The 1993 Benefit Plan) were created as the result of NBCWAs collective bargaining agreements negotiated by the UMWA with the Bituminous Coal Operators Association.1 The remaining two trusts (the Combined Benefit Fund and the 1992 Benefit Plan) exist by operation of law. They were established as a result of the enactment of the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1047.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Posner and Rubin & Rudman were on brief for plaintiff. Spaeth and Hale and Dorr LLP were on brief for appellees New England Power Company and New England Electric System (NEES). Hoag & Eliot LLP were on brief for appellees Pacific Gas & Electric Company and PG&E Corporation. New England Power is a major wholesaler of electric power in New England. In the 1970s Norwood sought instead to purchase its power from New England Power and have that power delivered over the intercity transmission network of Boston Edison. The matter was resolved by settlement after Norwood brought an antitrust suit against them. The decree in the antitrust case directed that the annexed settlement agreement and power contract were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1966.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. Were on brief. Were in the business of selling gasoline and home heating oil. Although the policies were issued by The Continental Insurance Company. While the 1983 policies were still in effect. Although the 1985 policy was issued to BC&L. Down East was named as an additional insured and thus was covered by that policy. While the policy was still in effect. Down East's 1986 Niagara policy was canceled effective December 23. Down East was covered for claims made during the policy period as a result of pollution incidents which also occurred during the policy period. If a claim was made on December 24. Down East would have no insurance coverage. The 1986 Niagara policy would not provide coverage because the claim was made after cancellation of the Niagara policy. Quinlan recommended that Down East purchase an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1764.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
L.L.P. were on brief for defendants Douglas L. The question presented on this appeal is whether a state plan deregulating the electric utility industry in New Hampshire was properly enjoined by the district court pending trial on the merits. The injunction was originally obtained by Public Service Company of New Hampshire (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-1345a.html">CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
Kalish argued the cause for petitioners.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the briefs were Denise C. Argued the cause for respondent.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on <br clear=all style='page break before:always'> the brief were Cynthia A. Shoneman were on the brief for intervenors Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation. Reprinted in J.A. 232 36. <br clear=all style='page break before:always'> <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Petitioners argue that the disputed Orders are unreason able. Because they rely upon the 1995 Policy Statement rather than the 1999 Policy Statement.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Petitioners contend that FERC was obliged to apply the more recent policy statement. Because it was issued while the Transco case was still pend ing.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>We disagree. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The application of a newly adopted policy statement to a pending case is not presumed unless the policy change has the ".
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-1407a.html">EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION V. FERC<BR></A><BR>
Et al.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the briefs were <br clear=all style='page break before:always'> Douglas W. Geoghegan entered an appearance. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Gregory Grady argued the cause for petitioner Transconti nental Gas Pipe Line Corporation.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the briefs were Michael J. Argued the cause for respondent.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were Cynthia A. Et al.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were James H. Even if the locations are not specified in their contracts. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Most interstate pipelines responded to Order No. 636 by offering their converting customers rights to firm transporta tion from producers' gathering facilities downstream to the delivery points specified in the customers' contracts.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>This is called ". Although techni cally it does not extend to individual wellheads. <span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Transco chose not to adopt FTW service when it voluntari ly unbundled its sales and transportation service about a year before Order No. 636 was issued.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The company.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitl
