Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to
consider using additional terms to narrow it.
 |
OPINION/ORDER
The plaintiffs are African American and Caucasian voters residing in Hamilton. (2) the use of error prone voting equipment deprives voters of their due process right to have their votes counted accurately. Some commentators have suggested that these types of voting rights challenges are taking us into a brave new world. Others suggest that they are simply variations of old challenges. Code § 3506.15.1 The Secretary has certified two general types of equipment: (1)
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
It is an authority constrained by no less a power than that of the People themselves. The constitution is written.
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
We describe the facts less expansively as the issues before us are narrower. Williams and Reaves are black men who served as police officers employed by the Fayetteville. It appears that there have been racial problems within the Fayetteville police department for in 1974 Fayetteville settled a discrimination action brought against it by agreeing to increase the opportunities of black officers for better trainPlaintiffs also made other section 1983 claims as well as claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. State law that are not before us on this appeal. 1 4 WILLIAMS v. The parties to that litigation memorialized their settlement in a consent decree that still was in effect at the time of the events leading directly to this action. Was terminated in 1997. Was to interview any black officer who had perceived discrimination so that the complaints could be investigated. Williams and Reaves charge that the subsequent investigation of the reports of discrimination was nothing more than an effort to discredit the officers who had complained of discrimination and an attempt to determine the membership in a group of black officers called Officers for Equity that opposed racial discrimination in the police department.2 Hansen.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
000 of the punitive damages were allocated to Oregon's Criminal Injuries Com ENGQUIST v. Contending that the constitutional claims are invalid as a matter of law. Contending that a jury verdict from a coworker's similar trial in state court should have been given preclusive effect. Or that it should have been admitted into evidence. We have jurisdiction over the appeal and cross appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We hold that Engquist's constitutional claims are invalid as a matter of law. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Engquist was hired in 1992 as an international food standards specialist for the Export Service Center (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Who are state environmental regulators and local political actors. Brought a section 1983 suit against various state and local defendants on the theory that the defendants violated its constitutional right to equal protection by
|
|
03-6014 -- POWERS V. HARRIS -- 08/23/2004
Who are members of the Oklahoma State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. BACKGROUND The background of this case is thoroughly discussed in the findings of fact of the district court. CFE's basic complaint is that MHSAA discriminates against female high school athletes by scheduling girls' sports to play in disadvantageous. Our task is now to reevaluate this claim in light of the Supreme Court's GVR. CFE responds by contending that Rancho Palos Verdes does not apply to the present case and that CFE is therefore entitled to prevail under both Title IX and § 1983. Standard of review Constitutional and statutory interpretation questions are issues of law. Or recent developments that we have reason to believe the court below did not fully consider. A GVR order is . . . potentially appropriate. 167 (1996) (holding that a GVR is
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
BY THE COURT: The Court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor of it (Rule 35. The Petition for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED. /s/ J L EDMONDSON Chief Judge 2 BIRCH. Specially Concurring in the Denial of Rehearing En Banc: The dissents to the denial of rehearing en banc both agree that the Equal Protection Clause challenge to the Florida statute at issue should have been embraced by our court. 4 the vociferous dissent by my sister jurist (for whom I have great respect and affection). The Florida adoption statute at issue is constitutionally flawed. The Lofton panel's analysis and approach in this case was premised on a fundamental principal or philosophy. When he observed: Courts are not representative bodies. They are not designed to be a good reflex of a democratic society. ... Their essential quality is detachment. History teaches that the independence of the judiciary is jeopardized when courts become embroiled in the passions of the day and assume primary responsibility in choosing between competing political.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: On page 9. Replace
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Whose recoveries under 42 2 Nos. 00 3981 & 00 4115 U.S.C. §1988(b) in constitutional tort litigation are not subject to any statutory maximum. That §1997e(d) is within Congress' authority. We hold that §1997e(d) is rationally related to valid objectives and hence is within the legislative power. Whether or not it is wise. I Section 1997e(d) provides: (1) In any action brought by a prisoner who is confined to any jail. In which attorney's fees are authorized under [42 U.S.C. §1988]. Except to the extent that (A) the fee was directly and reasonably incurred in proving an actual violation of the plaintiff's rights protected by a statute pursuant to which a fee may be awarded . . . . (B)(i) the amount of the fee is proportionately related to the court ordered relief for the violation. Or (ii) the fee was directly and reasonably incurred in enforcing the relief ordered for the violation. Nos. 00 3981 & 00 4115 (2) Whenever a monetary judgment is awarded in an action described in paragraph (1). If the award of attorney's fees is not greater than 150 percent of the judgment.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Senior Circuit Judge: The appellant Robin Joy Shahar is a homosexual female who was offered employment with the Department of Law of the State of Georgia to begin at a future date. The court unanimously agrees to affirm the conclusion of the district court that Shahar's right of intimate association was burdened. That the district court erred in applying a balancing test to determine whether Shahar's rights under the Constitution were violated and that the case must be remanded to the district court for it to consider these issues under a strict scrutiny standard.1 The court affirms the summary judgment for the Attorney General on Shahar's free expression and equal protection claims for reasons set out by Judges Kravitch and Morgan in their separate opinions. Shahar's claim of violation of substantive due process is not substantially presented on appeal. Worked as a law clerk in the Department of Law during the summer of 1990. clerkship she told other clerks that she was a lesbian. Then that issue would have to be addressed. 1 Shahar was working.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge:1 Three cases presenting the same or similar issues of Eleventh Amendment immunity were consolidated and are addressed in this appeal. The issues in this appeal are whether Congress abrogated States' Eleventh Amendment immunity for suits under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (
|
|
KIMEL V. FLORIDA BD. OF REGENTS (4/30/1998, NO. 96-2788)
Circuit Judge:
|
|
KIMEL V. FLORIDA BD. OF REGENTS (4/30/1998, NO. 96-2788)
Circuit Judge:
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: 1 1 Judge Edmondson announces the judgment for the Court in this 3 Three cases presenting the same or similar issues of Eleventh Amendment immunity were consolidated and are addressed in this appeal. The issues in this appeal are whether Congress abrogated States' Eleventh Amendment immunity case. We agree with the Northern District of Alabama that suits in by private parties for against ADEA States federal court 6 violations are prohibited by the Eleventh Amendment. The cases were appealed for us to decide whether Congress abrogated sovereign immunity when it enacted the relevant statutes. 3 Because this appeal presents only questions of law. This appeal is properly before this Court under the collateral order doctrine. The facts of each Plaintiff's claim will not be discussed. Discussion A district a court's order to denying dismiss or a granting motion complaint against a State based on the Eleventh Amendment's grant of sovereign immunity is reviewed by this court de novo. 2507 n.7 (1980) (Eleventh Amendment principles are not applicable to suits in state court.). 10 4 Congress pursuant to the Commerce Clause could.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Attempted to have a government witness killed. The parties have stipulated that Chandler is African American. One of the very important questions is whether or not you would be able to serve on the jury if the trial were to last from three to six weeks. Your response was that you are not able to sit on the jury. Have you had an opportunity to think about that response recognizing that it's an important obligation of citizenship to serve on a jury when called. It certainly is inconvenient for everyone? Are you willing to serve if you are selected? If I have to. I will. If you were selected would you then hold it against either of the parties? Would you hold it against the government or the defendants if you were selected to serve? Do you recognize and agree that it is an important service that we are all required to perform from time to time? CHANDLER: I recognize that if I have to do it. Could you tell us if it is not such a great invasion of your privacy as to why you're so reluctant to serve? Do you understand that under our system of law every person is equal and every person is entitled to equal protection of the laws.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Chief Judge: This is a § 1983 suit brought by a former Texas prisoner against fifteen prison officials. Which is disputed by the defendants. The defendants argue that the plaintiff largely failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that any exhausted claims are barred by qualified immunity. He was transferred to the Upon arriving at We therefore affirm in part. Prison officials knew that Johnson was homosexual and Johnson told the UCC that he had possessed an effeminate manner. 2 been housed in
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Eight Florida citizens1 (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The plaintiffs filed this class action on behalf of all Florida citizens who have been convicted of a felony and have completed all terms of their incarceration. Parole but who are barred from voting under the state's felon disenfranchisement law.2 The defendants are members of Florida's Clemency Board.3 II. A felon who has completed his sentence may apply for clemency to have his civil rights restored. The requirement of a hearing is insufficient to support the plaintiffs' claim. We say nothing about whether conditioning an application for clemency on paying restitution would be an invalid poll tax. 2 Approximately seventy percent of the plaintiffs class is white. The Clemency Board is made up of the Governor of Florida and members of the Cabinet. Summary judgment is appropriate when
|
|
SIEGEL V. LEPORE (12/6/2000, NO. 00-15981)
Circuit Judges.
|
|
SIEGEL V. LEPORE (12/6/2000, NO. 00-15981)
Circuit Judges.
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
I. OSSAA is Oklahoma's state organized school activities association. Christian Heritage is a private religious school in Del City. Since it is not an OSSAA member. Twelve of its members are nonpublic
schools (ten of which are private schools and two are Indian schools). Eight are located in suburban areas. While two are in rural areas. Any secondary school desiring to become a member of the Association is to file with the Executive Secretary a resolution. OSSAA members are provided with. Are subject to. The ballot simply describes the geographic area where students are immediately eligible for athletics in the nonpublic applicant school by reason of residence.(1) (1) Whenever a nonpublic school applies for membership. A student may attend a school district in which a student is not a resident. If a student transfers to a school district in which he is not a resident. Unless the transfer is due to a bona fide change of residence by his parents. At 72.
OSSAA's Rule 8 lists the geographic areas for nonpublic schools that are admitted.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. Active judges failed to vote in favor of rehearing en banc.** The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are denied. Political structure equal protection analysis concerns a restructuring of the **Judge Reinhardt was recused. 2462 VALERIA v. This case should have been reheard en banc. Is designed for that purpose.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
OPINION PER CURIAM: This case was argued before the en banc Court on February 27. (2) holding that the establishment of a magnet schools program was an ultra vires. King and Gregory in the affirmative) attorneys' fees for work done on the unitary status issue are denied. Nominal damages and attorneys' fees in that regard are denied. The injunction is vacated. The imposition of sanctions is affirmed. The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed on the finding of unitary status and the imposition of sanctions. The judgment of the district court vacating and dissolving all prior injunctive orders and decrees is affirmed. The Board is to operate the school system without the strictures of these decrees no later than the 2002 2003 school year. Circuit Judge: This case is hopefully the final chapter in the saga of federal court control over the Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Presiding *The Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger is substituted for his predecessor. Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs are California card clubs and charities that are prohibited under California state law from offering casinostyle gaming.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
He was denied entry. The Kamehameha Schools were created through a charitable testamentary trust. Plaintiff argues that he was denied admission because of his race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Factual Background Historical Context2 The islands of Hawaii are geographically isolated in the South Pacific Ocean and were originally settled sometime between 1 and 750 A.D. The immediate result of that first encounter was that Native Hawaiians were introduced to Western goods and Western diseases. The first treaty was signed in 1826. Additional treaties were signed in 1849. Was commercially desirable. Western economic domination of the Hawaiian Islands was followed by an interest in establishing political control. Was overthrown by a small group of nonHawaiians. Who were assisted in their efforts by the United States Minister. Laws were then enacted suppressing the Hawaiian culture and language and allowing for the displacement of Native Hawaiians from their lands. The Hawaiian language was banned as a medium of instruction in schools.
|
|
97-2164 -- SMITH V. EASTERN NEW MEXICO MEDICAL CENTER -- 07/17/1998
The district court found that the Smiths' claims were barred by the law of the case doctrine and. Smith's claim was barred because she could not assert what was. We vacate and remand because there is no law of the case barring the Smiths' equal protection claims and because Mrs. (2) certain surgeries that should have been attended by an anesthesiology group that wouldn't work with him. (3) all surgeries when his medical staff privileges were summarily suspended. Would have ruined his career. Were only done to him and were done specifically to force him out of practice in Roswell. The defendants respond that Dr. Smith's children were the only shareholders in the Vascular Lab. Although the Vascular Lab was a corporate entity. She also contends she was injured by the defendants' alleged efforts to force her husband out of the ENMMC. Her injuries are in the form of lost profits from the Vascular Lab and losses on the equipment in the Lab. This appeal is the second we have heard concerning this litigation.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We reverse this decision and uphold the constitutionality of Regulation 61 12 because (1) the Regulation serves a valid state interest and is little more than a codification of national medical and abortion association recommendations designed to ensure the health and appropriate care of women seeking abortions. Are even yet modest and have not been shown to burden the ability of a woman to make the decision to have an abortion. (4) abortion clinics may rationally be regulated as a class while other clinics or medical practices are not. South Carolina regulated clinics at which secondtrimester abortions were performed. The South Carolina legislature amended its statute to require any
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This case is satellite litigation emanating from the long running legal battle over the remapping of Chicago's aldermanic wards following the 1990 census. It is dressed up in constitutional clothing. The plaintiffs are Chicago aldermen who challenged the City's ward map in court and then claimed that the City's refusal to finance their legal expenses in that litigation violated their equal protection and free speech rights. Chicago's aldermen were divided (with a few exceptions) into two opposing camps during the political struggle over the new ward boundaries the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Three public interest groups whose members include gay and lesbian citizens of Nebraska commenced this action against the Governor and the Attorney General in their official capacities seeking an order declaring that § 29 violates the Equal Protection Clause and is an unconstitutional bill of attainder. Is an unconstitutional bill of attainder. The State renews its contentions that Appellees lack standing to raise these constitutional claims and that the claims are not ripe for review. The State argues that Appellees lack standing their members have suffered no injury in fact because marriage and domestic partnership licenses are not available to same sex couples in Nebraska. Appellees' members can obtain Amicus briefs supporting the State were submitted by certain members of the Nebraska Legislature. Amicus briefs supporting Appellees were submitted by the National Association of Social Workers and its Nebraska Chapter.
|
|
SHAHAR V. BOWERS
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Shahar v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> The appellant Robin Joy Shahar is a homosexual female who was offered employment with the Department of Law of the State of Georgia to begin at a future date. The district court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's motion for summary judgment.<p> The court unanimously agrees to affirm the conclusion of the district court that Shahar's right of intimate association was burdened. That the district court erred in applying a balancing test to determine whether Shahar's rights under the Constitution were violated and that the case must be remanded to the district court for it to consider these issues under a strict scrutiny standard.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec95/93-9345.opa.html">SHAHAR V. BOWERS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Shahar v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> The appellant Robin Joy Shahar is a homosexual female who was offered employment with the Department of Law of the State of Georgia to begin at a future date. The district court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's motion for summary judgment.<p> The court unanimously agrees to affirm the conclusion of the district court that Shahar's right of intimate association was burdened. That the district court erred in applying a balancing test to determine whether Shahar's rights under the Constitution were violated and that the case must be remanded to the district court for it to consider these issues under a strict scrutiny standard.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="765"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992349.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
000 was entered against only one of the defendants Jill Mullineaux. Mullineaux contends that she was entitled to qualified immunity. We conclude that Mullineaux was not entitled to qualified immunity. We find that the award of damages was excessive. Knussman learned that his wife Kimberly was pregnant. Kim's pregnancy was difficult and ultimately resulted in her confinement to bed rest in the latter stages prior to delivery. Knussman was informed by the MSP Director of Flight Operations. That there was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="765"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/09/03-6206.htm">03-6206 -- JENNINGS V. CITY OF STILLWATER -- 09/14/2004<BR></A><BR>
Four members of the OSU football team whom we will refer to. Plaintiff claims that she was raped. The football players maintain that the encounter was consensual. The football players were not charged with any crime as a result of these events. <p> In this suit brought under 42 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="759"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/24CB44D4ABF7AFD088256DA2005DA6D6/$file/0356498.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
California voters will be asked to cast a ballot on some of the most important issues facing the State. Forty four percent of the electorate will be forced to use a voting system so flawed that the Secretary of State has officially deemed it
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/08/972302P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The University of Minnesota is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/01/03-1162.htm">03-1162 -- SOSKIN V. REINERTSON -- 01/12/2004<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1973.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellee. The district court concluded that Seminole Tribe was a bar and dismissed the suit. Ninety six current and former probation and parole officers (plaintiffs appellants) have asserted that the State of Maine improperly failed to pay them overtime in accordance with the requirements imposed by Section 7 of the FLSA. Maine contended that the probation officers were exempt from the FLSA's overtime provisions. The district court concluded that the plaintiffs were covered employees but came within the FLSA's partial exemption for law enforcement officers. Was challenged under the Commerce Clause as well as the Fifth and Tenth Amendments. These amendments were challenged under the Tenth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled in 1968 that the amendments were legitimate expressions of Congress' Commerce Clause powers. Held 5 5 that Congress did not have the power to extend FLSA protections to state employees in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/11/951289P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A certified class of female inmates who are now or who may be in the future confined in Missouri penal institutions. The women inmates originally brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Only two issues have been raised in this action against Department officials alleging discriminatory treatment and seeking injunctive relief. appeal. The order of the District Court is As to the prison industries claim. District Court's finding of no discriminatory intent is not clearly erroneous. Further concluding that the female inmates are not similarly situated to male inmates for purposes of equal protection analysis. The facts of the case are not in dispute. incarcerated within Missouri Department of 2 Male and female inmates Corrections prisons are The Department operates segregated into particular facilities by gender. fifteen penal institutions. Is male. male and female inmates are assigned custody level classifications ranging from minimum security. Are assigned to male and female inmates with longer sentences to serve and to shorter term inmates of both genders who represent an increased security risk. through C5 at Renz.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/02a0170p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bollinger Page 3 appeal the district court's determination that the Law School's consideration of race and ethnicity in its admissions decisions violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.1 The Law School contends that its interest in achieving a diverse student body is compelling under Regents of the University of California v. That its admissions policy is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The Law School is joined by the Intervenors: forty one individuals and three student groups. The policy states that the Law School's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4F3BBD41BFB73F0388256D87008263AC/$file/0216700.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs are residents and qualified voters of a community known as Tortolita. All three municipalities have opposed Tortolita's incorporation. CITY OF TUCSON 11741 Fourteenth Amendment because it unjustifiably burdens their right to vote on municipal incorporation.1 Plaintiffs argue that the right to petition for incorporation granted by Arizona law is the constitutional equivalent of the right to vote and is therefore protected by the Equal Protection Clause. Section 9 101.01 is not analogous to either of these two types of voting regulations because it treats all residents of the relevant electoral unit. Section 9 101.01 admittedly draws geographical distinctions between those unincorporated communities that are near existing municipalities and those that are not. We conclude that § 9101.01 is rationally related to Arizona's legitimate interest in regulating the establishment of new municipalities and in protecting the interests of existing ones. The suit was initially brought against Tucson.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/97-1437.htm">97-1437 -- JURADO-GUTIERREZ V. GREENE -- 08/19/1999<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="748"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1997/97a1597p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Poritz was the Attorney General for the State of New Jersey when this suit was instituted. Poritz resigned as Attorney General and was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New Jersey. Peter Verniero was appointed the Attorney General. Peter Verniero is automatically substituted as a party plaintiff for Deborah T. We disagree and will affirm the district court's dismissal of the complaint. Who was then eight and one half months pregnant. Was admitted to the Jersey Shore Medical Center to give birth to her child. Alexander's baby were taken only fourteen minutes prior to delivery by cesarean section. The child was stillborn.2 An autopsy was performed. A death certificate was issued showing the date of the child's birth as July 15. The birth certificate noted the child's name was Kaylyn Elissa Alexander and that she was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="746"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb99/96-4577.ma2.html">LYES V. CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH (2/11/1999, NO. 96-4577)<BR></A><BR>
The first is whether women are a protected class for 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) purposes. So that a sex based conspiracy against women is actionable under that provision. We hold that they are and it is. At least where they involve state action.</P> <P> The second issue concerns the test applicable for deciding whether the employees of two employers are to be aggregated for determining if the minimum number of employees exist for Title VII coverage. In which the employers are always private entities. Is not applicable to those Title VII cases in which the employers are state and local government entities. One which presumes public entities that are separate under state law will not be aggregated for Title VII purposes. By showing either: 1) that the state's purpose for separating the entities under state law was to evade Title VII. Or 2) that the entities are so closely related with respect to the fundamental aspects of employment relationships that the presumption in favor of the state law's denomination is clearly outweighed.</P> <P> Applying that test to the public entity that employed the plaintiff in this case.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="746"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-3829.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A rubble mound breakwater that was 45 feet long and 15 feet wide. A substantive written objection is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="746"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb99/96-4577.ma2.html">LYES V. CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH (2/11/1999, NO. 96-4577)<BR></A><BR>
The first is whether women are a protected class for 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) purposes. So that a sex based conspiracy against women is actionable under that provision. We hold that they are and it is. At least where they involve state action.</P> <P> The second issue concerns the test applicable for deciding whether the employees of two employers are to be aggregated for determining if the minimum number of employees exist for Title VII coverage. In which the employers are always private entities. Is not applicable to those Title VII cases in which the employers are state and local government entities. One which presumes public entities that are separate under state law will not be aggregated for Title VII purposes. By showing either: 1) that the state's purpose for separating the entities under state law was to evade Title VII. Or 2) that the entities are so closely related with respect to the fundamental aspects of employment relationships that the presumption in favor of the state law's denomination is clearly outweighed.</P> <P> Applying that test to the public entity that employed the plaintiff in this case.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/10/97-2099.htm">97-2099 -- MIGNEAULT V. PECK -- 10/23/1998<BR></A><BR>
Migneault was an employee of the University. She was placed on lay off status in March 1994 and laid off in June 1994. She was married to Robert L. She was over forty years old at all relevant times. <p> In March 1994. The position was two grades lower on the University personnel scale than her position at the Center for Non Invasive Diagnosis and paid roughly $10. Three of the four candidates were over the age of forty. Who was under forty years old. Migneault was told she was not offered the job because she was overqualified and because there was a feeling she would not be happy in the position. Migneault alleges these reasons were pretextual for age discrimination.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199906/96-7239b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were John M. With him on the brief were Wilma A. With him on the brief was Arthur B. Farris was on the brief for amicus curiae Home School Legal Defense Association. Holding that it violates the fundamental rights of minors and their parents and is unconstitutionally vague. Rehearing en banc was granted. Determining that juvenile crime and victimization in the District was a serious prob lem and growing worse unanimously adopted the Juvenile Curfew Act of 1995. The curfew contains eight
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5407E7856E0AC35788256EB700589094/$file/0217375.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs in this case are physicians who provide abortions in their private medical practices in Arizona. They challenge the constitutionality of a statutory and regulatory scheme which requires the licensing and regulation of any medical facility in which five or more first trimester abortions in any month or any second or third trimester abortions are performed. I. Factual and Procedural Background1 1 Some of the evidence of record in this case is contested. They state that they are appealing
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/608B5B5A21806D3588256EF90056C7CE/$file/0217375.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is hereby amended as follows:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="735"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1625.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
O'Regan</SPAN> were on brief. Were on brief. We affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="733"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1996/96a1411p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge The Allegheny County Patriot Party (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="733"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2003/02-10555.opn.html">NAT'L PARKS CONSERVATION ASS'N V. NORTON (3/18/2003, NO. 02-10555)<BR></A><BR>
Accordingly the National Park Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="733"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2003/02-10555.opn.html">NAT'L PARKS CONSERVATION ASS'N V. NORTON (3/18/2003, NO. 02-10555)<BR></A><BR>
Accordingly the National Park Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="730"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1024.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1997 is corrected as follows: On cover sheet. With whom Gary Broida was on brief. Was on brief for appellees. Knowing Rodriguez had threatened to kill Soto and her family if Soto went to the police to have him jailed for his spousal abuse. Because we find that the defendant officers are protected by qualified immunity on that claim. Rodriguez and Soto had two children: Sally was born in 1983. The abuse was apparent to family and friends.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/09/02-2184.htm">02-2184 -- MARSHALL V. COLUMBIA LEA REGIONAL HOSPITAL -- 09/29/2003<BR></A><BR>
We are not in a position to judge the truth of those allegations at this early stage in the litigation. Marshall alleges that the traffic stop and arrest were made on account of his race and without probable cause. The defendants are Officer Porter. Plaintiff contends that Hobbs police chief Tony Knott and the City of Hobbs are liable for those actions under supervisory and municipal liability theories respectively. We will refer to these parties collectively as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/98D00A2A91B2B2BD88256AC700591F3F/$file/9771038.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We consider whether an alien's right to equal protection is violated if. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/May2004/May17/03-40475-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Petitioner DaRoyce Lamont Mosley (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9B5F7BD118D0ACC588256E5A00707CC9/$file/9771038.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We consider whether an alien's right to equal protection is violated if. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/May2004/May19/03-40475-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Petitioner DaRoyce Lamont Mosley (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C3B6BAD0BF9201D08825718600786601/$file/0515364.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He is now serving two consecutive life terms with the possibility of parole. (2) he was impaired by medications when he entered his plea and his counsel failed to investigate and inform the court of the same. (3) his plea was not knowing and voluntary. (4) he was denied counsel at a contested hearing in juvenile court. The district court found claim (1) was procedurally barred from review. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We find that the state court's denial of that claim was neither contrary to. Little was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault of his daughter and son.2 Little decided to plea guilty. Forcing his son to have sex with his daughter. Little also admitted to committing these acts when his children were under 14. A person convicted of sexual assault was ineligible for probation. At 1887.3 The statutory sentence was life with the possibility of parole in ten years. Little was sentenced to two consecutive life terms with the possibility of parole after ten years.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="724"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/86F62D3A76FE49CC88256C670083D022/$file/0116225.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Lawful permanent resident Manuel Servin Espinoza was ordered deported to Mexico after conviction of an aggravated felony. I. Background Servin Espinoza is a citizen of Mexico and a lawful permanent resident of the United States. Servin Espinoza was not eligible for § 212(c) relief during his deportation proceedings. Would have been had he been in exclusion proceedings. Estrada Torres was a legal permanent resident who was ordered deported after conviction of an aggravated felony. He also was denied § 212(c) relief under AEDPA § 440(d). Estrada Torres was ordered deported before FuentesCampos was decided. We held in EstradaTorres that: 1) the BIA's interpretation of AEDPA § 440(d) and INA § 212(c) in Fuentes Campos was contrary to the meaning of the statute. 3) because Estrada Torres was denied § 212(c) relief by the IJ before Fuentes Campos had been decided (and thus before the BIA treated deportables and excludables differently with respect to discretionary relief). The question whether the statute would be unconstitutionally applied in a case where a deportable alien was denied § 212(c) relief between the time of the BIA's decision in Fuentes Campos and our decision in EstradaTorres.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="724"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/744A1CA5F890067588257067004C9F64/$file/0415988.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. P. 43(c)(2). **Michael Chertoff is substituted for his predecessor. Is hereby withdrawn.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="724"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2001/99-10579.ma2.html">BASS V. BD. OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (7/9/2001, NO. 99-10579)<BR></A><BR>
Is vacated. A number of positions were eliminated. One of which was held by Michael Bass. Bass received a layoff notice in September 1995.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="724"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C05D150E95A737A188257059004D5E52/$file/0415988.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. Cordes could not have had settled expectations as to the continued availability of section 212(c) relief at the time she entered her guilty plea for non deportable offenses because the passage of section 440(d) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="724"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992389.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
As follows: On page 3 the list of amici curiae is corrected to read
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="724"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2001/99-10579.ma2.html">BASS V. BD. OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (7/9/2001, NO. 99-10579)<BR></A><BR>
Is vacated. A number of positions were eliminated. One of which was held by Michael Bass. Bass received a layoff notice in September 1995.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1496.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.A.</SPAN> was on brief. Were on brief. The contract gives Minot the right to send up to 10% of its high schoolers to other approved nonsectarian secondary schools (private or public) so long as those students can demonstrate that they have educational needs that PRHS cannot satisfy. MacKinnon are parents residing in Minot who. A Catholic secondary school that is indisputably sectarian. The parents have not submitted formal applications for such funding because section 2951(2). The doctrine of stare decisis precludes the relitigation of legal issues that have previously been heard and authoritatively determined. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="715"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1996/96a1395p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Hutchinson was a member of the original panel which heard argument in this appeal on January 24. Before the appeal was resolved. Chief Judge Sloviter was designated to serve in his place on the reconstituted panel. ** Judge Sarokin heard argument but retired from office prior to the issuance of the opinion. It is clear that the language of Title VII is violated when an employer makes an employment decision based upon an employee's race. That Title VII's prohibition against racial discrimination is not violated by affirmative action plans which first.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="715"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1469.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On page 4. Bennazar & Colorado were on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellees. *Of the District of Massachusetts. Appellants are Nestor Col n Medina & Sucesores. Cerame Vivas is the president of the board of directors of Sucesores. He is allegedly an outspoken member of Puerto Rico's pro statehood New Progressive Party (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1457.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is having the rest of it burn down a couple of days later in a second fire. Is if the fire department determined that the second fire was intentionally set (possibly by you) and called in federal authorities to investigate. Such a scenario would be particularly outrageous if the fire department did not actually believe that the second fire was intentionally set but was merely trying to draw attention away from the possibility that it had been negligent in putting out the first fire. This is exactly what happened to him. Our discussion of the facts of this case is relatively abbreviated. We note that McDonald contends that the district court's recitation of the facts is one sided and fails to construe the facts in the light most favorable to the non moving party. There simply is not enough space in the Federal Reporters or on Westlaw's hard drives to discuss explicitly every fact No. 03 1457 3 and counter fact which supports or affects each party's claim. Among those firefighters present were Ronald Colpaert.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1257B4A0E455128D882571E600582243/$file/0215475.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The California Court of Appeal's findings are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="711"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1623.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Wilder and Van Dorn & Cullenberg were on brief for appellants. With whom Michael Lenehan and Ransmeier & Spellman P.C. were on brief for appellees. For failing to investigate allegations that their father abused them sexually while they were minors. Their father presently is serving a lengthy prison sentence. Claiming inter alia that Grayson refrained from investigating their allegations either because plaintiffs were female. The equal protection count against the Town was 1It is undisputed that Grayson at all times acted under color of state law. Defendant Grayson was awarded summary judgment on the individual capacity claim because plaintiffs had failed to adduce sufficient evidence that he intended to discriminate due to their membership in any of the three classes alleged in their complaint. Although there is no constitutional right to police protection. For their contention that the district court should not have applied the equal protection test governing 2After examining all competent evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="711"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2415.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
<SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="709"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200313858.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq.1 We first hold that the SZO's provision excluding churches and synagogues from locations where private clubs and lodges are permitted violates the equal terms provision of RLUIPA. We must decide whether RLUIPA is a constitutional exercise of Congress's authority under the First. Finding that it is. Midrash and Young Israel (collectively the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="709"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/06/981721P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Claiming that the findings and award are not supported by the record. The State of Arkansas and ADE make only one argument: that because Congress does not have the power under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to pass legislation such as the IDEA. The purported abrogation of states' Eleventh Amendment immunity in § 1403 of that Act is ineffectual and therefore the state and the ADE are not proper parties to the suit. Was amended as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act in 1975. The stated purpose of the Act is to assure that all children with disabilities have available to them . . . a free appropriate public education which emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs. To assure that the rights of children with disabilities and their parents or guardians are protected. The chief mechanism for instituting the congressional purpose is the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="707"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2000/981842.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The statutes governing Breyer's claim to citizenship are S 1993 of the Revised Statutes of 1874 and a 1994 amendment to the Immigration and Naturalization Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200415898.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sitting by designation. 2 * The essential facts developed at trial are these. Use and development of land in unincorporated Broward County is regulated by the Broward County Zoning Code (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="700"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2308.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which are known also as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="700"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0447p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Soccer City is a for profit corporation engaged in the The Honorable William H. While we find that Plaintiff did in fact have standing. Factual History The facts in this case are largely undisputed. The first site Soccer City tested was found to be unsuitable for construction. So a second site was tested. After determining that the second site was suitable. The Board required any interested parties to submit their bids within the following three weeks in order to have them considered. The Board further required a guarantee from any new bidders that whomever was awarded the contract would reimburse Soccer City for the environmental testing it had conducted. Plaintiff was unable. The day the bids were due. Which was the one from Soccer City. Summary judgment is proper where there is no genuine No. 05 2360 Club Italia Soccer v. Page 3 issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The basis for constitutional standing is derived from Article III's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="700"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-4030.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is subdivided into numbered districts and subdistricts. A majority of Chicago land available for development is zoned R. Churches are permitted uses as of right in all R zones. Are termed Variations in the Nature of Special Uses (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/661116A4ECB1A7BE88256C8600544DCB/$file/0115098.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude that there is no constitutional infirmity in the statute's provisions regarding active peace officers. We conclude that each of the three additional constitutional claims asserted by plaintiffs on appeal is without merit. The immediate cause of the AWCA's enactment was a random shooting earlier that year at the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton. Where three hundred pupils were enjoying their morning recess. Five children aged 6 to 9 were killed. One teacher and 29 children were wounded. Was the first legislative restriction on assault weapons in the nation. Was the model for a similar federal statute enacted in 1994. So that the weapon will continue to reload and fire continuously so long as the trigger is depressed. Only one bullet is fired when the user of a semi automatic weapon depresses the trigger. Another is automatically reloaded into the gun's chamber. 27 C.F.R. § 178.11 (defining semiautomatic weapons). LOCKYER restrictions on the use of weapons that are registered pursuant to its provisions.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2001/98-8166.opn.html">EAGLE V. LINAHAN (10/12/2001, NO. 98-8166)<BR></A><BR>
Failed to provide the effective assistance of counsel required by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2001/98-8166.opn.html">EAGLE V. LINAHAN (10/12/2001, NO. 98-8166)<BR></A><BR>
Failed to provide the effective assistance of counsel required by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CB340BA134E0B81688256CBB005A9417/$file/0115098.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is hereby amended as follows: 1 At Slip Op. at 7. We conclude that there is no constitutional infirmity in the statute's provisions regarding active peace officers. LOCKYER 1119 three additional constitutional claims asserted by plaintiffs on appeal is without merit. The immediate cause of the AWCA's enactment was a random shooting earlier that year at the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton. Where three hundred pupils were enjoying their morning recess. Five children aged 6 to 9 were killed. One teacher and 29 children were wounded. Was the first legislative restriction on assault weapons in the nation. Was the model for a similar federal statute enacted in 1994. So that the weapon will continue to reload and fire continuously so long as the trigger is depressed. Imposes significant restrictions on the use of weapons that are registered pursuant to its provisions. Id. § 12285(c).3 Approximately forty models of firearms are listed in the statute as subject to its restrictions. Only one bullet is fired when the user of a semi automatic weapon depresses the trigger.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971723.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We agree that the ordinance is constitutional and affirm the judgment of the district court. Minors may participate in any activity during curfew hours if they are accompanied by a parent. The ordinance exempts minors who are engaged in interstate travel. Are on the sidewalk abutting their parents' residence. Or are involved in an emergency. The ordinance does not affect minors who are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1996/96a1291p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
After he was released. After summary proceedings in which no evidence was heard and virtually no factual record developed. These cross appeals present numerous questions (some of which are quite difficult): (1) Do the registration and notification provisions of Megan's Law constitute
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan98/96-2290.man.html">GJR INVESTMENTS, INC. V. COUNTY OF ESCAMBIA (1/5/1998, NO. 96-2290)<BR></A><BR>
ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT</CENTER> </P> <P> A complete copy of the complaint is made an appendix to this opinion. Inc. is a Texas corporation that is the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-5057.html">RONALD F. BERKLEY ET AL V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/00-1030.htm">00-1030 -- ECKERT V. TOWN OF SILVERTHORNE -- 07/09/2001<BR></A><BR>
1291 and we affirm. <p> <strong><u>Background</strong></u> <p> Areas of factual dispute are noted below. Although the underlying facts are construed in favor of the non movant Appellants for the purposes of this appeal. Eckert said she did not know Ballard was injured. Suggested it might have been the result of Eckert trying to defend herself. Tuxie indicated he was willing to stay with his father. Was released later that day. She was escorted back to her home by SPD officers. She was re arrested at her home by other SPD officers because her original bond had been revoked. <p> Eckert subsequently provided copies of a previous protective order from Texas. Charges against Linda Eckert were dismissed for lack of evidence on December 20. Was stealing Eckert's personal property from her office and a storage locker. Because he believed Eckert and Ballard were married and in the process of obtaining a divorce. <p> Eckert obtained a Temporary Restraining Order against Ballard on January 25. Even after a judge's ruling that she and Ballard were not legally married.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="691"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan98/96-2290.man.html">GJR INVESTMENTS, INC. V. COUNTY OF ESCAMBIA (1/5/1998, NO. 96-2290)<BR></A><BR>
ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT</CENTER> </P> <P> A complete copy of the complaint is made an appendix to this opinion. Inc. is a Texas corporation that is the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTI3NTQtcHJfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-2754-pr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Those defendants who are initially released subject to an order of conditions may. Be
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A294DE38BC83F75B88257051005488B8/$file/0415044.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Kamehameha Schools have operated as the charitable legacy of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop. The Kamehameha Schools give preference to students who are of native Hawaiian ancestry. Attendance at the Kamehameha Schools is effectively limited to those descended from the Hawaiian race. The issue considered here is a significant one in our statutory civil rights law: May a private. Purposefully exclude a student qualified for admission solely because he is not of pure or part aboriginal blood? The parties agree that this is a case of first impression in our circuit. He argues that he was denied entry to the Kamehameha Schools because of his race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. I The facts are not in dispute. Nonsectarian schools which are dispersed among the Hawaiian Islands. KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS 8927 The school system was founded in 1887 under a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-3309.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Day and the other Plaintiffs contend that Kansas Statutes 76 731a unlawfully discriminates against U.S. citizens who are not Kansas residents in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is preempted by 8 U.S.C. 1623. Provided that certain nonresidents were deemed residents for tuition purposes.(1) Pursuant to its terms. At least six Kansas students who were undocumented. Who similarly were not legal residents of Kansas and did not qualify for resident tuition under 76 731a or any other Kansas statute. That it is preempted by Congress's occupation of the immigration field. In relevant part: (a) Any individual who is enrolled or has been accepted for admission at a postsecondary educational institution as a postsecondary student shall be deemed to be a resident of Kansas for the purpose of tuition and fees for attendance at such postsecondary educational institution. (b) As used in this section: . . . (2) 'individual' means a person who (A) has attended an accredited Kansas high school for three or more years.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1003_013.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Finding that Charter One students are not similarly situated to those students who do receive 2 No. 05 1003 the busing benefit. Because we find that the plaintiff's students are not similarly situated to those who receive the busing benefit. The plaintiff school is located in Racine County. Which is open and free to all who seek to enroll. Is the only (2r) charter school located within the RUSD. Its school year is longer than the ordinary RUSD public school year. RUSD sought legal advice from various sources including its own counsel and Chief Legal Counsel to the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) as to whether the district was legally obliged to provide transportation to Charter One. Finding that Charter One students were not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTA1NDEtY3YgQW1lbmRlZC5wZGY=/05-0541-cv%20Amended.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Town of Wallkill appeal from the district court's denial of their motions for summary judgment on the ground that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on appellee Clubside. Holding that Clubside did not have a constitutionally protected property interest in the extension of the sewer district.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19988166.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Failed to provide the effective assistance of counsel required by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.1 We conclude that appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to ask the supreme court to set aside the conviction on the ground that petitioner had been denied the equal protection right recognized by Batson v. The accused shall . . . have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov97/96-4577.opa.html">LYES V. CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lyes v. Ann.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2003/021441.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which was found by a state court to be a common nuisance and was closed down by the state court for a year. Holding that the plaintiffs' federal claims were inextricably intertwined with the state court decision. We also conclude that we cannot determine from the face of the complaint whether the plaintiffs' procedural due 3 process claim is inextricably intertwined with the state court decision. We therefore vacate the order dismissing that claim and remand for the plaintiffs to set out the claim with sufficient detail to enable the District Court to determine whether it is inextricably intertwined with the state court decision. We will summarize the facts alleged in the complaint. We express no view on whether they are well founded. Inc. are all corporations organized under the laws of Pennsylvania. Francis and Martin Desiderio are officers. The customers patronizing Desi's were predominantly white. The residents of Wilkes Barre are predominantly white. Were in fact motivated by a desire to drive AfricanAmericans and Latinos out of Wilkes Barre.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EF998042C56F943C88256ED7004B8690/$file/0217346.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
On the ground that they are entitled to qualified immunity because there is no triable issue of material fact that a constitutional violation had been committed. Because Squaw Valley presented evidence that Singer may have been motivated by personal animus. The resort is naturally traversed by the South Fork of Squaw Creek (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov97/96-4577.opa.html">LYES V. CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lyes v. Ann.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3448A.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nanda was employed as an assistant professor in the Department of Microbiology at the University's Chicago campus. Nanda's efforts to reverse the decision through the University's grievance process were unsuccessful. The individual defendants and the University moved to dismiss Count II on the ground that the named administrators were not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="685"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3448.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nanda was employed as an assistant professor in the Department of Microbiology at the University's Chicago campus. Nanda's efforts to reverse the decision through the University's grievance process were unsuccessful. The individual defendants and the University moved to dismiss Count II on the ground that the named administrators were not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="683"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/04/97-4202.htm">97-4202 -- HAIK V. TOWN OF ALTA -- 04/05/1999<BR></A><BR>
It is expressly understood and agreed that said pipelines shall not be extended to or supply water to any properties or facilities not within the present city limits of Alta without the prior written consent of [Salt Lake] City. <p> <em>Id</em>. at 99
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="683"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E252B9BFD64B1D5F88256C8700818C56/$file/0115287.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We nonetheless reverse and remand because the question whether the adjustments were more than remedial raises a factual issue that cannot. Northern Arizona University (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/993877.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are called upon to address the applicability of the ADEA when an employer offers its Medicare eligible retirees health insurance coverage allegedly inferior to the coverage offered to retired employees not eligible for Medicare. Accordingly will reverse and remand the case for further proceedings. Would remain eligible only if they fell into one of four groups: employees unable to continue their employment due to a disability and who otherwise were eligible for a disability retirement pension. The plaintiff class in this action is composed of retirees who are aged 65 or older and thus eligible for Medicare who remain eligible for retiree health coverage under these restrictions. Pressure to reduce costs was enhanced when Highmark announced that it would increase the County's premiums for medical insurance coverage by an average of 48%. The district court described SecurityBlue as follows: SecurityBlue is a coordinated health care plan provided through Keystone Health Plan West. SecurityBlue is available to persons who have Medicare Part B Medical Insurance and who live in the SecurityBlue `service area' [which includes most of western Pennsylvania].
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-4418_039.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That person will immediately think of Chicago's O'Hare International Airport. It is one of the busiest airports in the world: in 2005. It is also of central importance to the economy of Chicago and Northern Illinois. Its claims against the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) were resolved in the FAA's favor by the court of appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Village of Bensenville v. By approving the City's plan and determining that the plan was eligible for federal funding. Which is owned by the City. Was prepared and will be implemented by the City. Which is prepared to proceed without federal funds if necessary.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0179p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Director of Public Utilities was John Doutt. The City code at the time did not require either the City or the contracting tenant to notify the landlord when an account was created. Landlords complained when they were left to settle accounts they never knew were delinquent after the nonpaying tenants had vacated. The pertinent sections now read: The [City] will directly bill a tenant for water and sewer service if the property owner. Once a written agreement is signed. The [City] will simultaneously mail. No direct billing of a tenant will be allowed where all delinquent water and sewer charges are not paid in full up until the date the direct billing agreement is accepted by the [C]ity. The record is unclear as to precisely when Golden moved in. Yet the lease between Golden and her landlord is dated December 17. States that the tenant is responsible for the payment of all utilities. Her rent included water service while she was to pay separately for gas and electricity. He was party to a direct billing agreement with the prior tenant.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1487.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Were on brief. <U>Chief Judge</U>.</STRONG></FONT><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C0D7650F8637C4878825706E004FBD4A/$file/0415306.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: In this case we are called on. Plaintiffs in this case are citizens of the State of Hawaii who allege that various state programs preferentially treat persons of Hawaiian ancestry. Which this opinion will address. We hold that Plaintiffs lack standing to sue the federal government and that the district court therefore correctly dismissed all claims to which the United States is a named party or an indispensable party. We affirm the district court in finding that Plaintiffs have demonstrated standing as state taxpayers to challenge those state programs that are funded by state tax revenue and for ARAKAKI v. LINGLE 11861 which the United States is not an indispensable party. Plaintiffs therefore have standing to bring a suit claiming that the OHA programs that are funded by state tax revenue violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Provided that the Republic of Hawaii ceded all public lands to the United States and that revenues from the lands were to be
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct99/98-6069.man.html">GARRETT V. UNIV. OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM BD. OF TRUSTEES (10/26/1999, NO. 98-6069)<BR></A><BR>
They raise the question that is being litigated in various jurisdictions of whether a state is immune from suits by state employees asserting rights under certain federal laws. The three statutes here are: the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). We hold that the state is not immune from suit under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act and reverse the judgments of the district court against plaintiffs Patricia Garrett and Milton Ash as to those two statutes and remand the two cases for further proceedings. The state is immune from suit under the specific provisions at issue here. <A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct99/98-6069.man.html">GARRETT V. UNIV. OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM BD. OF TRUSTEES (10/26/1999, NO. 98-6069)<BR></A><BR>
They raise the question that is being litigated in various jurisdictions of whether a state is immune from suits by state employees asserting rights under certain federal laws. The three statutes here are: the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). We hold that the state is not immune from suit under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act and reverse the judgments of the district court against plaintiffs Patricia Garrett and Milton Ash as to those two statutes and remand the two cases for further proceedings. The state is immune from suit under the specific provisions at issue here. <A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7C8A814D3F8F328488256E5A00707B35/$file/9915789.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The right to vote was clearly established at the time of the election. A reasonable Board would have known that its actions violated Appellees' right to vote. The individual Board members are not entitled to qualified immunity. We also hold that the allegations of the complaint are sufficient to support liability of the Board members in their individual capacities and that the composition of the CNMI Supreme Court's Special Judge panel did not violate the Board's right to due process of law. An election was held for the District No. 6 Board of Education representative on the tiny island of Rota in the Northern Mariana Islands. The disqualified voters were permitted to vote. The election results were retabulated and reversed: Taitano prevailed over Mundo by one vote. Rota is one of three small islands that make up CNMI. It is approximately ten and a half miles long and three miles wide. The island's population was 3. Roughly 90% of Rota's residents are employed by the local government. Challenging on behalf of the Democratic Party of Rota the qualifications of approximately twenty registered Republican voters on the ground that they did not have a bona fide residence on Rota. 1 Twice.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0426p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs asked the state defendants to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2816BC87EEB455EB88256A48005CFA27/$file/9915789.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The right to vote was clearly established at the time of the election. A reasonable Board would have known that its actions violated Appellees' right to vote. The individual Board members are not entitled to qualified immunity. We also hold that the allegations of the complaint are sufficient to support liability of the Board members in their individual capacities and that the composition of the CNMI Supreme Court's Special Judge panel did not violate the Board's right to due process of law. An election was held for the District No. 6 Board of Education representative on the tiny island of Rota in the Northern Mariana Islands. The disqualified voters were permitted to vote. The election results were retabulated and reversed: Taitano prevailed over Mundo by one vote. Rota is one of three small islands that make up CNMI. It is approximately ten and a half miles long and three miles wide. The island's population was 3. Roughly 90% of Rota's residents are employed by the local government. Challenging on behalf of the Democratic Party of Rota the qualifications of approximately twenty registered Republican voters on the ground that they did not have a bona fide residence on Rota. 1 Twice.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9F16D012E948769F88256E5A00707BD1/$file/9915789.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: 1. Delete the following sentence from the first full paragraph on slip opinion page 6027:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="676"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9AB5B32E1C321B0E88256A80007C2749/$file/9915789.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: 1. Delete the following sentence from the first full paragraph on slip opinion page 6027:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/006540.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Morrison alleged that defendants refused to consider his request to obtain Native American religious items because he is not of Native American heritage. Inmates are required to specify their claimed religion. The purpose for which each item is used. Why each item is necessary. Whether each item is mandated by their religion. A religious leader of the professed faith is contacted to verify the relevance of and need for the item. Morrison is not a Native American Indian by birth. He is. HEART is not a religion. The majority of its members at GCC are not Native Americans and. That everything has a spirit and is connected.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/12/97-4197.htm">97-4197 -- UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. V. STATE OF UTAH -- 12/03/1999<BR></A><BR>
The Railroads allege that their property has been assessed substantially in excess of its fair market value for tax purposes while all other commercial and industrial property in the same tax category is assessed at less than fair market value. That the individual members of the Tax Commission are amenable to suit under <em>Ex parte Young</em>. We hold that section 11501 is a valid abrogation of Eleventh Amendment immunity and we therefore do not address the district court's application of <em>Ex parte Young</em>. <p> <center><strong>I </center> </strong> <p> <strong><center>Eleventh Amendment Immunity</strong></center> <p> The Eleventh Amendment states that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F382C43F9898192588256B1F00573AA6/$file/9916321.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which was authored by Judge Berzon. 16751 D.C. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I. BACKGROUND Hibbs was an employee of the Nevada Department of Human Resources. His request was approved for the full 480 16756 hours (12 weeks) of leave under the FMLA.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/nov95/94-8071.html">CLAJON PRODUCTION CORP. V. PETERA<BR></A><BR>
This case is a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action challenging several Wyoming hunting regulations as violative of the federal and state constitutional rights of a number of Wyoming ranchers (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4D13CFEE5F50B0CB88256E5A00707D84/$file/9916321.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which was authored by Judge Berzon. 16751 D.C. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I. BACKGROUND Hibbs was an employee of the Nevada Department of Human Resources. His request was approved for the full 480 16756 hours (12 weeks) of leave under the FMLA.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200214191.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1 are four white lieutenants in the fire department who were passed over for promotion as a result of Chief Alfred's decision not to create the new positions. Asserting that Chief Alfred is entitled to qualified immunity.2 As we find that Chief Alfred is entitled to qualified 1 Sauls died on August 7. His estate was substituted as a party in this action. Although this appeal was brought by the defendants as evinced by their Notice of Appeal. Was appointed by Mayor John Delaney to his current position as the director and chief of the fire department in Jacksonville. Chief Alfred was appointed because the fire department had a history of racism and nepotism and Mayor Delaney wanted to bring someone in from outside of the department to ensure that the department would be run in a race neutral manner. There was no affirmative action plan in place. Chief in the rescue division is limited to For purposes of this appeal of the district court's denial of qualified immunity to Chief Alfred on summary judgment. The facts are construed
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4C2FE62749488A3E8825720C006FB770/$file/0515667.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Have since dismissed their claims. 1 17676 ACLU v. The ordinances that are the focus of Plaintiffs' complaint were adopted as part of the City's effort to revitalize the downtown area of Las Vegas: In the early 1990s. Downtown Las Vegas was suffering from an economic downturn. The area was seen as sleazy and unsafe. Downtown casinos were unable to compete with the glitzy Las Vegas Strip. Key economic factors showed that the area was in decline. Were closed off to automotive traffic. The street and sidewalk were torn up. Various underground infrastructure eleFSELLC is a private company charged with operating the Fremont Street Experience in downtown Las Vegas. The Fremont Street Experience is described in detail below. 2 ACLU v. CITY OF LAS VEGAS 17677 ments were installed. The street was decoratively repaved as one large promenade. As the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971072.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Senior Circuit Judge: The question is whether the Eleventh Amendment provides immunity to suit for the Commonwealth of Virginia (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19949220.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That she was subject to a six month probationary period and that he expected a two year commitment from her. employment lasted until March 15. The office receptionist questioned her One of the if
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/03/951600P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plaintiffs in this lawsuit are former tenure track assistant professors at the University of Nebraska Lincoln. I. We Plaintiffs were appointed Assistant Professors in the College of Engineering and Technology between 1985 and 1989. These were appointments Each plaintiff to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2001/00-14322.man.html">WOODEN V. BD. OF REGENTS OF THE UNIV. SYS. OF GEORGIA (4/19/2001, NO. 00-14322)<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2001/00-14322.man.html">WOODEN V. BD. OF REGENTS OF THE UNIV. SYS. OF GEORGIA (4/19/2001, NO. 00-14322)<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200411409.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs claim that all other developers that came before the Planning Commission had received approval and aver that Plaintiffs were treated differently by the City because of Mr. Filed a second amended complaint in which only the municipality of Rainbow City was named as a Defendant. The mayor and the Board of Adjustment were no longer parties to the litigation. 2 1 Defendant Rainbow City has appealed. Plaintiffs have not offered any evidence to support an equal protection claim of similarly situated individuals who were treated differently. The district court should have granted the City's Rule 50 motion. The order of the district court is reversed. It is directed to enter judgment for Defendant. Campbell ran for the office of Mayor of Rainbow City and was defeated by the incumbent. Campbell was critical of Glidewell and her policies. Mayor Glidewell is a voting member of both the City Council and the Planning Commission and appoints six of the other nine members to the Planning Commission. Because we conclude that the district court should have granted the City's Rule 50 motion.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200014322.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200014322.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A1A29C00D2AE2A2288256C4B005437BF/$file/0115219.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Declaring that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/99a0392p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We need only determine whether the provisions have a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental interest. Baker contends that the district court erred in both overruling his constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(8) and refusing to instruct the jury that knowledge of the law is a required element of a § 922(g)(8) offense. On three separate occasions Baker's various love interests have obtained orders restraining him from committing acts of domestic violence. The first of these orders was entered in September 1996. That
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1998/98a1823p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
S 11501.1 The district court held that the assessment was a discriminatory tax. We will reverse. 1. That section was recodified pursuant to Pub. We will refer to provisions of the 4 R Act at issue here by section number as currently codified in title 49. The bridge supporting that highway became so deteriorated that it was closed in 1982. That railroad is not a party. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation was to pay 7% of the construction costs. The Township was to pay the remaining 87% of the construction costs and 70% of the maintenance costs. It argued that the assessment was a discriminatory tax in violation of the 4 R Act. The district court declared that the assessment was an unlawfully discriminatory tax under the 4 R Act. That decision included a proposed allocation of the construction and maintenance costs and also decided that Wheeling was not discriminated against on the basis of its railroad status. There are two exceptions: Congress may abrogate a state's immunity. The parties do not dispute that the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission is an arm of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania protected by Eleventh Amendment principles of sovereign immunity.4 Also.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ECF932AC9FA86A2E8825727D000220DB/$file/0415306.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: In this case we are called on. Plaintiffs in this case are citizens of the State of Hawaii who allege that various state programs preferentially treat persons of Hawaiian ancestry. Which this opinion will address. We are issuing a complete opinion in support of our judgment following remand from the Supreme Court. We hold that Plaintiffs lack standing to sue the federal government and that the district court therefore correctly dismissed all claims to which the United States is a named party or an indispensable party. We reverse the district court's finding that Plaintiffs have demonstrated standing as state taxpayers to challenge those programs that are funded by state tax revenue and for which the United States is not an indispensable party. Lack standing to bring a suit claiming that the OHA programs that are funded by state tax revenue violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although it is not clear that any Plaintiffs have standing in any other capacity to challenge the OHA programs.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D275403CD037CBBB88256C2900726A67/$file/0055532.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will refer to the student plaintiffs individually. Plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to damages under California Civil Code § 52 (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb97/94-9220.opa.html">WATKINS V. BOWDEN<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Watkins v. That she was subject to a six month probationary period and that he expected a two year commitment from her. The office receptionist questioned her if
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199804/97-1116a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Schaerr were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Honig was on the brief for intervenors Missouri State Conference of Branches of the NAACP. Was on the brief for the United States as amicus curiae. Rosman was on the brief for amici curiae Center for Individual Rights and National Religious Broad casters. May were on the brief for amicus curiae American Center for Law and Justice. Both stations are housed on the campus of the Church's Concordia Semi nary and.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/967091.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Published opinion issued 6/24/99 is vacated. This case was originally before the Court on appeal from a grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellees. The Court expressly declined to rule on the issue of whether application of the ADA to state prisons is a constitutional exercise of Congress' legislative power. These claims are no longer before the Court and will not be addressed further. 2 Although the issue of the constitutionality of applying the ADA and Rehabilitation Act to state prisons was not raised below. We exercise our limited discretion to consider the issue on appeal in light of the fact that the constitutionality of this federal statute is purely a question of law. Both parties have fully briefed the issue. Its resolution at this stage will advance and expedite the progress of this litigation. 488 U.S. 880 (1988) (when resolution of issue not presented below will
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/99-4210.htm">99-4210 -- U.S. V. HARDMAN -- 08/08/2001<BR></A><BR>
That the Act is enforced in a discriminatory fashion in violation of his equal protection rights. Hardman is not of Native American descent. His ex wife and two children are. His ex wife and children are enrolled members of the S'Kallum Tribe. Hardman was still married to and living with his ex wife. He was informed that he would not be allowed to apply as he was not a member of a federally recognized tribe. <p> Years later. Hardman and his wife were separated. Ute tribal officers were informed by Mr. Officer Murray was a cross commissioned federal law enforcement officer acting under the authority of the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs. Which were hanging from the rear view mirror of his truck. <p> On March 10. Hardman was issued a federal violation notice for possessing golden eagle feathers without a permit in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. A bench trial was held before a magistrate judge. Hardman was found guilty of violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and sentenced to pay a small fine.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/00-1162.htm">00-1162 -- BARTELL V. AURORA PUBLIC SCHOOLS -- 08/21/2001<BR></A><BR>
Although the exact circumstances of the meeting are disputed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-1116a.html">LUTHERAN CHCH MO V. FCC<BR></A><BR>
Schaerr</i> were on the briefs.<p> <p> <p> <i>Daniel M. Were on the brief. <i><p> Robert B. Honig</i> was on the brief for intervenors Missouri <p> State Conference of Branches of the NAACP. Was on the brief for the United States as <i><p> amicus curiae.</i><p> <p> <i>Michael E. Rosman</i> was on the brief for <i>amici curiae</i> <p> Center for Individual Rights and National Religious Broad <p> casters. <i>Michael P. May </i><p> were on the brief for <i>amicus curiae</i> American Center for <p> Law and Justice.<p> <p> Before: Silberman. Both stations <p> <p> <p> are housed on the campus of the Church's Concordia Semi <p> nary and.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb97/94-9220.opa.html">WATKINS V. BOWDEN<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Watkins v. That she was subject to a six month probationary period and that he expected a two year commitment from her. The office receptionist questioned her if
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/021047p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The gravamen of Cochran's complaint is that while an inmate at two penal institutions of the State. The Court was very specific in limiting its holding to cases implicating the fundamental right of access to the courts. Indicating that an individual analysis would have to be performed for subsequent The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 because Cochran brought a claim under the ADA. We are persuaded that a different scenario is present here. To determine when Eleventh Amendment Immunity will permit suits for money damages against state agencies. Lane is not applicable to these facts. We will affirm the judgment of the district court. Is a legally blind inmate currently incarcerated in South Woods in Bridgeton. Cochran is serving a life sentence for murder and robbery. Cochran was transferred from the Florida prison system to the custody of the New Jersey DOC. He was suffering from end stage glaucoma and was legally blind. Cochran was incarcerated at East Jersey State Prison (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2004/031607p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A registered voter who is a Biener supporter. Alleging that the $3000 filing fee for the 2002 Democratic primary was unconstitutional. The Delaware statute provides a filing fee exception for indigent candidates who are unable to pay a fee. He asserts that he should have a choice not to pay the fee. We conclude that the availability of a choice is outcome determinative for Biener's Qualifications and Equal Protection Clause claims. We conclude that there is no due process violation. We will therefore affirm the District Court's grant of summary judgment. Which are held by the state to select government office holders. Primary elections are conducted by the state on behalf of and as a convenience to political parties to assist them in selecting their candidates for office. Political parties are authorized to set the filing fee amount. Candidates who demonstrate they are indigent by virtue of qualification for federal benefits may. Was informed that because he is non indigent he needed to remit the $3000 filing fee or would be left off the Democratic primary ballot. 2 Biener filed suit against Calio seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2002/013077.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Congregation Kol Ami (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982174.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A771388D86A2FF1F882572CD0059DD37/$file/0515266.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Whose efforts have collided with the City of San Francisco's prerogative under its noise ordinance and permitting scheme to ensure that its citizens are not subject to unreasonably loud speech and music. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Appellants claim that city officials implemented a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0470p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The County's actions are alleged. By certain health care providers who have not received such funds. To have resulted in a denial of their due process and equal protection rights. Have used a series of tax levies. The most recent such Hamilton County Health and Hospitalization Tax Levy was approved by the voters in November 2001. Whereby tax levy funds designated for indigent patient health care services (amounting to approximately $42 million per year) are distributed through the University of Cincinnati to University Hospital (80 percent) and Children's Hospital (20 percent) in reimbursement for services rendered to the indigent and uninsured. Although the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2185A9176E5FB44888256DA9007C200D/$file/0157218.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the opinion filed June 25. Is amended as follows: CARPINTERIA VALLEY FARMS v. Clause that ends with
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/97-1055.htm">97-1055 -- MURRELL V. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, DENVER COLORADO -- 08/04/1999<BR></A><BR>
We are bound to construe as true the facts presented in the plaintiff's complaint. <em>See</em> <em>Seamons v. Jones was born with spastic cerebral palsy. She is also deaf in her left ear. Jones was also developmentally disabled.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/02/961241P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
For which defendants Lofgreen and Tewes were held personally liable to pay $2.00 in nominal damages and plaintiffs were awarded $40. Defendants Lofgreen and Tewes argue that (1) plaintiffs failed to establish a constitutional violation as a matter of law because there was no complete and systemic denial of access or because plaintiffs suffered no actual injury. (2) they are protected by qualified immunity from personal liability for damages. (3) the award of attorneys' fees and expenses is unreasonable under Farrar v. Background The background facts of this case are set forth in detail in the district court's opinion in Klinger I. Are partially and more briefly summarized in the remaining opinions cited above. Four The after is a summary of the procedural history of this case. NCW is the only Nebraska prison for women. All women incarcerated in Nebraska are housed at NCW.2 In their amended complaint. Plaintiffs alleged that the educational and vocational training opportunities at NCW were inferior to those of male inmates with at the Nebraska limited State Penitentiary (NSP). the Consistent plaintiffs' factual allegations.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="657"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200116723.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is constitutional as enacted by the Florida legislature and as subsequently enforced. Florida courts have defined the term
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2001/00-14340.opn.html">JOHNSON V. BD. OF REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF GEORGIA (8/27/2001, NO. 00-14340)<BR></A><BR>
The three Plaintiffs are white females who applied unsuccessfully for admission to the University's Fall 1999 class. The University's freshman admissions policy does not unlawfully discriminate on the basis of race because the policy is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest in ensuring a diverse student body. Student body diversity is not a compelling interest sufficient to withstand the strict scrutiny that courts must apply to government decision making based on race. Because even assuming that student body diversity is a compelling interest. The University's 1999 freshman admissions policy is not narrowly tailored to achieve this interest. Plaintiff Jennifer Johnson's complaint was filed separately. Eventually was consolidated with the complaint of Plaintiffs Aimee Bogrow and Molly Ann Beckenhauer.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/99-1045.htm">99-1045 -- THOMPSON V. STATE OF COLORADO -- 08/07/2001<BR></A><BR>
Colorado argued that Plaintiffs' claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Because Colorado is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. The special license plates are supplied to the disabled at the same cost as standard license plates. <em>See id.</em>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2001/00-14340.opn.html">JOHNSON V. BD. OF REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF GEORGIA (8/27/2001, NO. 00-14340)<BR></A><BR>
The three Plaintiffs are white females who applied unsuccessfully for admission to the University's Fall 1999 class. The University's freshman admissions policy does not unlawfully discriminate on the basis of race because the policy is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest in ensuring a diverse student body. Student body diversity is not a compelling interest sufficient to withstand the strict scrutiny that courts must apply to government decision making based on race. Because even assuming that student body diversity is a compelling interest. The University's 1999 freshman admissions policy is not narrowly tailored to achieve this interest. Plaintiff Jennifer Johnson's complaint was filed separately. Eventually was consolidated with the complaint of Plaintiffs Aimee Bogrow and Molly Ann Beckenhauer.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1581.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Was on brief. At issue is whether the creation of a private cause of action against a state for money damages under the personal medical leave provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act. Our holding is narrow: the present legislative record does not demonstrate that the personal medical leave provision of the FMLA is an appropriate response necessary to remedy or prevent unconstitutional gender discrimination practiced by the states as employers.</FONT></P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2003/013747p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
WILL DONOVAN. John Stith* Pennsylvania Green Party and Will Donovan III. That the fee was constitutional as applied to Stith. Even if the fee was unconstitutional. The District Court's order was unduly broad and vague. Donovan were members. Have cross appealed the District Court's granting of summary judgment against them. Background The Commonwealth's Ballot Access Laws The Pennsylvania ballot access law requires candidates for various public offices to pay a filing fee in order to have their names placed on the general election ballot. Unless and until such filing fee is paid . . . .
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2003/023018p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The officer suspected that Pollard was not a U.S. citizen and escorted her to a room for further questioning. Pollard confessed that she was not a U.S. 3 citizen and was subsequently arrested. We will reverse the order dismissing the charges against Pollard and remand to the District Court. Government to monitor the movement of aliens over and within its borders is undoubtedly great. The legislative and executive branches have historically been given great leeway in developing and carrying them out. We will provide a legal and factual overview before detailing the particular facts of this case. Most pertinent to our inquiry is subsection 212(d)(7). Who is denied admission to the United States. If it appears to the examining immigration officer that any person in the United States being examined under this section is prima facie removable from the United States. When the foregoing inspection procedure is applied to any aircraft. Or kept at the airport separate and apart from the general public until they are permitted to board the aircraft.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/10/96-3402.htm">96-3402 -- TONKOVICH V. KANSAS BOARD OF REGENTS -- 10/26/1998<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkwNDdfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9047_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Both were members of the Superior Officers Association union. 1. Was conducting an investigation of a corrections officer suspected of smuggling contraband to inmates at DOC facilities. Cheverko requested that Klivans assist him in the investigation by retrieving a bottle of alcohol from an inmate who was acting as an informant in the investigation. Cheverko told Bizzarro that he was ordering him to assist in the investigation and that the order came directly from the commissioner. That he was upset at the outcome of an earlier episode in which he had helped Cheverko. Before this whole thing is over. Every supervisor will see it's their obligation to cooperate. I'm going to give you an order to do it right now.'
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/99-1045a.htm">99-1045A -- THOMPSON V. STATE OF COLORADO -- 08/07/2001<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19947024.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Court of Civil Appeals1 are elected to office in at large partisan elections. 2 In this case. White The judicial power of Alabama is vested exclusively in a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19947024.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Court of Civil Appeals1 are elected to office in at large partisan elections.2 The judicial power of Alabama is vested exclusively in a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-4144_025.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Application for Annexation Vision is a religious corporation of the State of Illinois currently located in Mundelein. It was founded in 1981. The Village of Long Grove is an 18 square mile community located in Lake County.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/027365.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. State prison inmates in the custody of the Virginia Department of Corrections who were housed at the Albemarle Char KHALIQ v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1997/97a1575p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06A0476P-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The proposal was scheduled to go into effect on December 23. At stake today is whether the federal courts should permit this state initiative to go into effect or whether we should preliminarily enjoin it in part in the part. That is. Uncertainty about the law's impact on current admissions policies and uncertainty about changing admissions policies in the middle of the current enrollment season we are unable to identify any tenable basis under federal law for suspending the law's enforcement. We have no choice but to permit its enforcement in accordance with the state law framework that gave it birth. I. Legal and policy debates about admissions preferences in the university setting are not new to the people of Michigan. The executive director of which is Jennifer Gratz. Fourth:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DAEC0F3D7F6C5B7488256F6B007897F0/$file/0215475.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
WL (9th Cir. 2004) (unpublished disposition). **This appeal was withdrawn from submission pending the United States Supreme Court's decision in Miller El v. This Opinion was circulated to the panel on October 23. 1 we hold the state court's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1998/98a1891p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because we conclude that our panel is bound by Patriot Party I. These Pennsylvania statutes are described in detail in the 2 opinion in Patriot Party I. We are asked to review the order entered by the district court after the remand in Patriot Party I. SS 2936(e) and 2911(e)(5) place an unconstitutional burden on the Patriot Party's rights to free association and equal protection insofar as they prohibit the Party from nominating any person as a candidate for the offices in question because that person is also a major 1.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0476p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The proposal was scheduled to go into effect on December 23. At stake today is whether the federal courts should permit this state initiative to go into effect or whether we should preliminarily enjoin it in part in the part. That is. Uncertainty about the law's impact on current admissions policies and uncertainty about changing admissions policies in the middle of the current enrollment season we are unable to identify any tenable basis under federal law for suspending the law's enforcement. We have no choice but to permit its enforcement in accordance with the state law framework that gave it birth. I. Legal and policy debates about admissions preferences in the university setting are not new to the people of Michigan. The executive director of which is Jennifer Gratz. Fourth:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032707p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will reverse as to the First Amendment retaliation. Have been embroiled in a contentious zoning d ispute with Appellees. That officials are also liable under Pennsylvania state law for damages. 2 David. Which was part of a twenty seven lot subdivision of single family residences approved by the Allegheny County Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors of the Township in 1940 (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2003/00-10481.opn.html">DOWNING V. BD. OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIV. OF ALABAMA (2/13/2003, NO. 00-10481)<BR></A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042440np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
319 U.S. 315 (1943).1 The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed. The land is surrounded by single family subdivisions and is abutted by two unlimited access roads. 1343 and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 2 1 and Franklin. Both of which are classified as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0385n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The City defendants were granted summary judgment. We also find that the plan was narrowly tailored. We affirm the district court's finding that the claims are without sufficient support in the record. Only the evidence involving the CPD's hiring history will be reviewed. C72 1088 and C77 346 were consolidated. 1 2 examination discriminated against minorities. The district court also found that the examinations were not validated for job performance. The district court's conclusion was buttressed by the historical workforce disparities between minorities and non minorities. The 18% rate was equal to the percentage of examination passers who were minorities. The district court directed the defendants to create an examination that was job related. Approximately 39.5% were minorities. It would take another look at whether the City was engaging in racial discrimination. The parties stipulated that the CPD would utilize
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2003/00-10481.opn.html">DOWNING V. BD. OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIV. OF ALABAMA (2/13/2003, NO. 00-10481)<BR></A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/September2004/032707p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will reverse as to the First Amendment retaliation. Have been embroiled in a contentious zoning d ispute with Appellees. That officials are also liable under Pennsylvania state law for damages. 2 David. Which was part of a twenty seven lot subdivision of single family residences approved by the Allegheny County Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors of the Township in 1940 (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jul1998/98a1921p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are asked to decide whether two Jewish inmates detained in the Pennsylvania prison system have a constitutional right to hot kosher meals provided to them at the Commonwealth's expense. 2 As inmates at the Pennsylvania State Correctional Institute in Somerset (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1999/991115.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
DeSousa was not eligible for a discretionary waiver. Although we agree with the district court that recent changes in the immigration laws have not eliminated district courts' habeas jurisdiction over deportation related 2 claims. At least in cases such as this in which deportation proceedings were instituted before April 1. Does not violate the Fifth Amendment's equal protection guarantee and therefore will reverse. Whether changes in the immigration laws eliminated the district court's habeas jurisdiction over DeSousa's deportation related challenge is the first issue presented by this appeal and is discussed fully below. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. DeSousa was convicted of various crimes including aggravated assault. He was released from prison on December 15. These sections are now renumbered as #8E8E # 237(a)(2)(A)(ii) and 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) and codified at 8 U.S.C. To issue waivers to legal aliens who had traveled abroad voluntarily and were seeking entry back into the country but who would be excludable based on their criminal convictions.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200014340.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The three Plaintiffs are white females who applied unsuccessfully for admission to the University's Fall 1999 class. The University's freshman admissions policy does not unlawfully discriminate on the basis of race because the policy is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest in ensuring a diverse Honorable Harlington Wood. Student body diversity is not a compelling interest sufficient to withstand the strict scrutiny that courts must apply to government decision making based on race. Because even assuming that student body diversity is a compelling interest. The University's 1999 freshman admissions policy is not narrowly tailored to achieve this interest. Plaintiff Jennifer Johnson's complaint was filed separately. Eventually was consolidated with the complaint of Plaintiffs Aimee Bogrow and Molly Ann Beckenhauer.1 All three Plaintiffs had recently been denied admission to UGA. Therefore were. Johnson was offered admission to UGA after filing this lawsuit. They alleged that UGA's use of gender violated Equal Protection and Title IX.2 Named as Defendants were the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2326.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Most people are in favor of programs that help drug addicts shake their addictions. Some fear (whether the fear is rational or not is another question). Will bring hoards of drug addicts. Many of whom are embroiled in the criminal justice system. To the addicts who are trying to free themselves from the grip of another. Today's case is about the drug treatment business and a million 2 No. 02 2326 dollar judgment against Indiana's capital city in a dispute that started as a zoning squabble. Inc. is a for profit corporation that operates drug addiction rehabilitation programs. It was told by an employee of the Department of Metropolitan Development that zoning regulations would allow a facility in the site it had chosen. That decision was later challenged by persons opposed to the facility. That the Discovery House facility was not a permitted use for the area. Which was zoned for doctor's offices and hospitals. Which overturned the decision holding that a methadone treatment center was a permitted use under the zoning laws at the requested location.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2385.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On page 13. Was essentially a litigation document and did not suggest that Washburn had any personal involvement in making the decision to deny credit to Beauchamp. It is questionable whether either the arguments made in the state's brief or the Washburn affidavit amount to anything more than a kind of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1930.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Brenner</U> and <U>Nixon Peabody LLP</U> were on brief for appellant.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec94/92-2588.opa.html">NIPPER V. SMITH<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Nipper v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="639"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec94/92-2588.opa.html">NIPPER V. SMITH<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Nipper v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1986.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. were on brief. Were on brief. It is appropriate that we keep in mind that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/11B5068946BCC6FB88256F31005779C7/$file/0315779.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: 1. Was sued in his official capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Labor of the CNMI. The Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America was signed on February 15. Congress is given the power to pass laws affecting the CNMI by specifically naming the CNMI in any piece of legislation consistent with the Covenant. TENORIO 14587 The United States' authority over the CNMI is not. The CNMI is not under the plenary authority of the United States). The immigration exemption was originally inserted because the CNMI feared that large numbers of Asian immigrants would migrate to the CNMI under the United States' numerical quotas to take advantage of the CNMI's new affiliation with the United States. Citizens are given a general preference for all jobs. § 4413.1 Employers who wish to hire nonresident workers must first notify the CNMI Department of Labor. All section designations are to the NWA. TENORIO ten percent of his or her workforce is comprised of resident workers. § 4436(a).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2262.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.A.</SPAN> were on brief for appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2357.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jr.</SPAN> was on brief for appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8347C0E301A6BD2A88256F080057D798/$file/0315779.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was sued in his official capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Labor of the CNMI. TENORIO States of America was signed on February 15. Congress is given the power to pass laws affecting the CNMI by specifically naming the CNMI in any piece of legislation consistent with the Covenant. The United States' authority over the CNMI is not. The CNMI is not under the plenary authority of the United States). The immigration exemption was originally inserted because the CNMI feared that large numbers SAGANA v. Citizens are given a general preference for all jobs. § 4413.1 Employers who wish to hire nonresident workers must first notify the CNMI Department of Labor. The employer must also guarantee that at least ten percent of his or her workforce is comprised of resident workers. § 4436(a). Although the industries which employ the vast majority of temporary workers are exempted from standard minimum wage laws. §§ 4436(c). The employer is also responsible for providing for the medical expenses of any nonresident worker and for costs that may Unless otherwise indicated.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2214.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Wildgrubes were residents of the Village of Angel Fire. Angel Fire is located in northern New Mexico and has a population of approximately 1600. The (1) The factual recitation is based on a consideration of the evidence in the light most favorable to the Wildgrubes. MIMICS is a computer software company that provides software to financial institutions nationwide. The Wildgrubes' landlord at the Commons was Robert Morrow. The Commons was zoned R 3. Which did not permit use for business purposes that are not ancillary to the permitted residential use. Hasford was a resident of Angel Fire and during the relevant time period served as the Village building inspector. Hasford was also an ex officio member of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Was <hr> politically opposed to two other members of the Village Council. Who are also named as defendants in this action. Hasford was aligned with Councilors Stansbury and McKinley. Hasford's inspection was allegedly prompted by the observation of building materials outside the building.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/01/943845P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND Hamilton is incarcerated at the maximum security Potosi The facility provides crossCorrectional Center (Potosi).1 denominational religious facilities inside prison buildings. American Indian inmates at Potosi are allowed to pray. American Indians are also allowed to carry medicine bags containing ceremonial items and have access to a ceremonial pipe and kinnikinnik (a ceremonial
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/07/971825P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appellants) moved for summary judgment asserting that the ADA claim was barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity and that the section 1983 claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. I. BACKGROUND ACLEST is an agency of the State of Arkansas which regulates the hiring and certification of law enforcement officers within the State. At the time he was hired by the Maumelle Department. Alsbrook's supervisor certified that Alsbrook met the minimum standards for appointment as a law enforcement officer as prescribed in Section 1002.2 Alsbrook was accepted into the course and successfully completed it in December. He was then employed as a law enforcement officer with the Maumelle Department. Alsbrook was technically functioning as an uncertified law enforcement officer during this time period.3 It appears from the record that Alsbrook's supervisor thought that Dr. It is necessary for the employing agency to request certification by the filing of an Application for Award of Law Enforcement Officer Certificate.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="633"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1997/96a1489p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Independent sued the City and Authority in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania after the City declared that Independent was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec2000/00-15985.ma2.html">TOUCHSTON V. MCDERMOTT (12/6/2000, NO. 00-15985)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judges.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec2000/00-15985.ma2.html">TOUCHSTON V. MCDERMOTT (12/6/2000, NO. 00-15985)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judges.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2003/022452u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Had established that Minnick was not similarly situated to the other City employees and that the City had a rational basis for its decision. We will affirm. The City of Duquesne's pension plan entitles City employees over the age of 60 who have worked for the City for at least 20 years to receive compensation for the remainder of their lives. Employees are required to be registered for the plan as soon as they are hired. The plan is funded by joint contributions from the City and the employee. Minnick was hired by the City in 1972 as a per diem employee. Minnick was laid off and then rehired as a permanent employee. He was told that he would not be able to participate in the City's pension plan unless he paid all retroactive contributions 2 back to the date he had been originally hired. Minnick did have enough money to do so. Minnick asked about joining the plan and was again told that he would have to buy back his years of service. Minnick still did not have the money and so did not join. Minnick was in a position to buy back his previous years of service.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1345.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case is about a neighborhood conflict that disintegrated into violence. Our jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. 1291. We affirm. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. (I App. at 115) The Maygers and Hiemer are long time residents of the subdivision as well as friends. Are responsible for the ditch's upkeep and administration. (Id. at 162) Because the ditch's head gate is on the Marinos' property. The Maygers are entitled to use an irrigation easement on both sides of the ditch to access the head gate and perform ditch maintenance. (Id. at 46) The court ruled that the Marinos were entitled to receive their full share of irrigation water and. Returned to the Maygers' residence. (1) This allegation is based on testimony given during the hearing on Sprague Mayger's motion to have his restraining order lifted. They [Mayger and Hiemer] were the ones to come and contact us in regards to anything going on and ask for advice. Hiemer was later taken to MCSD by a sheriff's deputy. Charged with first degree assault before he was released.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="631"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2003/021394p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The primary issue in this appeal is whether the government violated the Equal Protection Clause when it peremptorily struck two African American. The District Court held that race was not a factor in the strikes and that the government's religion related reasons for the strikes were permissible. Because we are satisfied that the government's peremptory strikes in this case were based on the jurors' heightened religious involvement rather than a specific religious affiliation. Because they were not racially motivated. We will affirm. Jerry DeJesus was stopped. DeJesus was charged with the illegal possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). DeJesus' first trial ended in a mistrial after the jury was unable to reach a verdict. DeJesus was sentenced to a prison term of 110 months. We will set forth only the facts that relate to these two issues. A. Jury Selection Jury selection for DeJesus' retrial was conducted in three phases. The prospective jurors were asked to complete a questionnaire.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="629"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1554.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On cover sheet under list of counsel
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0065p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Complaint states that Keego Harbor is a small community of approximately 3. The licenses granted to Goose Island by the MLCC were in effect at the time this action was filed. Arthur Nance and David Hofmann).2 The individuals were sued in both their individual and official capacities. Relevant to this appeal are Goose Island's claims that the Defendants violated its rights to due process by way of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/datefile/datefile.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
End page heading. > <div align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/99a0415p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude that the district court's findings are not clearly erroneous and. The litigation is now over 20 years old and its course has been chronicled in numerous opinions from both the district court and this court. The district court will then make particularized findings of fact and conclusions of law determining whether the male and female inmates are presently being provided sufficiently Id. at 84 85. The Court formulated
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb98/95-6827.man.html">MENCER V. HAMMONDS (2/5/1998, NO. 95-6827)<BR></A><BR>
The latter in both his official and individual capacities.</P> <P> This interlocutory appeal is from the district court's order rejecting the Superintendent's defense of qualified immunity and denying him summary judgment on the plaintiff's equal protection claim for money damages. Is entitled to qualified immunity from suit under section 1983. Hammonds now appeals the district court's denial of qualified immunity with respect to Mencer's equal protection claim.</P> <P><CENTER>B.</CENTER> </P> <P> The salient facts are these. A vacancy was posted in Birmingham schools for the positions of Principal at Gibson and Minor elementary schools. The five were Mencer. The appointments were made.</P> <P> There is no dispute that all of the successful applicants met the minimum qualifications for their positions as posted in the original vacancy notice. Nor is it disputed that Mencer was qualified for the positions. Mencer contends that Hammonds' and the Board's failure to promote her was discriminatory. The first is a comment that Hammonds allegedly made in an interview with Mencer in 1990.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkwNzRfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9074_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Plaintiff appellee George Neilson is a senior court officer employed by the Office of Court Administration of the Supreme Court in Queens County. Neilson was disciplined for unholstering his gun in the presence of a cleaning person and failing to report the incident truthfully. He claimed that he was treated differently and more harshly than other court officers who engaged in workplace misconduct but were not subjected to any type of formal disciplinary charges. Neilson was patrolling the Kew Gardens courthouse in Queens when he encountered Louis Cortez. Cortez was not in uniform. He explained that he was a porter and produced identification for Neilson's inspection. Neilson testified that he was not alarmed because he knew that new identification cards had not yet been issued. What transpired next is in dispute. Norwood advised Neilson that it was unnecessary to file an incident 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 report about it. Was present. It is undisputed that Neilson specifically denied drawing his firearm on Cortez.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb98/95-6827.man.html">MENCER V. HAMMONDS (2/5/1998, NO. 95-6827)<BR></A><BR>
The latter in both his official and individual capacities.</P> <P> This interlocutory appeal is from the district court's order rejecting the Superintendent's defense of qualified immunity and denying him summary judgment on the plaintiff's equal protection claim for money damages. Is entitled to qualified immunity from suit under section 1983. Hammonds now appeals the district court's denial of qualified immunity with respect to Mencer's equal protection claim.</P> <P><CENTER>B.</CENTER> </P> <P> The salient facts are these. A vacancy was posted in Birmingham schools for the positions of Principal at Gibson and Minor elementary schools. The five were Mencer. The appointments were made.</P> <P> There is no dispute that all of the successful applicants met the minimum qualifications for their positions as posted in the original vacancy notice. Nor is it disputed that Mencer was qualified for the positions. Mencer contends that Hammonds' and the Board's failure to promote her was discriminatory. The first is a comment that Hammonds allegedly made in an interview with Mencer in 1990.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051680p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Have been locked in a dispute over a 1994 application for subdivision and site plan approval for purposes of extending appellants' sand and gravel removal operations. We have jurisdiction over the appeal and cross appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will reverse in part and affirm in part and remand for further proceedings. Neither the parties nor the District Court questioned whether the SDP or EPC claims were ripe. We asked the parties to address this issue at oral argument because
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTIwODQtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-2084-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Board of Police Commissioners (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041847p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
In 1992 he was traveling on the New Jersey Turnpike when he was unlawfully stopped. Gibson alleges that the stop and search were part of a pattern of racially discriminatory law enforcement practices undertaken by the New Jersey State Police. Gibson was released from prison after newly obtained This Opinion represents the Opinion of the Court on all issues except the discussion of the Fourth Amendment claims in Part III.A. The Opinion of the Court on those issues is contained in the Opinion of Judge Fuentes filed herewith (hereinafter referred to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0096p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At the time the lawsuit was filed. The court held that Plaintiffs had not alleged that Defendants adopted or adhered to the 25 percent rule because of rather than in spite of its disparate impact on females and that sheer disparate impact is insufficient to demonstrate an equal protection violation. While Plaintiffs' first appeal was pending in this Court. The Kentucky General Assembly amended the statute regulating discriminatory effect is a requirement of Title IX. Because Defendants are charged with knowledge of the law. It follows that remand is appropriate to determine whether Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiffs' Title IX rights. I would reverse the district court's dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims of monetary relief and remand for a determination of whether Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiffs' Title IX rights in accordance with Davis. I would also reserve judgment as to whether Plaintiffs were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-30420.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
PER CURIAM:* This is the second panel of this Court to consider whether plaintiffs' allegation that defendants 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. Was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Whether a constitutional right is clearly established is a question of law. A plaintiff must show that a clearly established constitutional right was violated. A court of appeals must not assume without deciding whether the constitutional right asserted by a plaintiff is a constitutional right at all. 564 (2000) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTA1NDEtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-0541-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Town of Wallkill appeal from the district court's denial of their motions for summary judgment on the ground that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on appellee Clubside. Holding that Clubside did not have a constitutionally protected property interest in the extension of the sewer district.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0269p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an appeal from the district court's award of summary judgment to the state of Michigan in a putative class action case that challenges the constitutionality of certain provisions of the State's Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). The plaintiff represents one of two proposed classes of individuals who were assigned to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTYzMjgtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-6328-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="624"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTYzMjgtY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/04-6328-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan2001/987307.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The primary issue for decision is whether we should overrule the holding of Gibbs v. The prisoner has br ought a federal action or appeal that was dismissed on the gr ounds that it was frivolous. Unless the prisoner
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2880.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs are 18 of 51 forensic scientists (to whom we refer as the Scientists) who worked for the Chicago Police Department (CPD) crime lab until July 1996. When they were transferred en masse to the Illinois State Police (ISP). A majority of which were members of racial or ethnic minorities. One year after this lawsuit was filed. We conclude that any errors it made in the No. 02 2880 3 instructions were harmless. Two African Americans and one Hispanic were transferred to ISP as supervisors. Over 90% of the forensic scientists at ISP were Caucasian and there were no minority supervisors. It was also true that CPD group was more experienced than their ISP counterparts. 18 of the 51 who were transferred. Although half of the transferring group was Caucasian. The Scientists' theory was that ISP paid them less because the group as a whole was identifiably minority and stood in sharp contrast to ISP's predominately Caucasian workforce. Each applicant is graded and then placed on an 4 No. 02 2880 interview list if he or she meets the stated job requirements.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may95/93-4762.opa.html">HAVES V. CITY OF MIAMI<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Haves v. Facts</i><p> <p> Appellants Stanley and Marjorie Haves have lived aboard a houseboat<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19939345.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
90 L.Ed.2d 735 (1986) (plurality opinion) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/99-1313.htm">99-1313 -- RAMIREZ V. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF COLORADO -- 08/11/2000<BR></A><BR>
Are employees of the Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC). The district court first concluded that Defendant was entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiffs'
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may95/93-4762.opa.html">HAVES V. CITY OF MIAMI<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Haves v. Facts</i><p> <p> Appellants Stanley and Marjorie Haves have lived aboard a houseboat<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="620"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/023833p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A group of twenty two police officers sought to have the ordinance declared unconstitutional. Who was not a party to the 1997 suit. Alleging that he was terminated in retaliation for complaining about the condition of the Department of Public Works garage. Three of the four officers' cases were consolidated for pre trial purposes with the mechanic's case. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the city on the three officers' claims but allowed the mechanic's claims to proceed to trial.1 We conclude that the District Court should not have granted summary judgment on the police officers' retaliation claim. Who were not parties to the 1997 suit. Were permitted to keep their jobs The District Court subsequently granted partial summary judgment in favor of the city in the fourth officer's case but that case is not before us. 3 1 despite the city's knowledge that they were not city residents. It is undisputed that. A group of twenty two Scranton police officers filed a complaint alleging that the city's residency ordinance was unconstitutional on its face and as applied.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034433p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1 an association of law Joining FAIR in its preliminary injunction motion and in this appeal are: the Society for Law Teachers. We hold that FAIR has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its First Amendment claims and that it is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. Background Facts 2 and Procedural Posture Law Schools' Nondiscrimination Policies Law schools have long maintained formal policies of nondiscrimination that withhold career placement services from employers who exclude employees and applicants based on such factors as race. The facts on appeal are not in dispute. Supp. 2d at 277. 7 2 virtually every law school now has a comprehensive policy like the following: [The] School of Law is committed to a policy of equal opportunity for all students and graduates. A servicemember is separated from the military if it is found that he or she
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C2B3C7358ADFF37588256D02006FDC34/$file/0215128.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: Plaintiffs are former students in the Morgan Hill Unified School District who have sued the school district. They contend that they are entitled to immunity from suit because the plaintiffs have not shown that the defendants acted with the improper motive required to establish a constitutional violation. The law was not clearly established that the students were entitled. We also hold that the law was clearly established and that the evidence would support a finding that the administrators' actions were unreasonable. All of the plaintiffs were. Or were perceived by other students to be. The following is a sampling of incidents that the plaintiffs have described in affidavits or depositions. Similar messages were scrawled on the outside of her locker. This is disgusting.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june96/95-8227.opa.html">ROZAR V. MULLIS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Rozar v. Denying an injunction and granting summary judgment to the defendants on the ground that the plaintiffs' federal claims were time barred. Which had almost reached capacity and was becoming contaminated. Some of which were readily rejected because of insufficient useable acreage or the owner's unwillingness to sell. The record contains evidence that additional sites were added to the list as others were eliminated.<p> In January 1991 the County Board met to discuss a site at Scotland Road. The Board voted to table any action until alternatives were studied. Plaintiffs say that the site was not pursued because white residents protested. That most of the area residents were African American. Both an African American and a white church were nearby.<p> The list of potential landfill sites was expanded to include Old Macon Road. The record indicates that this site was brought to the County Board's attention when the property owner offered to sell a sizable tract (more than 400 acres).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9B92D03700596A9188256A42005B2814/$file/9855807.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is hereby recalled. 2001 is withdrawn. Kerry Sanders was extradited from California to New York in October 1993 and incarcerated in a New York state prison until October 1995. Kerry Sanders would not have been arrested. Violations of rights protected by state law.1 The defendants in this appeal are the City. Factual Background
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/08/962277P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This Court summarized the background of this case as follows: Praschma is a sixty six year old German citizen. Who are also aliens. Neither son is a plaintiff in this action. Praschma has executed a will that leaves the farmland to his son Georg. The attorney general is instructed to obtain a court order requiring the alien owner to 2 divest himself of the land. The land is sold at public sale. Arguing that Missouri's statutory scheme is unconstitutional on its face and as applied because it violates (among other things) the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The court held that the Missouri statute was rationally related to a legitimate state interest and that Praschma had failed to provide evidence of invidious discrimination. The general rule is that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2021.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Were on brief. The district court denied all of plaintiffs' claims save one: an award of nominal damages of $1.00 each to the two students who would have been assigned to the school of their choice under the old system but for their race. While high school assignments are made on a citywide basis. Boston is divided into three Attendance Zones the North. These zones were drawn by the district court as part of its desegregation orders. The lines largely hew to major transportation routes to keep traditional neighborhoods intact as much as possible.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992444.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judges. *Judge Murnaghan 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We hold that the as applied takings claim is not ripe and therefore should have been dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because the district court's award of attorney's fees was based in part upon a finding that the unripe asapplied takings claim is frivolous. Greenspring maintains that it is legally entitled to a (b)(9) exemption because the proposed development qualifies as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2001/00-11807.man.html">FARQUHARSON V. ATTORNEY GEN. (4/6/2001, NO. 00-11807)<BR></A><BR>
Farquharson was ineligible for an equitable waiver of deportation. We affirm the BIA's decision that Farquharson is deportable. Was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident on August 23. He was flying a plane loaded with marijuana from Jamaica to Florida when he encountered engine trouble and was forced to crash land about fifty miles from his intended landing site in Florida. Farquharson and his copilot were apprehended by a police search party about a half hour after the crash. Farquharson was convicted of unlawful possession of marijuana in an amount of more than twenty grams. He was sentenced to five years of probation.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/23A918C3155260E288256E5A00707B1B/$file/9855807.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is hereby recalled. 2001 is withdrawn. Kerry Sanders was extradited from California to New York in October 1993 and incarcerated in a New York state prison until October 1995. Kerry Sanders would not have been arrested. Violations of rights protected by state law.1 The defendants in this appeal are the City. Factual Background
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1999/995024.TXT">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That thereafter while it was contemplating the amendment's adoption. In which it indicated that in its discretion it was determining the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/567AE8B34965691188257313005663B4/$file/0576201.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND2 Petitioner is a citizen of Ethiopia who entered the United States as a refugee and became a lawful permanent resident (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug95/93-4145.html">JANE L. V. BANGERTER<BR></A><BR>
The instant case is the attorneys fees arm of the Jane L. v. Holding that the pre 20 week abortion restrictions and the spousal notification provision were unconstitutional. Holding that 1) the post 20 week abortion restrictions are not severable from the pre 20 week restrictions held violative of Casey. 2) the fetal experimentation provision is unconstitutionally vague. 3) the choice of method provisions are unconstitutional.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DE4D4AD731FB4F3988256D24007FD1DB/$file/0216269.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 9: change
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-5137.html">BLACK V. SHHS<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1699.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom Judith Berkan was on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellees Ed Martin. Chief Judge. organizations representing women who have sought or will seek family planning services in Puerto Rico (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr95/93-6240.man.html">DAWSON V. SCOTT<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Dawson v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This habeas case presents the first impression issue for our circuit of whether sentence credit is applicable for time spent in a halfway or safe house as a condition of release on bond before adjudication of guilt or sentencing. The district court determined that denial of sentence credit for this time was the proper statutory and constitutional interpretation. Dawson was arrested by New Mexico federal agents for cocaine distribution. When Dawson was arrested. Dawson was released on a personal recognizance bond. The bond was revoked upon a finding that Dawson was ineligible for bond because he had no home to which he could be released. Dawson was returned to custody. Dawson was released on bond with the condition that he be placed in the custody of La Posada Halfway House in Albuquerque. It is undisputed that he was subjected to the same conditions as other residents. Were mandatory. Residents were confined to the premises of the halfway house from 7:00 P.M. until 7:00 A.M. only.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/47DC82E3005637AB882569F300627E4F/$file/9855807.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Kerry Sanders was extradited from California to New York in October 1993 and incarcerated in a New York state prison until October 1995. Kerry Sanders would not have been arrested. Factual Background
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2001/00-11807.man.html">FARQUHARSON V. ATTORNEY GEN. (4/6/2001, NO. 00-11807)<BR></A><BR>
Farquharson was ineligible for an equitable waiver of deportation. We affirm the BIA's decision that Farquharson is deportable. Was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident on August 23. He was flying a plane loaded with marijuana from Jamaica to Florida when he encountered engine trouble and was forced to crash land about fifty miles from his intended landing site in Florida. Farquharson and his copilot were apprehended by a police search party about a half hour after the crash. Farquharson was convicted of unlawful possession of marijuana in an amount of more than twenty grams. He was sentenced to five years of probation.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-4304.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
BACKGROUND No. 01 4304 Eby Brown is a wholesale distributor of tobacco products. Such that if Eby Brown's tobacco prices are more competitive than other wholesale distributors. It will gain the lion's share of the food item and sundry business. Wisconsin statutes recognize two distinct types of cigarette wholesalers: permit holders and jobbers.1 A permit holder is licensed to affix revenue stamps upon cigarette packages. Jobbers are not permitted to affix such stamps and must instead purchase stamped products from permit holders. EbyBrown is a permit holder. A
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug27/03-20126-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Facts and Proceedings Below Mario Roberto Madriz Alvarado (Madriz) is a native and citizen of Guatemala who entered the United States without inspection on September 26. When he was eight years old. Of less than one gram of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) and was granted a deferred adjudication under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 42.12 section 5. The Immigration and Naturalization Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) is a Schedule 1 controlled substance under the Texas Controlled Substance Act. Knowing possession (other than pursuant to a prescription or practitioner's order) of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/03/02-2108.htm">02-2108 -- J A V. TUCUMCARI MUNICIPAL SCHOOLS -- 03/11/2003<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr95/93-6240.man.html">DAWSON V. SCOTT<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Dawson v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This habeas case presents the first impression issue for our circuit of whether sentence credit is applicable for time spent in a halfway or safe house as a condition of release on bond before adjudication of guilt or sentencing. The district court determined that denial of sentence credit for this time was the proper statutory and constitutional interpretation. Dawson was arrested by New Mexico federal agents for cocaine distribution. When Dawson was arrested. Dawson was released on a personal recognizance bond. The bond was revoked upon a finding that Dawson was ineligible for bond because he had no home to which he could be released. Dawson was returned to custody. Dawson was released on bond with the condition that he be placed in the custody of La Posada Halfway House in Albuquerque. It is undisputed that he was subjected to the same conditions as other residents. Were mandatory. Residents were confined to the premises of the halfway house from 7:00 P.M. until 7:00 A.M. only.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A9830F0DE2673A0288256E5A00707A4C/$file/9855807.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Kerry Sanders was extradited from California to New York in October 1993 and incarcerated in a New York state prison until October 1995. Kerry Sanders would not have been arrested. Factual Background
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june96/95-8227.opa.html">ROZAR V. MULLIS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Rozar v. Denying an injunction and granting summary judgment to the defendants on the ground that the plaintiffs' federal claims were time barred. Which had almost reached capacity and was becoming contaminated. Some of which were readily rejected because of insufficient useable acreage or the owner's unwillingness to sell. The record contains evidence that additional sites were added to the list as others were eliminated.<p> In January 1991 the County Board met to discuss a site at Scotland Road. The Board voted to table any action until alternatives were studied. Plaintiffs say that the site was not pursued because white residents protested. That most of the area residents were African American. Both an African American and a white church were nearby.<p> The list of potential landfill sites was expanded to include Old Macon Road. The record indicates that this site was brought to the County Board's attention when the property owner offered to sell a sizable tract (more than 400 acres).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/136EDC86782BE26A88256CFA005AD2C8/$file/0216269.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Seek intervention on the grounds that they have an interest in continuing to receive benefits as native Hawaiians. An interest to stop the provi
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep13/03-20126-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Facts and Proceedings Below Mario Roberto Madriz Alvarado (Madriz) is a native and citizen of Guatemala who entered the United States without We affirm. inspection on September 26. When he was eight years old. Of less than one gram of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) and was granted a deferred adjudication under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 42.12 section 5. The Immigration and Naturalization Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) is a Schedule 1 controlled substance under the Texas Controlled Substance Act. Knowing possession (other than pursuant to a prescription or practitioner's order) of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may95/92-6574.opa.html">SWINT V. CITY OF WADLEY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Swint v. Was filed by four citizens against the City of Wadley. Before us is the appeal of Chief Morgan. Also before us is the request by the City of Wadley and the Chambers County Commission that we exercise jurisdiction under either the collateral order or pendent appellate doctrines to review the district court's denial of their summary judgment motions. The City contends the district court should have held that the Chief of Police did not have final decisionmaking authority over the relevant actions. Thus the City was not liable for his conduct. The County Commission contends the court should have held that under Alabama law the Sheriff was not the final repository of county law enforcement authority. Thus the County was not liable for his actions. The district court's denial of their summary judgment motion as to the state law claims against them.<p> We affirm the district court's denial of the individual defendants' qualified immunity summary judgment motions insofar as the Fourth Amendment is concerned.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="611"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may95/92-6574.opa.html">SWINT V. CITY OF WADLEY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Swint v. Was filed by four citizens against the City of Wadley. Before us is the appeal of Chief Morgan. Also before us is the request by the City of Wadley and the Chambers County Commission that we exercise jurisdiction under either the collateral order or pendent appellate doctrines to review the district court's denial of their summary judgment motions. The City contends the district court should have held that the Chief of Police did not have final decisionmaking authority over the relevant actions. Thus the City was not liable for his conduct. The County Commission contends the court should have held that under Alabama law the Sheriff was not the final repository of county law enforcement authority. Thus the County was not liable for his actions. The district court's denial of their summary judgment motion as to the state law claims against them.<p> We affirm the district court's denial of the individual defendants' qualified immunity summary judgment motions insofar as the Fourth Amendment is concerned.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/98C7F538AA7B5F6388256EBE004D44B4/$file/0235727.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
As this is an appeal from a denial of a motion to dismiss on grounds largely of qualified immunity. We are asked to decide these weighty questions aided only by the skeletal at best factual picture sketched out in the complaint. 1 2 Pub. The federal courts may not dismiss a complaint unless
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may98/96-3483.man.html">FOTO UNITED STATES, INC. V. BD. OF REGENTS OF THE UNIV. SYS. OF FLORIDA (5/20/1998, NO. 96-3483)<BR></A><BR>
These ceremonies are by invitation only. Are generally attended by the families and friends of the graduates. The occasion is celebratory but dignified.</P> <P> In order to make professional quality photographs available to their graduates. The successful bidders received exclusive contracts obligating them to photograph the graduates as they receive their diplomas and granting them the benefit of soliciting the sale of these photographs to the graduates.</P> <P> Foto chose not to bid on these contracts although it is in the business of taking the same type of graduation photographs and soliciting their sale to the graduates. It has presented itself and its equipment at the ceremonies of these schools and attempted to photograph the graduates in order to solicit sales of the photographs.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may98/96-3483.man.html">FOTO UNITED STATES, INC. V. BD. OF REGENTS OF THE UNIV. SYS. OF FLORIDA (5/20/1998, NO. 96-3483)<BR></A><BR>
These ceremonies are by invitation only. Are generally attended by the families and friends of the graduates. The occasion is celebratory but dignified.</P> <P> In order to make professional quality photographs available to their graduates. The successful bidders received exclusive contracts obligating them to photograph the graduates as they receive their diplomas and granting them the benefit of soliciting the sale of these photographs to the graduates.</P> <P> Foto chose not to bid on these contracts although it is in the business of taking the same type of graduation photographs and soliciting their sale to the graduates. It has presented itself and its equipment at the ceremonies of these schools and attempted to photograph the graduates in order to solicit sales of the photographs.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2001/99-10579.man.html">BASS V. BD. OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (2/21/2001, NO. 99-10579)<BR></A><BR>
A number of positions were eliminated. One of which was held by Michael Bass. Bass received a layoff notice in September 1995.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19963483.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
These ceremonies are by invitation only. Are generally attended by the families and friends of the graduates. The occasion is celebratory but dignified. Foto chose not to bid on these contracts although it is in the business of taking the same type of graduation photographs and soliciting their sale to the graduates. It has presented itself and its equipment at the ceremonies of these schools and attempted to photograph the graduates in order to solicit sales of the photographs.1 The universities concede that Foto may attend and take a limited number of photographs from the designated seating area just as parents are permitted to do. Foto makes the specious argument that this is all it wishes to do. If this were so. Is that it has the same right as the successful commercial photographer bidder to attend the graduation ceremonies and take pictures for a commercial purpose.2 The parties agree that the universities prohibit Foto from taking a photograph of each graduate in order to solicit the sale of that photograph to the graduate.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2001/99-10579.man.html">BASS V. BD. OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (2/21/2001, NO. 99-10579)<BR></A><BR>
A number of positions were eliminated. One of which was held by Michael Bass. Bass received a layoff notice in September 1995.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1629.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Coles with whom Coles and Mongue was on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellees. *Of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The rule that was the catalyst of this controversy is a regulation. Ran afoul of the regulation and hence was barred by the Division from fishing for loligo squid in 1990 in the squid rich waters of Nantucket Sound and Vineyard Sound. Both the vessel length limitation on fishing and the quantity limitation on at sea processing were challenged on dual grounds. It was contended that the limitations constitute an undue burden on commerce. It was contended that the Massachusetts limitations are incompatible with supervening. Agreeing with the district court that the ninety foot rule is valid. Was named as an additional plaintiff. We will refer to plaintiffs collectively as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1170.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Plaintiffs allege that the City's placement of their properties on this acquisi 2 No. 03 1170 tion list was arbitrary and thus violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. After deciding that the Plaintiffs' claim was not ripe for review in federal court. Is subject to the special ripeness standards for constitutional property rights claims established in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Because the Plaintiffs have not yet satisfied those standards. The Corporation Council is authorized to negotiate for the acquisition by the City of parcels contained within the Area. In the event the Corporation Counsel is unable to acquire any of said parcels through negotiation. The Corporation Counsel is authorized to institute eminent domain proceedings to acquire such parcels. Their motels
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054353p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
New Directions and the individual plaintiffs' appeal is before us. Properly prescribed methadone is not intoxicating or sedating. The medication is taken orally and it suppresses narcotic withdrawal for 24 to 36 hours. Patients are able to perceive pain and have emotional reactions. Craving is a major reason for relapse. It has been found that normal street doses of heroin are ineffective at producing euphoria. Methadone is medically safe even when used continuously for 10 years or more. The Office of National Drug Control Policy (of the Executive Office of the President) provides further information on methadone treatment: Background Information Methadone is a rigorously well tested medication that is safe and efficacious for the treatment of narcotic withdrawal and dependence. Is freed from the uncontrolled. Withdrawal from methadone is much slower than that from heroin. It is possible to maintain an addict on methadone without harsh side effects. The operating practices of clinics and hospitals are bound by Federal regulations that restrict the use and availability of methadone.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0226p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The landlords were the customers of the Water District and held the account for water service to the property. Page 2 District's policy that tenants and other non property owners cannot establish water service accounts in their own names because they are not property owners. We hold that the Plaintiffs have not established a due process or equal protection violation because they have not shown a legitimate claim of entitlement to water service and because Defendants' conduct does not shock the conscience. I. Background Because this matter is before the Court on an appeal from a grant of a motion to dismiss. The following facts are derived from the Midkiffs' First Amended Complaint and construed in the light most favorable to the Midkiffs. The Midkiffs have four young children. Monica Midkiff was pregnant and experiencing complications due to diabetes. The Water District is the exclusive supplier of water services to residents of Adams County. The Midkiffs contacted the Water District and requested that they be allowed to establish an account in their own names and have water service resumed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CFB41C638909CB8F88256D5C0063E355/$file/9935684.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have received a response and conclude that MALABED v. I The North Slope Borough is a political subdivision of the State of Alaska. Where there is more than one Native American applicant who meets the minimum qualifications for a position. A Native American is a person belonging to an Indian tribe as defined in 25 U.S.C. North Slope Borough Code § 2.20.150(A)(27).1 Plaintiffs/Appellees are not Native Americans and claim that they were denied employment with the Borough because of the Ordinance. Robert Malabed is an Asian American of Filipino descent. The Ordinance was amended to create a preference not only for qualified Native Americans. Appellees Malabed and Emerson were denied employment under the original ordinance. Appellee Welch was denied employment under the amended ordinance. These differences between the amended ordinance and the original ordinance are not material to our analysis. 1 9102 MALABED v. NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH nent employment was rejected in 1998. He was replaced by a Native American.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DBA1F2A485A1FBBF88256D9B005A02F1/$file/0235030.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
One is that signatures in support of the initiative must be collected from six percent of the qualified voters in each of at least half of the state's counties. This power is known as the initiative. CENARUSSA 13129 Idaho Legislature has enacted enabling legislation that defines Idaho's procedures for conducting initiative and referendum elections.2 Plaintiff Idaho Coalition United for Bears is an organization that seeks to advance its supporters' goals through the initiative process. Three individuals who have organized petition drives in attempts to place initiatives on the ballot in past years. The proposed initiative is then delivered to the Secretary of State. Once the ballot titles are prepared. Petitioners are then free to circulate the petition. Petitions are due at the expiration of eighteen months or on the last day of April in the year in which the proposed initiative would appear on the ballot. Idaho's population is unevenly distributed throughout its counties: 60% of its population resides in just nine of its 44 counties.4 For this reason.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011185.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Section 1 the status is changed from
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4306A915C7FD414688256A46005D0DEB/$file/9935888.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The Washington Court of Appeals appointed new counsel to represent convicted defendant Reno Tamalini while his appeal was pending despite Tamalini's Sixth Amendment objection to the substitution. Whether we have jurisdiction to entertain a challenge predicated upon the Fourteenth Amendment. We have appellate jurisdiction over Tamalini's appeal of the district court's order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253 (2000). Averred that: (1)
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/11/97-7099.htm">97-7099 -- JOHNSON V. MARTIN -- 11/01/1999<BR></A><BR>
Williamson argued unsuccessfully to the district court that they were entitled to qualified immunity on these claims. <p> We first conclude that we have jurisdiction over these appeals. It was clearly established that a public official could be held liable under the Equal Protection Clause for sexually harassing a private citizen. At various properties that he was inspecting. When she was attempting to convert her home into a daycare center. The last time Mr Martin visited her was in December of 1995. When she asked him why the repair estimate was so high. When the electrical repairs were being made. When it was being repaired. He allegedly told her that she could have a difficult time passing the inspections. Jordan was the first to complain. Whom she said was Mr. Garvin added that it was not until March or April of 1996 that he discovered that Ms. Martin had not acted under color of law and that many of the plaintiffs' allegations were barred by section 1983's two year statute of limitations. Williamson also argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiffs had failed to allege that they had violated clearly established law. <p> To a certain extent.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D868839A66AD6B7C88256E5A00707B27/$file/9935888.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The Washington Court of Appeals appointed new counsel to represent convicted defendant Reno Tamalini while his appeal was pending despite Tamalini's Sixth Amendment objection to the substitution. Whether we have jurisdiction to entertain a challenge predicated upon the Fourteenth Amendment. We have appellate jurisdiction over Tamalini's appeal of the district court's order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253 (2000). Averred that: (1)
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5D144B6DA751560988256DAD005B46FE/$file/0157036.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The freedom from administrative segregation that was affected by the denial of due process. We must determine whether the district court improperly granted summary judgment on Serrano's equal protection claim in light of evidence presented as to whether a prison officer's decision to deny the requested witness testimony during his disciplinary hearing was racially motivated. Francis is entitled to qualified immunity as to the due process claim.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/07/982696P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Knapp and Tinder asserted various constitutional legal theories in their claims that they were wrongfully denied longevity benefits from their employment with the Department of Public Safety. The district court found that the state's statute allowing longevity pay only for highway patrol workers was constitutional. I. Appellants are both employed as fire prevention experts in the Iowa Department of Public Safety. Iowa State Highway Patrol workers are also Department of Public Safety employees. Members of the highway patrol are allowed to receive longevity pay. This right is not afforded to fire prevention officers. The state is discriminating against them. Because Section 80.8 provides that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EB0EADBD90CB1EBF88256E5A006A4AB1/$file/0217177.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are presented with two issues. Is the claim of petitioner CASWELL v. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § § 1291 and 2253 and we affirm in part and reverse in part. We hold that: (1) Caswell's Ex Post Facto claim is moot. Thus it is unnecessary to address the merits of that claim. (2) Caswell should be granted leave to amend his habeas petition to add a due process claim. BACKGROUND The facts of this case are fully recited in In re Caswell. Caswell was convicted of four counts of kidnapping for the purpose of robbery. Caswell was also convicted of four counts each of first degree robbery. His prison sentences as to those counts were stayed. Which was in effect at the time of Caswell's crimes. With a September 2000 release date.1 This is the sentence and release date that Caswell now challenges. The Board reasoned that (1) Caswell's crime was very serious. STANDARD OF REVIEW The district court's denial of Caswell's § 2254 petition is reviewed de novo. 1056 (9th Cir. 2003).3 The district court's decision to deny leave to Part of this tangled procedural history is reflected in this Court's 1997 decision.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044448np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The District Court determined that Garden State's damages claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment and that Garden State could not state a claim for relief under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court. The facts are known to them. We will discuss only those facts pertinent to this appeal. Garden State is licensed as a private on site inspection agency. Garden State contends that municipal officials performing subcode enforcement functions for multiple municipalities should be subject to the bidding procedures and authorization fees required of on site inspection agencies because the officers are operating as de facto on site inspection agencies.2 Garden State pointed to two specific Code provisions that. Municipal employees are not subject to bidding requirements or authorization fees.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6270789CB83ECDE688256EEB00783B28/$file/0273951.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is the proper respondent pursuant to FED. Since immigration proceedings were initiated against Alvarez Garcia before April 1. Her final order of exclusion was issued after October 31. We thus have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a (1996). She was subsequently granted a short period of time to depart voluntarily. A deportation warrant was issued in her name. A United States citizen with whom she claimed to have lived since 1985. Alvarez Garcia might have gained lawful permanent residence. Essentially pointing to the IJ's authority to consider the applications (and corresponding requests for waiver and permission to reapply) of those subject to deportation and arguing that there is no rational basis to draw a distinction between excludable and deportable aliens. We review the IJ's decision
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug95/94-1537.html">BROWN V. ZAVARAS<BR></A><BR>
The case therefore is ordered submitted without oral argument. Pro se plaintiff Josephine Brown appeals the summary judgment order of the district court dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 civil rights action.2 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Brown is an inmate at the Limon Correctional Facility. Brown states that he is a transsexual. The medical term for transsexuality is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021962.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Holding that the plaintiffs' proposed use of the community centers was a not a form of expressive activity protected by the First Amendment. Hold that the plaintiffs' proposed use is afforded First Amendment protection. Is viewpoint neutral and reasonable in light of the purpose of the centers. It is reasonable for the Board to limit use of the community centers to recreational and community enrichment activities. Formal private education is not a use that is consistent with those purposes. The Use Policy states that the purpose of the community centers is to provide a place for: (1) Park and Recreation programs. The Use Policy states that the community centers are available for: (a) recreational uses (birthday parties. (b) any activity that is illegal. Or is in violation of the County's rules and regulations. (c) possession and consumption of alcoholic beverages.2 The four Calvert County community centers are: (1) Northeast Community Center in the town of Chesapeake Beach. (4) Southern Community Center in the town of Lusby. 2 After litigation was commenced in this case.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/11/97-7099a.htm">97-7099A -- JOHNSON V. MARTIN -- 11/11/1999<BR></A><BR>
Is corrected to include the following: <p> Caesar C. Johnson. <p> <p> A corrected copy of page two is attached. <p> Sincerely. Williamson argued unsuccessfully to the district court that they were entitled to qualified immunity on these claims. <p> We first conclude that we have jurisdiction over these appeals. It was clearly established that a public official could be held liable under the Equal Protection Clause for sexually harassing a private citizen. At various properties that he was inspecting. When she was attempting to convert her home into a daycare center. The last time Mr Martin visited her was in December of 1995. When she asked him why the repair estimate was so high. When the electrical repairs were being made. When it was being repaired. He allegedly told her that she could have a difficult time passing the inspections. Jordan was the first to complain. Whom she said was Mr. Garvin added that it was not until March or April of 1996 that he discovered that Ms. Martin had not acted under color of law and that many of the plaintiffs' allegations were barred by section 1983's two year statute of limitations.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1231.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Norval Williams was employed by the St. He was fired after he made a comment in the media questioning the guilt of an individual who had been convicted of killing a police officer. Was hired by then St. Williams' responsibilities was to oversee security for the St. An African American youth who was tried before an all white jury for the murder of a white South Bend police officer. At some time during the trial or after the verdict was returned. Williams commented to television and newspaper reporters that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/03/99-2290.htm">99-2290 -- WATSON V. BECKEL -- 03/19/2001<BR></A><BR>
District Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/01/97-2157.htm">97-2157 -- MARSH V. NEWTON -- 01/30/1998<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff appeals<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2000/98-4924.opn.html">HUNDERTMARK V. FLORIDA DEP'T OF TRANSP. (3/7/2000, NO. 98-4924)<BR></A><BR>
Whether extension of the Equal Pay Act to the States is within Congress's § 5 powers. (2) is plainly adapted to that end. (3) is consistent with and not prohibited by the letter of the constitution. <U>See</U> <U>Katzenbach v. The original enactment of the Equal Pay Act in 1963 applied only to private employers and stated that Congress was legislating pursuant to its powers under the Interstate Commerce Clause. This lack of language by Congress stating the basis of its power to legislate is not fatal because the Supreme Court has acknowledged the long recognized rule that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962290.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Citadel announced that it had abandoned its male only policy and was admitting women to its Corps of Cadets. The district court entered an order declaring that The Citadel's earlier proposed parallel program at Converse College was unconstitutional and enjoining The Citadel to end its male only policy. Were moot and unnecessary. We also affirm the other orders challenged by The Citadel and Mellette. 4 I The Citadel is a state supported four year military college located in Charleston. When it discovered that Faulkner was female. An order permitting Faulkner's attendance is not tantamount at this time to integrating or altering the military program at The Citadel.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/99-4210.htm">99-4210 -- U.S. V. HARDMAN -- 08/05/2002<BR></A><BR>
Jr. were convicted for unrelated counts of illegally possessing eagle feathers in violation of sections 703 and 668(a) of Title 16 of the United States Code. Was not criminally prosecuted.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199805/96-7239a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Le vine were on the briefs. Spitzer were on the brief. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on the brief for the United States of America as amicus curiae. Ordinance that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had held was constitutional. Act bars unmarried and unemanci pated persons 1 under seventeen years old from being in 1 Although the curfew law is entitled the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1951.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Remmel & Zimmerman were on brief for plaintiffs. Were on brief for defendant. Agency or association.1 Violations of the Act are declared to contravene the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act. Is intended to tangibly benefit or is represented to be for the tangible benefit of any law enforcement officer. Chamberlain all of whom are officers of law enforcement associations. Seeking to enjoin the Act and to have it declared unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. While declaring that the provision for injunctive enforcement was an unconstitutional prior restraint. As the Act was originally enacted in 1977. Its sole exception was for solicitations by or on behalf of law enforcement officers campaigning for election to public office an exception still in existence. The Act was amended to allow game wardens to sell historical publications describing state parks.3 Me. Is intended to benefit or is represented to be for the benefit of any law enforcement officer.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/22525D3C4878854E88256F39007A3851/$file/0272422.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The petitioner is an alien who was convicted in Oregon of first time simple drug possession. Because at the time his deportation order was upheld Chavez Perez had suffered a judgment of conviction for a drug offense. We conclude that the INS has a rational basis for treating him differently from those aliens whose convictions have previously been expunged. Or whose charges were deferred and later dismissed. I Daniel Chavez Perez is a native and citizen of Mexico who entered the United States in 1991 as a lawful permanent resident. He was convicted of possession of methamphetamine and sentenced to 20 days in On March 1. ChavezPerez argued that his conviction was the functional equivalent of those federal convictions that qualify for expungement under the Federal First Offender Act (FFOA). He asserted that the Equal Protection Clause forbids his removal based on a comparable state conviction that was subject to future expungement at the time of the INS's order. A majority of the Board members concluded that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216135.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are compelled to agree with Alabama and must decline the ACLU's invitation. I. BACKGROUND Because the various user appellees and vendor appellees are all represented by the ACLU.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2000/98-4924.opn.html">HUNDERTMARK V. FLORIDA DEP'T OF TRANSP. (3/7/2000, NO. 98-4924)<BR></A><BR>
Whether extension of the Equal Pay Act to the States is within Congress's § 5 powers. (2) is plainly adapted to that end. (3) is consistent with and not prohibited by the letter of the constitution. <U>See</U> <U>Katzenbach v. The original enactment of the Equal Pay Act in 1963 applied only to private employers and stated that Congress was legislating pursuant to its powers under the Interstate Commerce Clause. This lack of language by Congress stating the basis of its power to legislate is not fatal because the Supreme Court has acknowledged the long recognized rule that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1279.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on briefs for appellees Marisa Lago. Paul Holtzman and Krokidas & Bluestein were on brief for Robert H. Was on brief for Henry G. The plaintiffs in this case are former residents of Boston's Old West End who were forced to relocate when their homes were taken by eminent domain for urban renewal. That they are being denied this preference in a new development called West End Place because most former West Enders are white. The background facts are undisputed. The plan was approved as required under Massachusetts law. Luxury 1The BRA is an entity established by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to undertake urban renewal projects and to relieve housing shortages. The new buildings were either nonresidential or so expensive that very few of the former West Enders could afford to occupy them. A proposal was submitted by the Lowell Square Cooperative Limited Partnership (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19986600.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The question presented in this appeal is whether Congress validly abrogated the states' Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from claims arising under the disparate impact provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec99/98-6600.man.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> The question presented in this appeal is whether Congress validly abrogated the states' Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from claims arising under the disparate impact provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. <A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec99/98-6600.man.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> The question presented in this appeal is whether Congress validly abrogated the states' Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from claims arising under the disparate impact provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. <A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="596"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19986600.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The question presented in this appeal is whether Congress validly abrogated the states' Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from claims arising under the disparate impact provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19986598.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The lawsuit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The factual and procedural history surrounding this case are straightforward. An English only Amendment to the Alabama Constitution was ratified. Amendment 509 states: English is the official language of the state of Alabama. The legislature and officials of the state of Alabama shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama is preserved and enhanced. Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the state of Alabama shall have standing to sue the state of Alabama to enforce this amendment. The courts of record of the state of Alabama shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this provision. Other interpretive aids were officially forbidden. Naming Sandoval as the representative of the class of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0434p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was not appointed to the new position as the Director of Schools for the county system following the publication of a newspaper article which announced that he would be the featured speaker at a convention sponsored by a church with a predominantly homosexual congregation. Scarbrough was elected superintendent of Morgan County Schools. Five candidates were selected by the TSBA for the Board's consideration. Were among these five candidates. Scarbrough was unaware at the time that Metro had a predominantly gay and lesbian congregation. Ultimately he was unable to accept the invitation and so declined. The article further stated that Metro was a predominantly gay and lesbian Christian church. Randy Harlan became concerned that Scarbrough was putting the school's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/05/96-4192.htm">96-4192 -- BARNEY V. PULSIPHER -- 05/01/1998<BR></A><BR>
Kathy Christensen and Susan Barney were on separate occasions sexually assaulted by jailer Gerald Pulsipher. The two actions were consolidated. Women inmates at Box Elder County Jail are placed in solitary confinement in a cell specifically designated for females. The female cell is eight by eight feet in dimension. The door to the cell contains a small window which is covered by a manilla envelope taped to the outside of the door. Below the covered window is a small opening with a trap door which is used to provide inmates a food tray. The cell is located on the first floor of the jail adjacent to the jail officer's desk. Christensen were confined at Box Elder County Jail. They each allege the following inadequate conditions: <p> The mattress was soiled and torn. There was no clean place for plaintiffs to place their clothing when they went to bed. Shower fixtures and soap were dirty. There was profanity scribbled on the walls of the cell. The lighting was inadequate and the air in the cell during the summer months when the plaintiffs were confined there.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov99/98-6598.man.html">SANDOVAL V. HAGAN (11/30/1999, NO. 98-6598)<BR></A><BR>
The lawsuit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. We affirm the district court's judgment.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The factual and procedural history surrounding this case are straightforward. An English only Amendment to the Alabama Constitution was ratified. Amendment 509 states:</P> <P> English is the official language of the state of Alabama. The legislature and officials of the state of Alabama shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama is preserved and enhanced. The legislature shall make no law which diminishes or ignores the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama.</P> <P> Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the state of Alabama shall have standing to sue the state of Alabama to enforce this amendment. The courts of record of the state of Alabama shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this provision. Other interpretive aids were officially forbidden. Naming Sandoval as the representative of the class of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/96a0025p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. The Question Presented This is a direct criminal appeal by a convicted Tennessee state judge. Section 242 was adopted as a codification of prior law in 1874 during the period of Reconstruction in the aftermath of the Civil War. It criminalizes without any further definition the willful
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov99/98-6598.man.html">SANDOVAL V. HAGAN (11/30/1999, NO. 98-6598)<BR></A><BR>
The lawsuit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. We affirm the district court's judgment.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The factual and procedural history surrounding this case are straightforward. An English only Amendment to the Alabama Constitution was ratified. Amendment 509 states:</P> <P> English is the official language of the state of Alabama. The legislature and officials of the state of Alabama shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama is preserved and enhanced. The legislature shall make no law which diminishes or ignores the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama.</P> <P> Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the state of Alabama shall have standing to sue the state of Alabama to enforce this amendment. The courts of record of the state of Alabama shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this provision. Other interpretive aids were officially forbidden. Naming Sandoval as the representative of the class of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1998/98a1939p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm in part and reverse in part the district court's denial of qualified immunity and will remand the case to the district court for further proceedings. Larsen was elected to a ten year term on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court beginning in January 1978. Those claims are the subject 1. Notified Larsen that he was ineligible to receive retirement medical benefits as of June 3. Judge or justice of the peace who is suspended or removed from office. . . .
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1998/98a1939a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm in part and reverse in part the district court's denial of qualified immunity and will remand the case to the district court for further proceedings. Larsen was elected to a ten year term on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court beginning in January 1978. Those claims are the subject of separate appeals before this court and thus we do not address them in this opinion. Notified Larsen that he was ineligible to receive retirement medical benefits as of June 3. Judge or justice of the peace who is suspended or removed from office. . . .
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972609.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
One of the prerequisites for obtaining a concealed handgun permit under the North Carolina Concealed Handgun Statute is completion of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2320.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Tax assessment is not an exact science. The outcomes are rarely popular. Local assessors must make difficult judgments based on uncertain valuations with the knowledge that higher tax bills are more likely to produce complaints of unfair treatment than thank you cards. After learning that the Nation purchased the Ranch for $25 million and that Ranch income was largely derived from elk hunting and related activities. The effect was to increase the Nation's property tax bill by over $110. The Nation advances the theory that it is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0341p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a misspelling. The correct spelling will be used throughout this opinion. 1 1 No. 03 3841 Boone v. Page 2 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="592"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19986598.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The lawsuit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. I. The factual and procedural history surrounding this case are straightforward. An English only Amendment to the Alabama Constitution was ratified. Amendment 509 states: English is the official language of the state of Alabama. The legislature and officials of the state of Alabama shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama is preserved and enhanced. Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the state of Alabama shall have standing to sue the state of Alabama to enforce this amendment. The courts of record of the state of Alabama shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this provision. Other interpretive aids were officially forbidden. Naming Sandoval as the representative of the class of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199914563.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We consider the question whether a former employee as against a current employee or an applicant is eligible to file suit under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). Robinson mandates the conclusion that Gonzales is no longer good law and must be deemed overruled. Appellant is eligible to file suit under Title I. Who was then the manager of a K Mart store in Tampa. Employees who are disabled due to a mental illness may receive salary replacement benefits for two years. After which K Mart responded by filing a motion to dismiss on two grounds: (1) that appellant was not within the protective ambit of § 12112(a) because. He was not a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="589"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011502.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). Which contends that it has not engaged in the misconduct attributed to the major tobacco manufacturers and was not sued by any of the States. Asserts that it will be unjustly burdened by the requirements of the Master Settlement Agreement and the legislation that Virginia enacted pursuant to the agreement. Which was known as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr98/96-9114.man.html">ARRINGTON V. COBB COUNTY (4/24/1998, NO. 96-9114)<BR></A><BR>
Because this appeal is from the district court's grant of summary judgement. Arrington oversaw the development of an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) program that soon
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="587"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr98/96-9114.man.html">ARRINGTON V. COBB COUNTY (4/24/1998, NO. 96-9114)<BR></A><BR>
Because this appeal is from the district court's grant of summary judgement. Arrington oversaw the development of an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) program that soon
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan95/94-8097.html">PARKS V. CITY OF WARNER ROBINS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Parks v. The district court held that the anti nepotism policy is constitutional. BACKGROUND<p> <p> Plaintiff appellant Brenda Parks is a Sergeant in the Special Investigative Unit of the Warner Robins Police Department. Anti nepotism.<p> <p> (a) <i>Definitions.</i>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0824n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm the judgment of the district court dismissing the Plaintiffs' federal claims. Which is not a party to this action. Stating that he was doing business as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062241pa.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
They moved for a Plaintiffs are Marakay Rogers. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court. A political body is qualified as a political party when one of its candidates obtains a 2% level of support in the preceding general election. Is hereby declared to be a political party within the State. Minor political parties are political parties with registered membership of less than 15% of the state wide registration for all political parties.2 Political parties. The Republican and Democrat candidates must get a prescribed number of signatures A minor political party is defined in 25 PA. STAT. § 2872.2 as a: political party . . . whose State wide registration is less than fifteen per centum of the combined State wide registration for all State wide political parties as of the close of the registration period immediately preceding the most recent November election. 3 2 from individuals who are members of their respective parties. The winner of a plurality of votes in the primary is placed on the general election ballot as the candidate of his or her respective party.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2001/99-14563.opn.html">JOHNSON V. K MART CORP. (11/21/2001, NO. 99-14563)<BR></A><BR>
We consider the question whether a former employee as against a current employee or an applicant is eligible to file suit under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200515199.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are these: On June 6. Marcine Cofer was attacked in her apartment and beaten and robbed by three men. She was taken by Detective Robinson to the police station to look at pictures to attempt to identify the third assailant. William Sweet was standing nearby and saw her leave the detective. Sharon was watching television in the living room of Cofer's apartment when she heard a loud kick on the apartment door. Who was sleeping in the bedroom. Sweet's face was partially covered by a pair of pants. Six shots were fired. Sharon were shot in the thigh. Felicia was shot in the hand and in the abdomen. Sweet was convicted of first degree murder. Sweet's conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. The motion was denied. While the appeal of his state post conviction motion was pending. That petition also was denied on June 13. Concluding that the motion 3 was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062241p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
They moved for a Plaintiffs are Marakay Rogers. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court. A political body is qualified as a political party when one of its candidates obtains a 2% level of support in the preceding general election. Is hereby declared to be a political party within the State. Minor political parties are political parties with registered membership of less than 15% of the state wide registration for all political parties.2 Political parties. The Republican and Democrat candidates must get a prescribed number of signatures A minor political party is defined in 25 PA. STAT. § 2872.2 as a: political party . . . whose State wide registration is less than fifteen per centum of the combined State wide registration for all State wide political parties as of the close of the registration period immediately preceding the most recent November election. 3 2 from individuals who are members of their respective parties. The winner of a plurality of votes in the primary is placed on the general election ballot as the candidate of his or her respective party.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan95/94-8097.html">PARKS V. CITY OF WARNER ROBINS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Parks v. The district court held that the anti nepotism policy is constitutional. BACKGROUND<p> <p> Plaintiff appellant Brenda Parks is a Sergeant in the Special Investigative Unit of the Warner Robins Police Department. Anti nepotism.<p> <p> (a) <i>Definitions.</i>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/10/982707P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Rouse was convicted of second degree murder in Iowa and incarcerated there. He was transferred to the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Stillwater on March 31. Because some complaints were incomprehensible. Because it threatens prison security in the event an inmate is dissatisfied with a hired inmate's work product. Rouse indicated he was generally dissatisfied with his placement at Stillwater. While the transfer request was being processed. Rouse was transferred to the Iowa Department of Corrections on October 27. Benson's only involvement in the transfer was to sign the paperwork. Rouse was acting as a behind the scenes agitator. Whether these gatherings related to Native American spiritual practices or whether they were simply social. Security reasons prohibit inmates from congregating in the cell halls. 3 Lanz has continued to maintain that although Rouse claims to have drafted the initial complaint in an action brought by other inmates against prison officials entitled Chambers. Lanz was not aware of this lawsuit at the time the September 26.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTAwNTBfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-0050_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Before defendants were served. He was and remains in the custody of the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS). The following are the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19948097.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND is constitutional. Plaintiff appellant Brenda Parks is a Sergeant in the Special Investigative Unit of the Warner Robins Police Department.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan96/94-7024.man.html">WHITE V. ALABAMA<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>White v. Are elected to office in at large partisan elections.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan96/94-7024.man.html">WHITE V. ALABAMA<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>White v. Are elected to office in at large partisan elections.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/10/962921P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Murphy alleged that he was wrongfully terminated by the Arkansas Employment Security Department on account of his race and age in violation of Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Arguing they are entitled to Eleventh Amendment and qualified immunity. Recognizing that his entire lawsuit was thus in jeopardy. The district court issued a June 19 order rejecting defendants' claim of Eleventh Amendment immunity and reinstating Murphy's § 1983 equal protection claims on the ground that defendants are not entitled to summary judgment dismissing those claims on qualified immunity grounds. A. We agree with defendants that we lack jurisdiction over Murphy's cross appeal.2 The May 9 order was an appealable final order. The combined effect of both orders is a non appealable grant of partial summary judgment dismissing some of Murphy's claims. We have jurisdiction over defendants' appeal only if it is a proper interlocutory appeal of the Eleventh Amendment and qualified immunity rulings. We have jurisdiction over Murphy's cross appeal only if it is properly pendent to the interlocutory appeal.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200511/04-5190b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With them on the briefs were Gary S. Price were on the brief for amici curiae District of Columbia Affairs Section of the District of Columbia Bar. With him on the brief were Peter D. Were on the brief of appellee Commonwealth of Virginia. Were on the brief for appellee State of Maryland. PER CURIAM: The local government of the District of Columbia is prohibited by Congress from imposing a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2001/99-14563.opn.html">JOHNSON V. K MART CORP. (11/21/2001, NO. 99-14563)<BR></A><BR>
We consider the question whether a former employee as against a current employee or an applicant is eligible to file suit under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6062.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs are employees of the City of Altus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. Approximately 29 City employees are Hispanic. All Plaintiffs are Hispanic and bilingual. Received a complaint that because Street Department employees were speaking Spanish. Other employees could not understand what was being said on <hr> the City radio. Sanchez was particularly concerned that his subordinates. The letter informed Nettles that employees had not been given proper notice if this was a new administrative policy and questioned whether Willis and the City had followed proper procedures in implementing the new policy. Sanchez reported that Willis had told him that the reason Hispanics speak Spanish
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="585"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2002a/011068.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Certain women who have had abortions allegedly without giving informed consent contend that denial of their right to recover damages under New Jersey's Wrongful Death Act violates the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. We have previously rejected such a claim. Accordingly will affirm the District Court's dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiffs may have legal recourse in the nature of a damages claim under New Jersey law. An issue they have not raised here. I. The principal plaintiffs are women who have had abortions in New Jersey allegedly without their informed consent. Violates the equal protection and due process rights of women who have had abortions. Two obstetricians are also named plaintiffs. Their direct claims are unclear. Because the doctor's claims are ultimately derivative of the violations alleged by the mother plaintiffs. We will direct our attention to the women's claims. 1 Defendants are New Jersey state and county officials and members of the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="581"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/11/96-3021.htm">96-3021 -- SPRAGUE V. THORN AMERICAS INC. -- 11/24/1997<BR></A><BR>
We have jurisdiction by virtue of 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="581"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may97/93-9345.op2.html">SHAHAR V. BOWERS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Shahar v. 90 L.Ed.2d 735 (1986) (plurality opinion) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="581"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may97/93-9345.op2.html">SHAHAR V. BOWERS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Shahar v. 90 L.Ed.2d 735 (1986) (plurality opinion) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="581"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/11/96-3021a.htm">96-3021A -- SPRAGUE V. THORN AMERICAS INC. -- 11/24/1997<BR></A><BR>
Name of counsel for the appellant is misspelled. M. Kathryn Webb is the correct spelling. <p> Please make the appropriate correction. <p> Very truly yours. We have jurisdiction by virtue of 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1999/985356.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Schurr alleged that race was the determining factor in Resorts' decision not to offer him a job which was ultimately filled by an equally well qualified minority candidate. Has been substituted for Smith. 2 Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by the Commission's regulations establishing minority employment goals. Schurr also alleged that Resorts' affirmative action plan as drafted and applied was invalid. Because we are convinced that the District Court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Schurr's Title VII and other statutory claims. We will reverse that portion of the District Court's Order and remand the matter for further proceedings. We will affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Chairman on standing grounds. Minorities and persons with disabilities are recruited and employed at all levels of the operation's work force and treated during employment without regard to their gender. Equal opportunity efforts are to be undertaken in all employment practices including promotion.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/96-3120.htm">96-3120 -- GOETZ V. GLICKMAN -- 07/10/1998<BR></A><BR>
Is unconstitutional. We affirm.<strong></strong> <p> <strong> <center>Facts and Proceedings Below</strong></center> <p> Goetz filed this class action lawsuit against the Secretary contending that his and other class members' constitutional rights are being violated because they must pay a $1.00 per head
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/507DA99F7D220B6E88257069004DB7FD/$file/0410113.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Given the extent of the fair cross section showing Rodriguez was able to develop even without the help of an expert. RODRIGUEZ LARA counsel would have required the services of an expert for a paying client. Although Rodriguez's Sixth Amendments rights were not violated by the judge's use of a prior conviction to enhance Rodriguez's sentence. This plan must be designed to ensure that litigants have grand and petit juries selected from a fair cross section of the community in the applicable district or division of the district. That no prospective jurors are subject to discrimination on any of several enumerated grounds. The statute contemplates that each district or division will use voter registration lists or the lists of actual voters of the political subdivisions within that district or division. The jury plan for the Eastern District of California provides that names of prospective jurors for the master jury wheel are to be drawn randomly from voter registration records for all counties within the relevant division of the district.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/96-3250.htm">96-3250 -- ANR PIPELINE CO. AND COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS CO. V. LAFAVER -- 07/21/1998<BR></A><BR>
The plaintiffs' suit is not saved by the <u>Ex parte Young</u> doctrine. <p align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug95/94-1016.html">GEHL GROUP V. KOBY<BR></A><BR>
We conclude that Plaintiffs have failed to establish that Defendants abridged their constitutional rights. I. BACKGROUND The FOP is a private national association of law enforcement personnel that engages in a variety of activities to promote the interests of its members. Northern Colorado Lodge No. 3 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1171.html">ROTHE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, V. DEPT OF DEFENSE<BR></A><BR>
Argued</p> <p class=MsoNormal>for plaintiff appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5E964467A3D8845A88256C4B005410C5/$file/9935128.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Appellants are the owners of a former Seattle nightclub known at one time as the Celebrity. In fact were racially motivated. They also contend that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague and overly broad. Appellants have brought federal law claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983. 1985 and 1986 and have asserted a variety of state law claims. We hold that the district court correctly ruled that acts falling outside of the limitations period are time barred. We hold that appellants have alleged one discrete act occurring within the limitations period the decision by the City to withdraw its offer to settle its abatement action against appellants. The court should have considered the City's time barred acts against appellants. Because appellants have created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the City discriminated on account of viewpoint or race. That appellants do not have standing to assert claims on behalf of their former patrons or to obtain declaratory relief and that appellants' claims under § 1986 are time barred.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1271_021.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0024p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Radvansky was arrested by Telegdy and Saxer after breaking into a house. In which he was renting a room. Despite the officers' pre existing knowledge that he was currently involved in a dispute with his landlord. Radvansky was placed under arrest for burglary. Finding that there was probable cause for the arrest. Because it concluded there was no constitutional violation. Both in determining that there was probable cause to arrest Radvansky and that Telegdy and Saxer were entitled to qualified immunity. The decision below is REVERSED with respect to the Fourth Amendment claim against Telegdy and Saxer but AFFIRMED in all other respects on other grounds. Pursuant to an oral agreement whereby he paid Rosemark $450 in rent each month.1 Radvansky has stated that his rent was fully paid. Despite recognizing that this was a civil dispute between the two parties. Informing 1 Radvansky has claimed throughout the litigation that his tenancy was pursuant to an oral lease agreement. Radvansky has argued that the oral lease is enforceable through the doctrine of part performance.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3193.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was suspended from school for possessing a cigarette on school grounds. Timijane Martin was a seventh grader at the Shawano Community Middle School. Telling Marinack that she was holding the cigarette for 1 Also in the locker was a book entitled
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/10/97-1011.htm">97-1011 -- PRESSEL V. STATE OF COLORADO -- 10/09/1998<BR></A><BR>
White was not in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Alleging he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Counsel was ordered to address specifically the constitutional implications of the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1211.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This Order and Judgment is not binding precedent. Smith was convicted of a prison disciplinary offense and. Lost his minimum wage prison job and was reclassified to administrative segregation. 2) treating him differently than other inmates whose disciplinary conviction was expunged. Smith's claims were barred (1) To the extent that Mr. Smith is also asserting a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/03/012032P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He argues that because his conviction was expunged under Texas law. It is not a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/04/943578P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Robert Arnold (the Inmates) are prisoners housed in Missouri's Jefferson City Correctional Center's (JCCC) administrative segregation unit.1 brought separate 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions They *THE HONORABLE ALFRED T. Plaintiff Michael Saunders' action was dismissed under Rule 41(a) on December 17. I. JCCC is a maximum security prison housing approximately 2000 of Missouri's most dangerous criminals. housing categories: general administrative segregation. number of privileges. Prisoners are assigned to three protective custody. We reverse the General population allows inmates the greatest Inmates in general population may have food. Are allowed to attend group religious services. Have telephone access. Have recreation with others. Inmates in protective custody have much the same privileges as general population inmates. Administrative setting. segregation is the most restrictive confinement Protective custody inmates have canteen privileges For their own and others' safety. Inmates in administrative Administrative segregation inmates have very few segregation are housed in individual cells and kept separate from all other inmates at all times. privileges.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1998/98a1936p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
4) the district court's ruling that the verdict was not against the great weight of the evidence. Professor David Campbell was named chair of the Education Department at the University. After concluding that Edwards was teaching from a non approved syllabus. Professor Edwards's schedule was rearranged. He was assigned to teach an additional course
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3858_013.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sellars is entitled to a Gary Firefighter Service Pension. He applied for and was granted early receipt of his pension benefits. Alleging that his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment were violated and that the City breached the original settlement agreement by denying him health care benefits. Although retirees were permitted to participate in Gary's health insurance plan in 1997. Gary claimed that even if Sellars was eligible. Summary judgment is inappropriate if there is a genuine issue of material fact. A plaintiff may allege an equal protection class of one violation when discrimination or unequal treatment is not based on membership in a particular class or group. 564 (2000) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D2F7EAB6A6DF348E88256EED006D5274/$file/0235232.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Potter is substituted for his predecessor. Willard Johnson are homeless persons in Seattle. They have found it difficult to receive mail. Although some homeless shelters will accept mail on behalf of residents. They will only hold mail for a limited time and mail theft in shelters is a recurring problem. 1994).1 No fee postal boxes are available to customers who are ineligible for carrier delivery service. The regulation has since been changed to require an applicant to have a verifiable point of contact even if he or she provides proper identification or is known to the postmaster or box clerk. 2001). 2 The regulation has since been changed to require the customer seeking a no fee box to have a physical address. No fee boxes are unavailable in large cities such as Seattle because the Postal Service delivers mail to all physical addresses in the area. All general delivery mail is sent to one designated facility in Seattle. The mail is held for pickup at a designated post office for thirty days. General delivery service is intended primarily to serve as a temporary means of delivery.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DCCC7574321C3BF788256CA20064A5F3/$file/0016568.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We do not decide whether use of the prior findings at least in some fashion was improper use of judicial notice. We conclude the procedure adopted here was flawed because it did not meet the requirements of our fair notice doctrine. TERHUNE 5 While appeal of that dismissal was pending. We have discretion to remand a case to the district court for further consideration when new laws likely to influence a decision have become effective during the pendency of an appeal. Whether the PLRA exhaustion requirement is a defense or a pleading requirement is an issue of first impression in this Circuit. We adopt the rule of the majority of circuits and hold that it is a defense that must be raised and proved by the defendant. Facts and Procedural Background Wyatt is an inmate incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison in Ione. Defendants do not dispute that Wyatt's religious beliefs are sincerely held or that dreadlocks are a means of practicing the Rastafarian religion. TERHUNE are not subject to the same regulations.2 Wyatt has been disciplined by prison officials for refusing to comply with the regulations.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/12/041017P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is a retired public school employee and a participant in the teacher retirement program administered by the Arkansas State and Public School Life and Health Insurance Board (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1155.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nevares</U> was on brief. PSC</U> was on brief. <U>Chief Judge</U>.</STRONG></FONT><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1405.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> Plaintiff Appellant Ronald Fogle. As Fogle was granted in forma pauperis (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/10/01-1556.htm">01-1556 -- BODY V. WATKINS -- 10/16/2002<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Petitioner Kennith L. Body's post conviction claims in the Colorado Courts is sufficiently long to avoid the exhaustion requirement.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/09/013210P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Seeking a declaratory judgment that the Minnesota statutory scheme for dispersing state and federal funds to assist battered women and victims of domestic abuse is unconstitutional. An order was entered taking the motion with the case and denying the alternative request for a prehearing conference. The appellants argue to this court that they have standing as state taxpayers4 to sue in federal court to prevent the defendants Minnesota state officials from food. There is a genuine issue as to appellants' standing. The Supreme Court ruled that a federal taxpayer's interest in United States treasury funds is too small and indeterminable to give that taxpayer standing to sue in federal court. The Supreme Court determined that a state taxpayer did not have standing in federal court to challenge a state statute that required a Bible reading at the opening of each public school day as a violation of the Establishment Clause. The Court reasoned that the plaintiffs did not allege that the Bible reading
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/12/97-7098.htm">97-7098 -- SOUTHERN DISPOSAL INC. V. TEXAS WASTE MANAGEMENT -- 12/02/1998<BR></A><BR>
The City notified Southern Disposal it was no longer authorized to collect trash within the city limits after March 31. Southern Disposal filed suit. <p> The district court first addressed the federal questions involved to determine if federal jurisdiction was appropriate. Because no property right was implicated and both parties were granted fair and equal opportunity to participate in the competitive bidding process. <p> <u><strong></u></strong> Appellant argues on appeal: (1) the district court erroneously ruled that Southern Disposal's complaint fails to state any antitrust violation pertaining to the solid waste disposal market for Choctaw County. (2) the actions of the Defendants are not exempt from antitrust scrutiny because the Oklahoma legislature is constitutionally prohibited from articulating a state policy to permit displacement of all competition in the solid waste management business. The standard of review is <em>de novo</em>. <em> See Chemical Weapons Working Group. We will uphold a dismissal on this basis
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-8051.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <hr> The question in this case is whether three Wyoming statutes unconstitutionally limit equal access to hunting opportunities for nonresidents. We find that it is moot in light of Section 6063 of House Bill 1268. Schutz is not alone in finding Wyoming an enticing place to hunt big game. The first is a Fee Statute. The second is a Quota Statute. Schutz applied for a 2003 license to hunt bighorn sheep but decided against applying for elk or deer licenses because <hr> the licenses were too expensive. He was unwilling to hire a professional guide or find a resident guide. Finding that Schutz did not have standing to challenge the Guide Statute and that the Quota and Fee Statutes did not violate his constitutional rights. The statutes create special preferences for Wyoming residents in three ways: (1) in state hunting licenses are cheaper. (2) more licenses are allocated to residents. (3) residents are exempt from a requirement that hunters in wilderness areas obtain a guide. 1. The fee difference is applicable to every species of big and trophy game.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1277_019.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It is a small hospital. Coy was not one of the Hospital's employees. The district judge proceeded as if this were a tort suit. Coy was an independent contractor. The proposition about the limits of vicarious liability is incontestable. It is also irrelevant. Because liability under Title VII is direct rather than derivative. That an employer is answerable under Title VII only for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/016603.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Veney claims that defendants denied his requests to move from his single occupancy cell into a doubleoccupancy cell because he is a homosexual male. Because we agree with the district court that even if all of Veney's allegations were true. After several requests to switch into a double occupancy cell were denied. Were discriminating against him because he is a homosexual male. White ruled that Veney was not being discriminated against. Veney claims that he is being treated differently from similarly situated heterosexual males and homosexual females. Are housed in double occupancy cells at Riverside. The district court is required to review any
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/04/951107P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(3) the State of Minnesota was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6AE2E7FAA0B6F34188256CD8005C607E/$file/0156436.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on the brief. I Garrison Johnson is an African American prisoner in the California Department of Corrections (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6A5D23B95CEB5FF388256C3D005A101D/$file/0016568.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We do not decide whether use of the prior findings at least in some fashion was improper use of judicial notice. We conclude the procedure adopted here was flawed because it did not meet the requirements of our fair notice doctrine. TERHUNE 14715 While appeal of that dismissal was pending. We have discretion to remand a case to the district court for further consideration when new laws likely to influence a decision have become effective during the pendency of an appeal. Whether the PLRA exhaustion requirement is a defense or a pleading requirement is an issue of first impression in this Circuit. We adopt the rule of the majority of circuits and hold that it is a defense that must be raised and proved by the defendant. Facts and Procedural Background Wyatt is an inmate incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison in Ione. Defendants do not dispute that Wyatt's religious beliefs are sincerely held or that dreadlocks are a means of practicing the Rastafarian religion. TERHUNE are not subject to the same regulations.2 Wyatt has been disciplined by prison officials for refusing to comply with the regulations.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1998/98a1961p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Or (2) the benefit level the family would have been eligible to receive in their prior state had they not moved to Pennsylvania. They became eligible for public assistance benefits but were 2 informed that the cash benefits allowance available to them would be substantially lower than the benefits provided to similarly situated long term Pennsylvania residents.1 Shortly thereafter. I. The relevant facts of this case are for the most part undisputed. Governing public assistance benefits to eligible families that have resided in Pennsylvania for less than one year. An eligible family's cash assistance benefits are limited to the lesser of (1) the benefit level that family 1. Pennsylvanians with a twelve month residence were eligible for cash benefits of $836 but the Maldonado family. Was eligible for cash benfits of only $304 per month. The amount they would have been allowed in Puerto Rico. 3 would have received in its prior state of residence. Especially relevant to this appeal is Section 604(c) of the PRWORA.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="568"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5CA19A1CA157C7B388256C62007C7A8C/$file/0135762.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
§ 2737 is an unconstitutional bill of attainder and denies SeaRiver due process and equal pro 6 SEARIVER MARITIME FINANCIAL HOLDINGS v. We hold that § 2737 is not an unconstitutional bill of attainder because it does not punish SeaRiver. Nor is § 2737 inconsistent with the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection because there is a rational basis for Congress to have concluded that excluding the Exxon Valdez from Prince William Sound would further the legitimate purpose of protecting the Sound's environment from future oil spills. It was constructed at a cost of $125 million for the purpose of carrying oil from the Alaska North Slope to United States oil refineries. It is undisputed that the ship ran aground as a result of the actions of its master and crew. Congress recognized that Prince William Sound is an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-3372.html">PREWITT V. MSPB<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="566"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-3643.html">CARPENTER, ET AL V. MSPB & USPS<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9106D5527BB5A3CC88256D95005CD829/$file/0215483.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is race based. 528 U.S. 495. Violate the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it restricts benefits to only those classified as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2004/033388p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/96-3250a.htm">96-3250A -- ANR PIPELINE CO. AND COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS CO. V. LAFAVER -- 07/21/1998<BR></A><BR>
Is a <p> member of the firm Morris. Two and three of the opinion are attached for your convenience. <p> Sincerely. The plaintiffs' suit is not saved by the <u>Ex parte Young</u> doctrine. <p align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D2D4CBF690CD61A6882571560001FEBD/$file/0457037.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appellant in this action is a sophomore at Poway High School who was ordered not to wear a T shirt to school that read.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053516np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging racial profiling in a traffic stop. The plaintiff is an African American Pennsylvania State Trooper who was driving his personal automobile while off duty. The defendants are two Caucasian York County Deputy Sheriffs who made the traffic stop. We will affirm the final judgment in favor of Hose and the County. We will affirm in part and vacate in part the final judgment in favor of Nestlerode and Kerr. Will remand for a new trial on Christopher's Fourth Amendment claim on the basis of error in 2 the District Court's jury instruction. We do not reach the York Defendants' cross appeal and will dismiss it. Christopher was driving in the right hand lane of a two lane. Nestlerode was driving a marked car in the left hand lane and training Kerr in traffic enforcement. The road surface was wet from a light rain. Parked cars were present. There were no pedestrians on the street. Nestlerode made an immediate estimate that it was traveling at between fifty and fifty five miles per hour.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/11/00-7137.htm">00-7137 -- MAXEY V. BANKS -- 11/21/2001<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff Shirley Maxey. We affirm. <p> <center>I. </center> <p> Plaintiff is a black resident of Muskogee. Frix are police officers employed by the Police Department of the City of Muskogee. Claiming that they failed to properly investigate the shooting death of her son because he was black. Plaintiff claims that defendants thereby violated her rights to due process and equal protection because they failed to provide her with the same type of police services that are provided to other residents of Muskogee. Finding that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to plaintiff's due process and equal protection claims and that plaintiff failed to put forth sufficient evidence to establish that the police department had a policy or custom of failing to investigate the deaths of blacks. <p> <center>II. </center> <p>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/04/023987P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Background Federer was the Republican Party candidate for Congress in Missouri's Third Congressional District in the November 2000 general election. Gephardt was Federer's Democratic Party opponent and the incumbent Representative. Federer alleges that the break ins were committed by the defendants in order to prevent Federer from
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0241p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Factual background At issue in this case is whether MHSAA's scheduling of athletic seasons and tournaments for six girls' sports basketball. All of these sports are scheduled during the nontraditional season (meaning a season of the year that differs from when the sport is typically played). Although Lower Peninsula girls' golf is played in the spring the traditional season for golf the fall season. Is more advantageous. No boys' sports are scheduled in nonadvantageous seasons. Girls have historically played in the less advantageous seasons because of the way that high school athletics developed in Michigan. That
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961614.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That order was made pursuant to the district court's exercise of jurisdiction following state court proceedings after we ordered abstention according to the doctrine promulgated in Burford v. I. We are very familiar with the factual background underlying this action and will not recite it in full yet again. That were annexed by the Town in 1978 pursuant to the order of a Virginia Annexation Court. The last time IPC was before us. We envisioned that IPC should seek whatever remedy was appropriate under Virginia's Annexation Court scheme as well as whatever other state remedies might be available. § 11 to those who have been unlawfully deprived of their property. Id. at 764 65. 1 IPC's case was consolidated with a companion case filed the same day by Fred and Gladys McLaughlin. Fred McLaughlin was the sole shareholder of IPC. 2 Although we previously labeled the various decisions in this lengthy litigation differently. This is far from a normal case. We believe it is necessary to address whether federal jurisdiction remains given the events and court dispositions that have transpired in the interim. 4 A.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2214.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
David Efron with whom Law Offices of David Efron was on brief for appellant. Figueroa Baez was on brief for appellees. The three physicians were affili ated with the University of Puerto Rico Medical School (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0438p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
William Leslie were employees of the Kentucky Department of Parks. They were terminated from employment in May 2004 for failing to comply with the Department's dress code. I. The district court set forth the following relevant facts in its opinion granting summary judgment: The Plaintiffs were seasonal workers employed to perform maintenance services at the General Burnside State Park during the summer months. That we are working hard to eliminate the deficit associated with operating the State Parks. . . . [I]t is may [sic] small details that we must pay attention to in order to attract tourists to our Parks and provide them outstanding experience that will make them want to come back and visit with us. We have implemented a new professional appearance policy that ALL employees must adhere to at each Park location. Or wrist bands are approved ways to cover). Please be advised that there are no exceptions to this policy. . . . Failure to comply with the new policy is clearly insubordination. It is your role as park managers to ensure that ALL employees comply with Park policies.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/02/00-1423.htm">00-1423 -- SAVE PALISADE FRUITLANDS V. TODD -- 02/07/2002<BR></A><BR>
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado concluded that there was no denial of equal protection. Subsection 1(2) of the Colorado Constitution provides in part that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1997/97a1576p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The question before us is whether such requirements are lawful. We conclude that they are. Thus will affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Appellees. While this appeal was pending. The Rule now states that no person shall practice law in this State unless that person is an attorney. Is in good standing. Maintains a bona fide office for the practice of law in this State regardless of where the attorney is domiciled. A summer home that is unattended during a substantial portion of the year. An answering service unrelated to a place where business is conducted. It is a place where clients are met. Files are kept. The telephone is answered. Mail is received and the attorney or a responsible person acting on the attorney's behalf can be reached in person and by telephone during normal business hours to answer questions posed by the courts. The bona fide office requirement is the successor to New Jersey's more stringent residency requirement for members of the New Jersey bar.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/05/001168P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Kenneth Yackly are employees of the Minnesota Department of Corrections assigned to the correctional facility in Shakopee. Which we will refer to as MCFS. They sought a declaratory judgment that their discipline was illegal and unconstitutional. We will hereafter refer to them collectively as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200411063.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: At issue in this class action lawsuit is whether the City of Thomasville School District (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="561"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/03/01-7103.htm">01-7103 -- ABDULHASEEB V. SAFFLE -- 03/27/2003<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="559"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec95/93-9345.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="559"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1996/96a1466p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Facts and Procedural History Ann Stehney is a mathematician. The Institute is a private think tank that conducts cryptological research the making and breaking of secret codes as a contractor for the National Security Agency. NSA must ensure that access to classified information is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="559"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0262a-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The following facts are drawn from Smith's complaint. Smith is and has been. Smith biologically and by birth a male is a transsexual and has been diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="559"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0160p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The following facts are drawn from Smith's complaint. Smith is and has been. Smith biologically and by birth a male is a transsexual and has been diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="559"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0266p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
All of whom are government officials. One count is devoted to federal law and another to state law. Substantive Facts The district court stated the background facts that gave rise to this case as follows: The plaintiffs in this case are a Michigan circuit judge. Nor have plaintiffs moved yet for class certification. Plaintiffs purport to represent all active and retired Michigan judges who are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="559"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec95/93-9345.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="559"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/55878096EDFC3D768825723E005ED46B/$file/0417033.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The initiative is adopted. The Nevada Constitution is amended. Thousands of signatures were disqualified because they did not satisfy two non signature requirements. Only the former of which is before this court on appeal. It would have done so had the Committee prevailed on its three challenges. The Committee's injury was therefore redressable when the Committee filed suit. As in the other election cases we have decided. The challenged action here is too short in duration to enable full litigation on the merits. There is a reasonable expectation that the Committee will again be subject to the challenged 13 Counties Rule. HELLER 19293 Counties Rule is unconstitutional.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="557"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3064.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was hired as a program administrator by the IDNR in 1991. She was paid the second highest salary among the four program administrators. Were male. Her direct supervisor was Richard Little. He was constrained by the IDNR's Merit Compensation Guidelines. Was Mr. Hildebrandt's salary was less than all three of the other program administrators. Although all three raises were within the IDNR's Merit Compensation Guidelines for the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june98/97-2868.man.html">RIVERA V. ALLIN (6/23/1998, NO. 97-2868)<BR></A><BR>
That is. DISCUSSION</CENTER> </P> <P> Leave to proceed IFP is. The general rule is that initiating parties must prepay a filing fee. <EM>See</EM> 28 U.S.C.A. § 1914(a) (West Supp.1998). By a person who makes affidavit that he is unable to pay such costs or give security thereof.</P> <P>28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (1994).</P> <P> On April 26. 385 (5th Cir.1996) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/09/99-8098.htm">99-8098 -- YALOWIZER V. TOWN OF RANCHESTER WYOMING -- 09/05/2001<BR></A><BR>
The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiffs David and Joe Yalowizer brought this action pursuant to 42 . We affirm. <p> <center><strong>I.</strong></center> <p> Because the basic facts are relevant to the district court's grant of summary judgment. Owned residential property in Ranchester that was zoned to allow
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/12/992344P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jurisdiction was proper in the district court based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. Jurisdiction is proper in this court based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 3 1 Background The following is a summary of the essential background facts. An ordinance was passed by the City which essentially adopted PAS's recommendations. Police officers were assigned to pay grade 14. Their hourly wages were calculated by dividing the weekly pay assigned to them by 42.5. While the hourly wages for other grade 14 employees were calculated by dividing their respective weekly pay by 40.2 The weekly pay was calculated based upon a set annual rate of pay. All City employees are paid bi weekly. Police officers are paid based upon the number of hours worked in a pay period. The number of hours worked is also used to compute their overtime pay. The City adjusted police officers' work hours to reflect a 42.5 hour work week because the police officers have to be available to work during the half hour per day when they normally take their lunch break.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb96/94-8919.opa.html">STRICKLAND V. ALDERMAN<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Strickland v. Subdivisions in Jesup were subject to an ordinance that required each subdivision lot to have water and sewer connections. It was not subject to Jesup's subdivision ordinance. Did not have water and sewer connections. City officials informed Strickland that he was in violation of the city's subdivision ordinance and revoked his subdivision license. Wayne Terrace's subdivision privileges were reinstated.<p> Under the terms of the settlement agreement. Many of these lots were without water and sewer connections. While Conner was filling out the building permit application form. The city informed Strickland that he was in violation of the city's standing water ordinance and also informed him that if he failed to correct the problem he would be issued a citation. He was issued a citation in August 1991. He was the first person to receive a citation for violating the city's standing water ordinance.<p> PROCEDURAL HISTORY<p> <p> On February 26.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-5170.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. He also asserted that his automobile was illegally searched.(1) We affirm summary judgment in favor of Defendant Downs on Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim concerning the stop. As Defendants. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. R. 36.3. (1) Plaintiff also appears to have claimed that Officer Downs should be held liable for attempting to question him without providing the warnings required by Miranda v. Is the suppression of an incriminating statement. Was there simply to obtain a place to stay for the night. We accept Plaintiff's version of the facts: that is. Who was in his police vehicle with Plaintiff. The successful records check may have relied on identification documents contained in the wallet.(3) Plaintiff was later convicted of the rape charges entered in his computer record. The State was dismissed from the action. The magistrate judge to whom the case was referred issued a report. Applying the same standard that the district court should have applied.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></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-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1666.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Were on brief. Were on brief. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june98/97-2868.man.html">RIVERA V. ALLIN (6/23/1998, NO. 97-2868)<BR></A><BR>
That is. DISCUSSION</CENTER> </P> <P> Leave to proceed IFP is. The general rule is that initiating parties must prepay a filing fee. <EM>See</EM> 28 U.S.C.A. § 1914(a) (West Supp.1998). By a person who makes affidavit that he is unable to pay such costs or give security thereof.</P> <P>28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (1994).</P> <P> On April 26. 385 (5th Cir.1996) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></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-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/11/98-6480.htm">98-6480 -- TURNER V. CHAMPION -- 11/15/1999<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Robert Earl Turner. Turner is serving a life sentence with the possibility of parole following a conviction by jury for first degree murder in the District Court for Oklahoma County. We have found that the Act does not create any federal constitutional claim whether ex post facto. Or equal protection for those prisoners seeking resentencing under it and thus have denied habeas relief. <u>See</u> <u>Coggin v. He has not shown that he is a member of a protected class. He has not shown that he was sentenced differently than others convicted at the same time he was convicted. He is not similarly situated to those who committed their crimes after the effective date of the Act.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/04/021915P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an action by Linda and Reginald Johnson against Aaron Crooks. Because she is an African American. We consider whether
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19972868.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That is. DISCUSSION Leave to proceed IFP is. The general rule is that initiating parties must prepay a filing fee. By a person who makes affidavit that he is unable to pay such costs or give security thereof. The same is generally true of the Supreme Court. 385 (5th Cir.1996) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0237p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because we conclude that the district court did not err in holding that the factors the court was required to consider in deciding this motion weigh in favor of the defendants. While chiropractors are the only medical professionals subject to such a rule. Attorneys in Tennessee are similarly prohibited from soliciting accident victims within 30 days of an accident. Alleging that the Rule is an unconstitutional restraint on speech as well as a violation of equal protection because only chiropractors (among medical professionals) are subject to such a limitation. The district court should consider (i) whether the movant is likely to succeed on the merits. (ii) whether the movant will suffer irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction. (iii) whether the injunction will cause substantial harm to others. These factors are not prerequisites but instead must be balanced. We have repeatedly noted that the first factor is frequently dispositive in the First Amendment context. The district court found that Capobianco was unlikely to succeed on the merits of either his First Amendment or Equal Protection challenge.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july99/98-4616.man.html">TEFEL V. RENO (7/14/1999, NO. 98-4616)<BR></A><BR>
(2) the district court's order denying the INS' motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction.</P> <P> Appellees/Plaintiffs (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug95/93-8986.man.html">RATLIFF V. DEKALB CTY.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Ratliff v. Ratliff cross appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity on her first amendment claims.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/860159561E830C2588256EAC00570CA0/$file/9955265.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Claiming he was denied equal protection because. He was not allowed to resume his prison job until after similarly situated inmates of other races. 7294 WALKER v. Jamel Walker is serving a life sentence in the custody of the California Department of Corrections. The prison is made up of four separate facilities or yards A. Walker is housed in Facility A. Walker was assigned to be a clerk in the Facility A Law Library. He was initially paid at an hourly rate of nineteen cents. He now earns the maximum rate of thirty two cents and is Lead Law Library Clerk. Walker asserts that he is not and never has been a gang member. Several Hispanic and black inmates were involved in a fight. As a result of which the prison was placed on lockdown. All prisoners were restricted to their cells and not permitted to exercise. Only Hispanic and black inmates were also excluded from the critical workers list a category of workers approved to continue attending their job assignments despite the lockdown. Walker was not permitted to return to his library assignment until June 1.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug95/93-8986.man.html">RATLIFF V. DEKALB CTY.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Ratliff v. Ratliff cross appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity on her first amendment claims.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb96/94-8919.opa.html">STRICKLAND V. ALDERMAN<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Strickland v. Subdivisions in Jesup were subject to an ordinance that required each subdivision lot to have water and sewer connections. It was not subject to Jesup's subdivision ordinance. Did not have water and sewer connections. City officials informed Strickland that he was in violation of the city's subdivision ordinance and revoked his subdivision license. Wayne Terrace's subdivision privileges were reinstated.<p> Under the terms of the settlement agreement. Many of these lots were without water and sewer connections. While Conner was filling out the building permit application form. The city informed Strickland that he was in violation of the city's standing water ordinance and also informed him that if he failed to correct the problem he would be issued a citation. He was issued a citation in August 1991. He was the first person to receive a citation for violating the city's standing water ordinance.<p> PROCEDURAL HISTORY<p> <p> On February 26.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA2LTAzMzUtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/06-0335-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(iii) the law was not an improper or abusive exercise of town's police power. Is unconstitutional. Contending that it was based on inadmissible evidence. We affirm the judgment in all other respects. 3 BACKGROUND Cross Sound is a Connecticut based corporation that provides interstate ferry service transporting passengers. As well as one high speed ferry that carries only passengers and is capable of traveling at greater speeds than vehicular ferries. Cross Sound's challenge to the law is before us in this appeal. I. Geographical Backdrop Long Island is an island in the Atlantic Ocean that comprises the southeasternmost part of New York State. From which it is separated to the north by Long Island Sound. Suffolk County occupies the easternmost portion of Long Island and is bordered to the west by Nassau County. Which are separated by Shelter Island Sound. The Town of Shelter Island is an island located in between 4 the forks. Traffic volumes on the highway during summers are currently at or near capacity. Traffic on other Town roads during the summer months is rising rapidly at an average rate of 8% per year.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july99/98-4616.man.html">TEFEL V. RENO (7/14/1999, NO. 98-4616)<BR></A><BR>
(2) the district court's order denying the INS' motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction.</P> <P> Appellees/Plaintiffs (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/03/971659P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The FAA later admitted the employees'
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="555"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/025A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Announcing the judgment of the court: Timothy Lanier Allen was convicted of first degree murder in a North Carolina court and sentenced to death. Allen contends (1) that the short form indictment used by the State was unconstitutional. Jail records that indicated Allen was receiving daily doses of anti withdrawal medication. Was in fact not harmless error. Were violated during jury selection in his State trial and that a Batson hearing should be held. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that the North Carolina trial court's instructions on unanimity given to the jury during the sentencing phase was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200211230.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because the ordinance is overbroad and vague. Including a claim that the ordinance is void under the Georgia Constitution because it is a special law that is preempted by a general state law. The term
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/04/00-1094.htm">00-1094 -- CRIDER V. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FO THE COUNTY OF BOULDER -- 04/18/2001<BR></A><BR>
Are the individual owners and occupants of six residential properties on Paradise Lane in unincorporated Boulder County. This lot is adjacent to and north of StorageTek's industrial campus. <p> In 1996. Paradise Lane Owners hoped to have their land annexed into Louisville so they could get a better price for land and move out. They contacted Louisville officials and indicated that they were interested in annexation. <p> Unbeknownst to Paradise Lane Owners. The City of Louisville was negotiating an intergovernmental agreement (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0414p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiff Wanda Birch was hired as a Probate Court magistrate after interviewing with Probate Court Administrator/Magistrate John Polito. Birch was hired as a Release of Assets magistrate and continues to serve in that capacity. The salary survey showed that the average salary of female Probate Court magistrates was lower than the average salary of male Probate Court magistrates. That the highest paid female magistrate was earning less than the lowest paid male magistrate. Birch's salary was revealed to be the lowest of any of the magistrates in any of the divisions of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. Birch then asked Judge Donnelly why she was the lowest paid Magistrate at the court and whether he had a concern about her work.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-5304b.html">FRAT ORDER PLCE V. USA<BR></A><BR>
With him on the <p> briefs were <i>Frank W. Edwards</i> was on the brief for amicus curiae The <p> National Network to End Domestic Violence.<p> <p> Before: Williams. The first was 922(g)(9). Which adds <p> domestic violence misdemeanants
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb95/93-8062.html">SMITH V. LOMAX<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ><title>Smith v. Avarita Hanson.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/02-7077.htm">02-7077 -- LOCAL 514 TRANSPORT WORKER UNION OF AMERICA V. KEATING -- 02/13/2004<BR></A><BR>
1A of the Oklahoma Constitution were preempted by federal law and that any remaining non preempted provision was not severable from the preempted provisions. 1A that were preempted by federal labor law were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0434p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were barred by the statute of limitations. That she had wholly failed to counter the defendants' evidence that she was dismissed from the College of Medicine for purely academic reasons. No. 02 3293 Sheila Bell is an African American woman. Who was admitted to the Ohio State University College of Medicine (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/08/063014P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a lawsuit by three Missouri residents and a non profit advocacy organization. Defendants are the Missouri Secretary of State. Who are sued only in their official capacities. The claims of two individual plaintiffs were dismissed without prejudice at their request. Relief on the merits after rejecting defendants' threshold arguments that the case is moot. That these State officers are not proper defendants. Broadly grants the right to vote to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-3217.html">BRIGGS V. MSPB<BR></A><BR>
Argued for petitioner.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>James C. Argued for respondent.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Martha B. Argued for intervenor.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>David M. Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel were <u>Jeanne E. 2002).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Because Briggs s attacks on the constitutionality of the Hatch Act are not mer
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb95/93-8062.html">SMITH V. LOMAX<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ><title>Smith v. Avarita Hanson.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051356p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm in part. Was appointed Borough Manager of Kutztown in early 1991. ¶¶4. Hill was responsible for the administration of all departments within the Borough. ¶¶1011. The Mayor intensified his attacks on Hill as retaliation for this reporting (and for positions Hill took that were contrary to the Mayor's positions). Hill's employment was the responsibility of the Borough Council. The things Marino was saying. Marino has hurt the borough is in the manner in which he has conducted himself in the bars. He has made many statements in those places of how he is going to get rid of certain council members and plans to have this or that borough employee replaced . . . His statements concerning these individuals are hurting the borough because they . . . are based on false opinions . . . [T]hose statements are hurting the good reputation of our hard working employees. ¶23. Purportedly because of his involvement in certain appointments by [the] Council which the Mayor described as a `plot' that was corrupt and criminal.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0479n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiff appellant Jennifer Lothes was adjudicated to be a delinquent child for committing a felony burglary while still a minor. She was sentenced to not less than six months at an Ohio Department of Youth Services (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200416280.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The issue presented in this appeal is whether Florida's manual recount procedures in those counties employing paperless touchscreen voting machines violate the rights of voters in those counties to equal protection and due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The parties submitted supplementary briefs on the issue of whether the present appeal was rendered moot by either: (1) the passage of the Help America Vote Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2001/00-14188.man.html">ALABAMA V. CONLEY (3/29/2001, NO. 00-14188)<BR></A><BR>
1985 and 1988 and that the action was removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1443. Included among these landowners was Conley. Who is black. Was comprised of 103. Which was located behind its medical building. Was rejected. Which is a large tract of land comprised of many lots. Which was led by ASU's vice president and one of ASU's trustees.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAxLTYyNDgtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/01-6248-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A liberal reading of Dotson's pro se appellate brief suggests that he raises the following challenges to the judgment of dismissal: (1) the district court should not have ruled 2 on the dismissal motion without hearing oral argument. (5) the court erred in ruling that Dotson's Bivens claim for money damages and his equitable action for reinstatement were precluded by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0270p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Union Township amended the resolution to eliminate the provisions that the district court concluded were likely to be held unconstitutional. Union Township also eliminated other provisions that were not found to be suspect by the district court. A divided panel of this court ruled in favor of Deja Vu on the following two points: (1) that the resolution was an unconstitutional prior restraint on protected First Amendment expression because it failed to provide for prompt judicial review of an adverse licensing decision. (2) that the resolution's more restrictive closing times for adult cabarets without liquor licenses as compared to those with liquor licenses was a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. We granted a rehearing en banc to reconsider whether the resolution is consonant with both the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The resolution was enacted pursuant to the authority granted to Union Township by Ohio Revised Code § 503.51 59 for the purpose of protecting the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2001/00-14188.man.html">ALABAMA V. CONLEY (3/29/2001, NO. 00-14188)<BR></A><BR>
1985 and 1988 and that the action was removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1443. Included among these landowners was Conley. Who is black. Was comprised of 103. Which was located behind its medical building. Was rejected. Which is a large tract of land comprised of many lots. Which was led by ASU's vice president and one of ASU's trustees.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200515724.ord.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
O R D E R: The Court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor of it (Rule 35. The Suggestion of Rehearing En Banc is DENIED. /s/ J.L. We considered sua sponte his challenge to the composition of his grand and petit juries.1 Valle had originally contended that the process for selecting jurors in 1978 when he was indicted underrepresented
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2001/99-14493.man.html">DANSKINE V. MIAMI DADE FIRE DEP'T (6/12/2001, NO. 99-14493)<BR></A><BR>
Those aspects of the plan have long since been terminated. It is that aspect of the plan which we consider today.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTEyOTUtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1295-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Woodbury's municipal towing law is preempted by 49 U.S.C. § 14501 because it is not genuinely responsive to safety concerns. (2) the district court properly declined to award damages to Loyal Tire under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on the § 14501 preemption claim because the statute is not enforceable via § 1983 but erred by awarding attorneys' fees to Loyal Tire under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) on that claim. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/09/01-4084a.htm">01-4084A -- BROWN V. MILLARD COUNTY -- 09/20/2002<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BB1BBF996F636D9B882570D60004C895/$file/0117489.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lara was decided April 19. The United States was entitled to intervene. Is withdrawn. An opinion is filed contemporaneously with this order. The petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc are denied as moot. Circuit Judge: This case concerns whether an Indian tribe can exercise criminal jurisdiction over a person who is not a member of the tribe. Who is an enrolled member of another Indian tribe. Facts This is an appeal from a denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Who is an Omaha Indian. The offenses are misdemeanors under the Navajo Code. He argued that the tribal court had no jurisdiction over him because he was not a Navajo. Means testified that he is an enrolled member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe of Indians and a permanent resident of Porcupine. Means lived on the Navajo Indian Reservation from 1987 to 1997 when he was married to a woman who was a half Navajo. The alleged offenses occurred later when Means was visiting the Navajo reservation. Means testified that the difference between an OglalaSioux and a Navajo is analogous to the difference in nationalities between an American and a French person.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2003/023653p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Before us is the appeal by prisoners from the order of the District Court granting summary judgment to prison officials and employees as to the prisoners' claims that their constitutional rights to the free exercise of religion and equal protection have been violated by the prison's failure to provide them with meals they contend are required by their religious beliefs. All of whom are either former or current NJSP officials. The crux of Prisoners' claims is that the Prison Officials violated their constitutional rights by failing to provide them with Halal meat meals in conformity with their religious beliefs. Meat from herbivorous animals such as cows and chickens that are properly slaughtered. The opposite of Halal food is Haram food. Which is prohibited or unlawful and includes pork and meat from carnivorous animals. Halal foods can become contaminated if they are commingled with Haram items. The different diets provided by the NJSP fall into four general categories: (1) a regular meal which is served to approximately 600 inmates.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0025p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
His claim that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0122p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Whose qualifications to be registered in that precinct were challenged. We are asked to decide whether procedures of the Ohio Board of Elections contravene the National Voter Registration Act. Because the Board's procedures are lawful under both provisions. Among the challenged registrants were appellants Joseph Bell. Challenges to their registrations alleged that appellants were seasonal. Were therefore not qualified to vote in the Kelley's Island precinct. Are unlawful under the National Voter Registration Act. The hearings were devoted to investigating each appellant's residence. The Board was unable to come to a majority decision with regard to the Finnegans and so referred the challenge to the Secretary of State. The Board concluded that there was sufficient evidence to find that appellants' residences were not on Kelley's Island. That sections 3509.19 3509.21 are unlawful to the extent that they allow the Board to: 1) hold hearings regarding the residence of registered voters. Which the B oard is authorized to do under section 3501.1 1.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/35BE3E7C53B39D1888256B5E005DAC49/$file/0055213.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1291. He was violently beaten by a prison guard at the Los Angeles County jail and was then refused proper medical attention in violation of his civil rights. Taylor was granted permission to file his civil rights complaint in forma pauperis (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/006634.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Concluding that Wessel's claim was barred by the State's sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. Wessel was committed to the custody of the Maryland Division of Corrections. All inmates are awarded a certain number of good conduct credits at the outset of their sentences. Completing a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-5100.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was peaceably apprehended and charged with the murder of a federal employee. Weed and the government stipulated that Weed was insane at the time of the shooting. The district court held a commitment hearing as required by statute to determine whether Weed was entitled to release under 18 U.S.C. 4243 (2000). Both sides' experts also agreed that Weed may still have a latent mental illness or disorder that had not been triggered since the time of the crime. (2) whether Congress violates equal protection by placing a higher burden of proof for release on the class of insanity acquittees who have committed serious crimes. Who was found in a disoriented state several blocks from the shooting. Witnesses said Weed was acting very strangely at the time of his arrest. At others his behavior is erratic and his speech incomprehensible. Weed was subsequently charged with the murder of a federal employee and use of a firearm in connection with a crime of violence. He was detained in a federal medical center pending trial and evaluated for competency at the request of both his attorney and the prosecution.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1282.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>John H. Argued for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Eric D. Britell ( Britell ) in this Little Tucker Act case seeking reimbursement for the cost of an abortion.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The district court ruled<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>that 10 U.S.C. § 1093(a) violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution under a rational basis review because its ban on funding abortions could not be justified on the basis of the state s
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2001/99-14493.man.html">DANSKINE V. MIAMI DADE FIRE DEP'T (6/12/2001, NO. 99-14493)<BR></A><BR>
Those aspects of the plan have long since been terminated. It is that aspect of the plan which we consider today.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199808/96-7191a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ginsberg were on the briefs. Halloran were on the brief. We conclude that we are without jurisdiction to decide LaRouche's Voting Rights Act claims and therefore remand them for the convening of a three judge district court. Have established a bona fide record of public service. Welfare and success of the Democratic Party of the United States at heart and will participate in the Convention in good faith. Is a bona fide Democrat whose record of public service. Public writings and/or public statements affir matively demonstrates that he or she is faithful to the interests. Will participate in the Convention in good faith. Before the first primary was held. Fowler determined that: Lyndon Larouche [sic] is not a bona fide Democrat and does not possess a record affirmatively demonstrating that he is faithful to. This determination is based on Mr. Including beliefs which are explicitly racist and anti Semitic. Larouche [sic] is not to be considered a qualified candidate for nomination of the Democratic Party for President....
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/04/98-5000.htm">98-5000 -- STEWART V. U.S. TRUSTEE -- 04/22/1999<BR></A><BR>
707(b) is constitutional. <em>In re Stewart</em>. 707(b) is not void for vagueness and does not violate the equal protection guarantees of the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The monetary consequences of his entering a fellowship are appreciable. Perinatology graduate would have ranged from $100.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AECF881C0434D1C38825707400584C84/$file/0335994.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The court held that the Thorntons did not have a property interest in the timely approval of their renewal applications and that their related claims were without merit. We hold that the Thorntons do not have a property interest in the timely renewal of their wrecker certificate. I. Background An operator of an auto wrecking yard in Oregon is required to obtain a certificate from the state and must renew the certificate each year. The procedure for issuing and renewing wrecker certificates is governed by Oregon Revised Statutes §§ 822.110. Once a wrecker certificate is issued. Section 822.125(3) provides that the certificate is valid for a one year period and may be renewed as provided by the department. If a renewal application is not approved before the existing certificate expires. HELENS 12451 yard must suspend operation until a new certificate is issued. Final approval of the Thorntons' renewal application for the 1999 wrecker certificate was delayed until April 16. The Thorntons were forced to close the wrecking yard for more than three months pending approval of the application.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/09/01-4084.htm">01-4084 -- BROWN V. MILLARD COUNTY -- 09/20/2002<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiffs appellants appeal from the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants appellees on plaintiffs' complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-8060.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
€the€City€would€be€entitled€to€qualified€immunity€onÐ
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan2001/993458.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Holding that it was so irrationally underinclusive as to violate equal pr otection. While this appeal was pending. The Happy Landing Landfill The pertinent facts of this case are not in dispute. Is the general partner of Eagle. Happy Landing was intended to accept municipal waste from primarily out of state producers. The Happy Landing site is located approximately 5.25 miles from the Dubois Jefferson County Airport. The PDEP determined that the landfill site contained wetlands of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/10/97-1381.htm">97-1381 -- DAVOLL V. WEBB -- 10/25/1999<BR></A><BR>
The remaining ADA claims were tried to a jury. Escobedo are all former Denver police officers who were injured in the line of duty and forced to retire due to Denver's policy forbidding disabled police officers from transferring into other vacant positions in the city government. Most of these employees are enrolled in one of two personnel systems: the Classified Service. Which is composed of police officers and firefighters. 500 of which are for full time employment. The Career Service system was set up by a charter which the voters of Denver approved. Candidates that do so are then tested. If the request is granted. There is also a list for those Career Services employees who meet the qualifications and wish to be promoted to the vacant position. Classified Service employees are not permitted to transfer into the Career Service. Must have an oral interview. Police officers that are separated under honorable circumstances may be reemployed without competing with the general applicant pool. <p> According to the city.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8407B7C60D0F634D88256C2F005AB250/$file/9935490.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Prince's club was recognized only as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1171.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1993 is corrected as follows: On page 24. Medeiros was on brief. Sachse & Endreson was on brief for Common Cause and Common Cause of R.I. With whom Licht & Semonoff was on brief. Cutler & Pickering were on brief. The entity charged with primary responsibility for implementing these laws is the Rhode Island Board of Elections. The reports are to include the name. The 4 Board of Elections is empowered to halt PACs from using names which are misleading or which do not accurately identify a committee's membership and contributor base. Does not apply in the same way to PACs sponsored by labor unions or those which are funded through payroll checkoff plans. 3 the state will match money raised from private 2From and after January 1. Candidates for certain other statewide offices are also eligible to receive public funding. We limit our discussion to gubernatorial candidates. 3The eligibility criteria are set forth in R.I. The election and pledge are irrevocable. Persons seeking state elective office must file formal declarations of candidacy in June of the year in which the election is to be held.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/01/041005P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
All facts related to the investigators' motives for suspecting Frazier of drug activity were presented to the district court during the suppression hearing and are relevant only to Frazier's equal protection challenge. Those facts are not colored by the lens of a jury verdict. Investigators Richard Lutter and Anthony Sattlefield of the Nebraska State Patrol Drug Commercial Interdiction Unit were conducting commercial interdiction duties. They deduced that the occupants of the UHaul were either traveling across the country or had just stayed at an adjacent motel. Because there was no U Haul rental facility nearby. The fact that there was no vehicle accompanying the U Haul. Was not consistent with that assessment. The U Haul was a seventeen foot. Was washing the windshield and fueling the vehicle. They found this significant because people transporting illegal narcotics are 2 likely to lock the load. The officers noted that the U Haul was from Arizona. Which they contended is a common method drug couriers use to avoid suspicion.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05b0005p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. ISSUES ON APPEAL The issue presented is whether the bankruptcy court erred in determining that the appellant is not entitled to allowance of an administrative expense claim as a result of the debtor in possession's postpetition use of trucks in which the appellant holds security interests. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW An order determining that a claim is not entitled to administrative expense priority constitutes a final order. Neither party has timely elected to have this appeal heard by the district court. 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(b)(6).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/05/041005P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
All facts related to the investigators' motives for suspecting Frazier of drug activity were presented to the district court during the suppression hearing and are relevant only to Frazier's equal protection challenge. Those facts are not colored by the lens of a jury verdict. Investigators Richard Lutter and Anthony Sattlefield of the Nebraska State Patrol Drug Commercial Interdiction Unit were conducting commercial interdiction duties. They deduced that the occupants of the UHaul were either traveling across the country or had just stayed at an adjacent motel. Because there was no U Haul rental facility nearby. The fact that there was no vehicle accompanying the U Haul. Was not consistent with that assessment. The U Haul was a seventeen foot. Was washing the windshield and fueling the vehicle. They found this significant because people transporting illegal narcotics are 2 likely to lock the load. The officers noted that the U Haul was from Arizona. Which they contended is a common method drug couriers use to avoid suspicion.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021364.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was correct. The mark is registered in Monaco. Are five companies formed and controlled by a French national. Included in this roster are 53 web sites whose domain addresses incorporate some portion of the term
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200410279.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Buying or selling a minor with knowledge the minor will be portrayed as engaging or appearing to engage in sex acts. § 943.0435(1)(a)(1).1 Further. Anyone moving to Florida who has been convicted of similar crimes or has been designated as a sex offender in another state will also be considered a sex offender in Florida. § 943.0435(1)(a)(2) (3). The sex offender must
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0182n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs are surviving family members of Brenda Hernandez. Who was murdered by her husband. From whom she was estranged. She was at a 7 Eleven store. Hernandez was subject to arrest were he to violate the Order. Hernandez was formally served with the PPO on October 27. Hernandez was threatening her and violating the PPO and had a gun. Because no one was at the residence when officers arrived. The police were called again to the Hernandez residence. Hernandez was violating the PPO. Hernandez was released by the next morning. Hernandez was not allowed to drink alcohol during these visits.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/032035.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200014188.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1985 and 1988 and that the action was removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1443. An order remanding a civil action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to §§ 1441 and 1447(c) is not reviewable. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). Allowed Conley's appeal to proceed to the extent he is challenging the district court's implicit determination that removal based on § 1443 was improper. The only question presently before us is whether the district court properly remanded Conley's action based on a finding that removal jurisdiction under § 1443 did not exist. The facts are drawn from the allegations in Conley's removal petition. Which we assume are true for purposes of this appeal. 2 2 1 property owners.3 Then. Included among these landowners was Conley. Who is black. Was comprised of 103. Which was located behind its medical building. Was rejected. ASU was able to obtain land from black property owners in Bel Aire at less than fair market value before instituting eminent domain proceedings. Who then had difficulty resettling because ASU's below market compensation for the land was inadequate to permit the black property owners to purchase real estate elsewhere.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200014188.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1985 and 1988 and that the action was removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1443. An order remanding a civil action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to §§ 1441 and 1447(c) is not reviewable. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). Allowed Conley's appeal to proceed to the extent he is challenging the district court's implicit determination that removal based on § 1443 was improper. The only question presently before us is whether the district court properly remanded Conley's action based on a finding that removal jurisdiction under § 1443 did not exist. 1 I. Included among these landowners was Conley. Who is black. Was comprised of 103. Which was located behind its medical building. Was rejected. The facts are drawn from the allegations in Conley's removal petition. Which we assume are true for purposes of this appeal. ASU was able to obtain land from black property owners in Bel Aire at less than fair market value before instituting eminent domain proceedings. Who then had difficulty resettling because ASU's below market compensation for the land was inadequate to permit the black property owners to purchase real estate elsewhere.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199910798.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court declined to hold the statute violated any constitutional right but determined the statute was unconstitutional because it lacked a rational basis. I. BACKGROUND The case was tried by the district court from the parties' extensive stipulated facts. Id. at 1259 (quoting Ala.Code § 13A 12 200.2(a)(1) (Supp.1998)).1 A first violation is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum fine of $10. We adopt the district court's usage of the shorthand term
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept95/94-6459.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. GRISHAM<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. The issue presented in this appeal is whether the Northern District of Alabama's (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011931.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because TCP was not deprived of a property interest without due process of law. Because the County's actions were rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Leonard Jordan also informed the County Planner that TCP was applying to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199910798.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court declined to hold the statute violated any constitutional right but determined the statute was unconstitutional because it lacked a rational basis. I. BACKGROUND The case was tried by the district court from the parties' extensive stipulated facts. Code § 13A 12 200.2(a)(1) (Supp. 1998)).2 A first 2 We adopt the district court's usage of the shorthand term
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199910798.REH.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is withdrawn. The following opinion is substituted in its place. The petition for rehearing filed by Appellees is otherwise DENIED. The district court declined to hold the statute violated any constitutional right but determined the statute was unconstitutional because it lacked a rational basis. I. BACKGROUND The case was tried by the district court from the parties' extensive stipulated facts. Code § 13A 12 200.2(a)(1) (Supp. 1998)).1 A first violation is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum fine of $10. A subsequent violation is a class C felony. The plaintiffs appellees are vendors or users of sexual devices. The facts also describe a number of other sexual products the distribution of which is not prohibited by the statute. ANALYSIS Whether a statute is constitutional is determined in large part by the level of scrutiny applied by the courts. Are subject to strict scrutiny. Most statutes reviewed under the very stringent strict scrutiny standard are found to be unconstitutional. 2275 n.6 (1995) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199910798.MA2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is withdrawn. The following opinion is substituted in its place. The petition for rehearing filed by Appellees is otherwise DENIED. The district court declined to hold the statute violated any constitutional right but determined the statute was unconstitutional because it lacked a rational basis. I. BACKGROUND The case was tried by the district court from the parties' extensive stipulated facts. Id. at 1259 (quoting Ala.Code § 13A 12 200.2(a)(1) (Supp.1998)).1 A first violation is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum fine of $10. A subsequent violation is a class C felony. The plaintiffs appellees are vendors or users of sexual devices. The facts also describe a number of other sexual products the distribution of which is not prohibited by the statute. ANALYSIS Whether a statute is constitutional is determined in large part by the level of scrutiny applied by the courts. Are subject to strict scrutiny. Most statutes reviewed under the very stringent strict scrutiny standard are found to be unconstitutional.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/04/973145P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Minnesota contends that Autio's claims should have been dismissed because the district court lacked jurisdiction. We conclude that the state was properly sued in federal court and affirm the district court. Minnesota argued that once the ADA claims were dismissed. The district court held that Minnesota's Eleventh Amendment immunity was lawfully abrogated by Congress and it could properly be sued in federal court. Whether a complaint sufficiently states a cause of action is a legal question subject to de novo review. We assume all facts alleged by a plaintiff are true. Dismissal is only proper if it appears that a plaintiff is unable to prove any set of facts entitling the plaintiff to relief. A state is not subject to suit in federal court by its own citizens. The first question is whether Congress unequivocally expressed an intent to abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity. The second question is whether Congress acted pursuant to a valid exercise of power. It is clear that in enacting the ADA. We look to the Fourteenth Amendment because the ADA was explicitly enacted to provide equal protection to those with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. 12101(b)(4).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/11/02-1434.htm">02-1434 -- RECTOR V. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER -- 11/06/2003<BR></A><BR>
Their primary claim is that the parking tickets erroneously lead ticket recipients to believe that they will be assessed a late fee if they do not pay the ticket within the allotted twenty day period. We have thus remanded these claims for decertification and dismissal. With respect to the claims for which Plaintiffs are representative of the class. Factual Background</strong> <ol> <ol> <li><u>Denver's Parking Regime</u> </li> </ol> </ol> <p> The material facts concerning the procedures used by Denver for enforcing its parking regulations are not in dispute. <p> In authorizing the collection of parking fines. If the fine is paid within twenty days. The matter is concluded. He is instructed to call the phone number printed on the ticket. The ticket recipient is advised either to submit specific documentation for an investigation or to appear in person at the office of the parking referee in Denver. Recipients who appear at the parking referee's office are advised of the procedures relevant to the hearing and are then given an opportunity to seek a fine reduction.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0541n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
For relief from certain actions and inactions by the City that Andreano claims have prevented him from developing a parcel of his property in Westlake. That were based on the City's filing
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/996048.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Section 1 the status is changed from
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/07/01-5092.htm">01-5092 -- MAHON V. AMERICAN AIRLINES INC. -- 07/28/2003<BR></A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec2001/01-10806.opn.html">DEJULIO V. GEORGIA (12/21/2001, NO. 01-10806)<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2000/99-10798.man.html">WILLIAMS V. PRYOR (10/12/2000, NO. 99-10798)<BR></A><BR>
The district court declined to hold the statute violated any constitutional right but determined the statute was unconstitutional because it lacked a rational basis. BACKGROUND</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/12/003139P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec2001/01-10806.opn.html">DEJULIO V. GEORGIA (12/21/2001, NO. 01-10806)<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0774n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
His brother were the successor trustees of the Barclay Trust. All other defendants have asserted qualified immunity. Defendants were all government officials acting in their official capacities and assert immunity from personal civil liability in that their actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Including the approval of the local legislative body in which the applicant's place of business is located. The ordinances of the City of Royal Oak provide that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2000/99-10798.man.html">WILLIAMS V. PRYOR (10/12/2000, NO. 99-10798)<BR></A><BR>
The district court declined to hold the statute violated any constitutional right but determined the statute was unconstitutional because it lacked a rational basis. BACKGROUND</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/12/00-3387.htm">00-3387 -- PICHON V. BRUCE -- 12/05/2001<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept95/94-6459.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. GRISHAM<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. The issue presented in this appeal is whether the Northern District of Alabama's (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/07/952734P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Nebraska. 1 district court erred in finding that (1) the claim was not so novel that it constituted cause to excuse procedural default and (2) a fundamental miscarriage of justice would not result if his claim were not considered. to jail time credit. On the merits Frizzell argues he is entitled For the reasons discussed below. Which affirmed the denial on the grounds that the issue of jail time credit should have been raised on direct appeal and thus was not a proper claim for post conviction relief. (1993). was not State v. His Id. argument was without merit in light of the state statute in force at the time the state trial court denied him jail time credit. (noting change from discretionary to mandatory language took place after Frizzell was sentenced and does not apply retrospectively). 2 Frizzell then filed the present petition for habeas relief. The district court recommitted the matter to the magistrate judge for clarification in light of Frizzell's now express claim that the state's failure to grant him jail time credit penalized him on the basis of indigence in violation of the equal protection clause because wealthier suspects would have been able to post bail and avoid pre trial detention.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0443n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiff appellant the George Khouri Family Limited Partnership (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/996837.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The pier was located near a cottage the couple rented as a residence. Fisher was convicted of second degree murder of Mrs. The original tape recording of Fisher's 911 call was played in open court during the trial and entered into evidence as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/996048.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The basis of his claim is that the statute requires the Commonwealth to set an execution date within approximately 60 to 70 days after receiving written notice that this court has denied habeas corpus relief. Sheppard was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death before a Virginia jury. His convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal before the Supreme Court of Virginia. Sheppard sought and was denied postconviction relief from the Supreme Court of Virginia. 3. The trial court shall set an execution date when it is notified in writing by the Attorney General or the attorney for the Commonwealth. Sheppard argues that he is deprived of equal protection because the execution date places time limitations on consideration by the Supreme Court of a petition for certiorari not applicable to petitions by noncapital petitioners.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200110806.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2001/99-10798.ma2.html">WILLIAMS V. PRYOR (1/31/2001, NO. 99-10798)<BR></A><BR>
Is withdrawn. The following opinion is substituted in its place. The petition for rehearing filed by Appellees is otherwise DENIED.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2001/99-10798.ma2.html">WILLIAMS V. PRYOR (1/31/2001, NO. 99-10798)<BR></A><BR>
Is withdrawn. The following opinion is substituted in its place. The petition for rehearing filed by Appellees is otherwise DENIED.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/014927.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
By providing that a person convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (MCDV) is prohibited from. A MCDV is defined as an offense that is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199904/97-5304b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Frank W. Edwards was on the brief for amicus curiae The National Network to End Domestic Violence. The first was s 922(g)(9). Which adds domestic violence misdemeanants
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2227.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellees.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1027.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Hoch</SPAN> were on brief. Were on brief. Were on brief. The program is the product of a consent decree entered in 1973. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2616FE1237103A9788256A34005C085B/$file/9936101.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This tort case is a suit stemming from a personal tragedy. Their employer is not an ordinary one. It is the United States Navy. The suit is barred unless the United States has waived its sovereign immunity. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Nollie Costo and Christopher Graham were sailors in the United States Navy. Both were off duty and on liberty1 at the time. Was led by Brian Benjamin. It includes weekends. 5012 The rafting program was operated within the command structure of the military. The Navy sponsors various recreational programs that are intended to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july97/95-8374.man.html">HALL V. HOLDER<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hall v. We hold that the governmental structure was neither enacted nor maintained with a discriminatory purpose. Having
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B2F27EFF2D8F1A2988256EB5004E2AED/$file/0215762.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The face of American poverty is changing dramatically. Minimum wage workers are unable to support their families' basic needs. At A1 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0174p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Tennessee Code Annotated Section 63 8 113(c)(6) was signed into law. The constitutionality of which is at issue in this case. Provides that it is unlawful for any licensed optometrist to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2001/99-13196.ma2.html">EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMM'N V. TOTAL SYS. SERVICES (1/29/2001, NO. 99-13196)<BR></A><BR>
Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B3595E6C66D1FB5288256E5A00707AFB/$file/9936101.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This tort case is a suit stemming from a personal tragedy. Their employer is not an ordinary one. It is the United States Navy. The suit is barred unless the United States has waived its sovereign immunity. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Nollie Costo and Christopher Graham were sailors in the United States Navy. Both were off duty and on liberty1 at the time. Was led by Brian Benjamin. It includes weekends. 5012 The rafting program was operated within the command structure of the military. The Navy sponsors various recreational programs that are intended to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/12/051184P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were expecting a baby girl. Johnson was told that he. To permit parents who have care giving responsibilities to have time off to spend with a child newly added to the family and. Non Organized Merit System Staff. (a) Biological mothers are entitled to leave for any period of pregnancy related temporary disability. If an employee's accumulated sick leave is insufficient to cover the period of disability. The employee will. Any request for absence beyond the period of disability is considered as a leave of absence without pay or as vacation. (b) A newly adoptive parent. Is entitled to one week (5 days) of paid adoption leave to be charged against accrued sick leave. Departments are encouraged to arrange for additional leave as necessary. To the extent the adoption leave is not sufficient to undertake an adoption. After being consistently told that biological fathers were not allowed to use accrued paid sick leave for absences following the birth of a child. He was subsequently certified to represent the class of similarly situated biological fathers employed by the University.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200704/04-3082a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0031p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The relevant facts of this case have not changed from the first time this case was before us. Those facts are as follows: In 1999. The purpose of the ordinance was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/63CA5B217C565EEB88256DA3007BF83A/$file/0215220.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
They also claim that the ordinances violate their Fourteenth Amendment rights to procedural due process and equal protection and are unconstitutionally vague. Associated with many hotels that were poorly maintained. The terms
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044498p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The District Court was persuaded. That political affiliation was a cognizable class under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) and. The Court was also persuaded that Farber's claim that the Union breached its duty of fair representation in refusing to pursue a grievance on her behalf had been timely filed. We will affirm in part and reverse in part. 2 I. Background and Procedural History We have before us a classic example of political patronage. Was terminated from her administrative. She was informed of her termination in a letter from the City's Assistant Personnel Director. Was later hired to fill her position. A meeting was held between the Union and City representatives. Citing the fact that she was a provisional employee who could be terminated at will.1 Farber alleges that the Union's president. Was thereafter appointed as the City's Director of Public Public employment in Paterson is governed by the New Jersey Civil Service Act. The Act distinguishes between employees who are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/98-1329.htm">98-1329 -- CAMPBELL V. BUCKLEY -- 02/10/2000<BR></A><BR>
To reject by referendum laws passed by the general assembly.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-1116b.html">LUTHERAN CHCH MO V. FCC<BR></A><BR>
<i>Circuit Judge</i>: The Federal Communications <p> Commission (FCC) and the government have filed a joint <p> petition for rehearing. The Commission offers <p> three arguments to support its contention that our opinion <p> unnecessarily and erroneously decided the Church's equal <p> protection claim: that we should have granted its motion to <p> remand without deciding the case. That if we had proceeded <p> we were obliged to decide the Religious Freedom Restoration <p> Act (RFRA) or free exercise claim before reaching the <p> Church's equal protection argument. That we <p> should not have applied strict scrutiny as the standard by <p> which the Commission's Equal Employment Opportunity <p> (EEO) rules should be judged under the Equal Protection <p> Clause. The <p> motion was based on a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200410/03-7149a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2610.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Were on brief. Were on brief. Were on brief. Were on brief. Were on brief. Although over two million votes were cast. Are separated by a very narrow margin a few thousand votes. This extremely close election has raised emotions in Puerto Rico and spawned the actions that are before us. <P> Plaintiffs Appellees include NPP candidate Rosselló. The validity of certain ballots that were cast in connection with the November 2. The Acevedo Defendants seek review of that order.</P> <P> Also part of this appeal is an action filed on November . Rez Plaintiffs
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2001/99-13196.ma2.html">EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMM'N V. TOTAL SYS. SERVICES (1/29/2001, NO. 99-13196)<BR></A><BR>
Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199809/97-1116b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the government have filed a joint petition for rehearing. The Commission offers three arguments to support its contention that our opinion unnecessarily and erroneously decided the Church's equal protection claim: that we should have granted its motion to remand without deciding the case. That if we had proceeded we were obliged to decide the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) or free exercise claim before reaching the Church's equal protection argument. That we should not have applied strict scrutiny as the standard by which the Commission's Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) rules should be judged under the Equal Protection Clause. The motion was based on a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012413.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Section 2 the term
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/08/973101P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Much of this was previously raised in Perry's second federal habeas corpus petition. On which relief was denied. The first of these actions was dismissed in the district court and affirmed on appeal. The second was also dismissed in the district court. Which was denied. 1997). 21 quoted a member of the board as saying:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july97/95-8374.man.html">HALL V. HOLDER<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hall v. We hold that the governmental structure was neither enacted nor maintained with a discriminatory purpose. Having
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/052977P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gonzalez argues that the application of expedited removal proceedings was impermissibly retroactive and violated his due process and equal protection rights. Pled guilty to second degree burglary in California state court in 1988 and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment. Gonzalez was subsequently deported to Mexico on October 7. Gonzalez was identified as a deportable alien by an immigration enforcement agent in Bloomington. The Attorney General shall provide that (A) the alien is given reasonable notice of the charges and of the opportunity described in subparagraph (C). (B) the alien shall have the privilege of being represented (at no expense to the government) by such counsel. (D) a determination is made for the record that the individual upon whom the notice for the proceeding under this section is served (either in person or by mail) is. (E) a record is maintained for judicial review. That application of § 1228(b) to him was impermissibly retroactive. That he was treated differently from similarly situated aliens in removal proceedings before an immigration judge in violation of his equal protection rights.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1285.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He contends that he was so classified without due process. Remand for further proceedings. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> I. Fistell's actions were obviously taken
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0261p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Arguing that the district court erred by: (1) determining that the Warrens' takings claim was ripe. Have owned and operated a Dairy Queen at the northwest corner of the intersection of Columbus Road and Sunset Drive in Athens. The Dairy Queen is the only source of income for Charles and Ruth Warren. It is helpful to describe the Dairy Queen and its immediate surroundings. There are head in parking spaces located in the island created by the arc of the drive thru lane. There is an entrance to the restaurant parking lot from Columbus Road. There is no access around the back of the building from the north side to the west side abutting Sunset Drive. The Sunset Drive exit is only about twenty feet from the Sunset/Columbus intersection. The Dairy Queen's drive thru lane was constructed after the Warren family decided in 1998 that a drive thru would increase business and improve access for customers. Explaining that the proposed drive thru and1part of the existing Dairy Queen building were located on a public rightof way owned by the City.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-7076.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> MURPHY. Holding that it was barred by a prudential standing principle and that it failed in any event for lack of evidentiary support. Plaintiff is one of some twenty shareholders in the McCurtain Lake Club Inc. While all of the details regarding distribution of the land are not fully set out in the materials in our record. Each MLC shareholder was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2E5F3A673466BE058825734D0052AF1C/$file/0399010.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The jury unanimously returned a recommendation of a sentence of death as to each of the two victims who were murdered. They were picked up by a trucker who took them part of the way. It is a 35 minute drive that the two made in Slim's pewter colored double cab Sierra GMC pickup truck. Denison was unable to assist her. That is the last time they were seen alive. Slim and Jane were in front. Her body was pulled onto the rear seat. Jane was put next to her. Slim's body was dragged out. Jane was ordered out of the truck and told by Mitchell
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0339p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. The central issue in this case is whether the Fourth Amendment is implicated when a police officer investigates an automobile license plate number using a law enforcement computer database. Was idling in the lane closest to the stores. The LEIN search revealed that the vehicle was registered to Curtis Ellison. Officer Keeley followed the van until his back up was nearby. He advised the driver that he was being stopped for parking in a fire lane and asked for license. At this time the passenger stated that he was the registered owner of the vehicle. Keeley notified Ellison that he was being arrested on the outstanding warrant. Two firearms were found. Coleman was released with a warning about parking in a fire lane. Ellison was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The district court made a factual finding that the van was not parked illegally. The officer did not have probable cause to run the LEIN check of Ellison's license plate. As the government has certified that the appeal is not taken for the purposes of delay and that the evidence is a substantial proof of a fact material to the proceeding.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/04/994021P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The issue before us in this appeal is whether Canon 5 of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct. Were narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest in maintaining the independence and impartiality of Minnesota's judiciary. Were not impermissibly vague. I. The Minnesota Constitution provides that judges
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1997/97a1529p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an appeal by certain trustees of the Barnes Foundation. Who are also African American citizens. Is removable to federal district court pursuant to the civil rights removal statute. That they were discriminated against by the Commissioners on racial grounds. We conclude that they have failed to satisfy the narrow and well defined requirements for § 1443(1) removal as explicated in State of Georgia v. We will therefore affirm the order of the district court remanding the removed action to the state court from whence it came. I. Facts & Procedural History The Barnes Foundation is a non profit Pennsylvania corporation located on Latches Lane. Its history is well known. Four of the five Foundation Trustees are to be nominated by Lincoln University. Charles Frank (defendants in the state defamation action) were trustees. Frank are African American and appellants here. The gravamen of the Foundation's federal civil rights action is that this adverse treatment was motivated by racial prejudice engendered by the fact that (1) the majority of the Foundation's Trustees are African American.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Mar2002/003625.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lapid's primary contentions on appeal are that: (1) because the Board failed to engage in the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0143p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a class action lawsuit brought by early retirees in the AK Steel Corporation Retirement Accumulation Pension Plan (AK Steel Plan) who elected to receive their pension benefits under the Plan in the form of a lump sum payment. The AK Steel Plan is a cash balance plan specifying that participants can elect to receive a lump sum equal to their
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/M830.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
McDermott Will & Emery LLP. With them on the brief were Paul Devinsky and Natalia V. Also on the brief were Terrence P. With her on the brief were James T. Of counsel on the brief were Albert L. With him on the brief was Pankaj Venugopal. Also on the brief were Constantine L. With her on the brief were William L. With him on the brief was Steven C. Of counsel on the brief was Judith M. With him on the brief were Jay R. Of counsel on the brief was Keith A. With her on the brief was Peter J. Of counsel on the brief were Robert C. Of counsel on the brief were Scott A.M. With him on the brief were Steven C. With her on the brief were Harold J. Also on the brief were Charles S. With him on the brief was Richard J. With him on the brief were Kenneth W. Also on the brief were Marc S. Of counsel was Herbert C Wamsley. With him on the brief was Monica Mucchetti Eno. With him on the brief was Simon J. Of counsel on the brief was Vicki G. With him on the brief was Philip J. Of counsel on the brief were Peter J. LLC (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200307/02-7032a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3782_024.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Though the child was found the next day unharmed. He could have sought judicial review of the Board's decision in the Illinois state courts. 000 in compensatory damages (his annual salary is only $59. 000 and one sixth of that is not even $10. Lauth claims that McCollum's action in hauling him before the Board was motivated by animus (hostility. Ill will). So he is appealing to the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1843.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for appellees.</FONT></P> <BR WP=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D5E7AEFB8356878488256E5A006AAAEF/$file/0271359.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
An alien is eligible for voluntary departure regardless of how long he has been physically present in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(a)(1). Petitioner's due process challenge cannot be sustained because there is no fundamental right to the wholly discretionary relief of voluntary departure. The equal protection challenge is likewise denied because Congress's one year requirement is not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2002/013301.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The primary issues presented in this appeal from the District Court's order denying preliminary injunctive relief are whether the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment allow the Borough of Tenafly. Because there is no evidence that the acts in question are expressive. Because the other requirements for injunctive relief are satisfied. In practice they have often done so. House number signs nailed to utility poles in plain view are 1. Our description of the facts is based on our independent review of the record because. Local churches are tacitly allowed to post permanent directional signs bearing crosses on municipal property. Orange ribbons were affixed to utility poles
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/95/12/951700P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who is part Native American. It held that Egerdahl's Title VI and Title IX claims were governed by the MHRA's oneyear statute of limitations. She asserts that the appropriate statute of limitations is the We agree. six year limitations period of Minnesota's personal injury statute. 1 The MHRA provides: It is an unfair discriminatory practice: (1) To discriminate in any manner in the full utilization of or benefit from any educational institution. We think that the District Court's decision is inconsistent with Wilson v. Which held that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims are subject to the limitations period in each state's personalinjury statute.3 In Wilson. The Supreme Court rejected the argument that The Court held that § 1983 claims are better § 1983 claims should be governed by the period of limitations in states' civil rights statutes. characterized as personal injury actions because it is unlikely that the limitations period for personal injury actions
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTIwMjJfc28ucGRm/05-2022_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2609AA6FF325B1F988256C3F00510B60/$file/0016928.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: At slip op. 12525. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5) provides that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/08/962736P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
3 all of whom were residents of the City of Minneapolis. Although several plaintiffs were involved in this case. This court will first consider this issue in the context of appellant's due process claim. A. Due Process A due process claim is cognizable only if there is a recognized liberty or property interest at stake. Property interests are created by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source. The bonds that are the subject of this dispute were not issued pursuant to the Charter by the Board of Estimate. The bonds were issued by the Minneapolis City Council under the authority granted in Minn. If it were applicable. The problem with Johnson's argument is that Minn. The Board of Estimate and Taxation in its discretion ... shall have the power to issue and sell negotiable bonds ... Ch. 475]. 4 475.52(2)6 is not. Johnson claims that this bond issue is a matter of local concern and that therefore. Although enactments by home rule cities are generally given full legislative force in Minnesota.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cunpub%5C03/03-11229.0.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. Meeks sent Anderson a letter explaining why she was referred for a fitness for duty evaluation. The physician conducting the examination would not release Anderson's records to the City or to the psychologist who was evaluating her. Was possible. pre termination hearing. Bruce Meeks sent Anderson a termination letter stating that she was being terminated for violating personnel rules. She was granted a grievance hearing. among others. Alleging that she was retaliated against and that the defendants discriminated against her on the basis of her race.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2000/98-6492.man.html">BOWEN V. FIRST FAMILY FIN. SERVICES (11/22/2000, NO. 98-6492)<BR></A><BR>
That the arbitration agreement signed by plaintiffs was fully enforceable pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/00/00-3771.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The challenged promotions were made pursuant to an affirmative action plan by which blacks.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2000/98-6492.man.html">BOWEN V. FIRST FAMILY FIN. SERVICES (11/22/2000, NO. 98-6492)<BR></A><BR>
That the arbitration agreement signed by plaintiffs was fully enforceable pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/02/971339P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The only when there are no genuine issues of material fact for trial and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. parties agree that the only question before us is whether the district court correctly analyzed the appellants' equal protection claim under the applicable rational relationship standard. The Police Board decides who will be promoted from the rank of police officer to sergeant. Every other year a Promotion Eligibility List is prepared. Statistically similar scores are then placed together in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1995/95a1113p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This asbestos related personal injury action was tried to a jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. We are called on to determine whether: (1) the district court abused its discretion by denying the defendant's challenge for cause of two jurors who allegedly evidenced bias against the defense. (2) the defendant has waived any claim that there was a violation of its statutory right to exercise peremptory challenges. (3) a denial or impairment of the exercise of peremptory challenges occurs if the defendant uses one or more challenges to remove jurors who should have been removed for cause. (4) a per se reversal is the appropriate remedy for such impairment or whether the defendant must also make a showing of prejudice. We are called upon to determine whether the district court committed an error of law by: (1) allowing plaintiff to introduce into evidence the prior testimony of an out of court expert witness from an unrelated state court action. We will reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for a new trial on the issue of damages and liability.[fn1] Since it is likely that the hearsay issues and the issue of delay damages may arise again during the new trial.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct29/03-11229.0.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. Meeks sent Anderson a letter explaining why she was referred for a fitness for duty evaluation. The physician conducting the examination would not release Anderson's records to the City or to the psychologist who was evaluating her. Was possible. pre termination hearing. Bruce Meeks sent Anderson a termination letter stating that she was being terminated for violating personnel rules. She was granted a grievance hearing. among others. Alleging that she was retaliated against and that the defendants discriminated against her on the basis of her race.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-3662.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are not in dispute. The contract was made conditional on the plaintiff's obtaining these legal changes from the City. The authority of the City Council of Greenwood to make such changes is not contested. The vote was 3 3. One was absent. Since there was a tie.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA2LTQ2NjUtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/06-4665-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Rivera Powell and her co plaintiffs have failed to state violations of their procedural due process and First Amendment rights. Asserting that the objection was untimely filed and that in entertaining it. Rivera Powell and her co plaintiffs have failed to state violations of their procedural due process and First Amendment rights. We also find RiveraPowell's equal protection claim without merit because the only allegation of racial discrimination is conclusory.1 BACKGROUND Rivera Powell sought to become the Democratic party nominee for judge of the Civil Court of the City of New York in the 7th Municipal District.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0459n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which we have consolidated for appeal. The Flats Safety Task Force was created in response to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972784.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The placard is valid for five years and is renewable. That are required to provide that individual or group with the nondiscriminatory treatment required by the Act or this part. Appellants are persons with disabilities who paid a five dollar fee to the DMV to receive a placard. Appellants sought a declaration that the fee was unlawful and an injunction against its continued imposition. Neither party argued that the regulation was ultra vires. The court held that the ADA impermissibly mandated that disabled individuals were entitled to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court stated that the ADA was not remedial legislation at all. The Supreme Court recognized that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1018.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Were on brief. <U>Senior Circuit Judge</U>.</STRONG></FONT><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/055319np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Including that: (1) the Zoning Hearing Board's denial was an unconstitutional infringement on his First Amendment rights. (2) the Zoning Hearing Board's denial of his requests was racially discriminatory and denied him equal protection under the law. We will refer to the establishment as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2001/99-15373.opn.html">FERNANDEZ-BERNAL V. ATTORNEY GEN. OF THE UNITED STATESN (7/19/2001, NO. 99-15373)<BR></A><BR>
A foreign national who is a permanent lawful resident of this country. He was ordered removed from the United States. That removal order was affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Contending that the expungement of his state court conviction means he should not be removed. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2001/99-15373.opn.html">FERNANDEZ-BERNAL V. ATTORNEY GEN. OF THE UNITED STATESN (7/19/2001, NO. 99-15373)<BR></A><BR>
A foreign national who is a permanent lawful resident of this country. He was ordered removed from the United States. That removal order was affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Contending that the expungement of his state court conviction means he should not be removed. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200511/03-5368a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
O:\Slip\WP\2005\03 5369 Settles15a.odl.wpd
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
Glasson & Dineen was on brief for appellant Guadalupe Rojas. Were on brief for appellee Cynthia A. Cobleigh were on brief for appellee Salvation Army. BACKGROUND BACKGROUND The following facts are not disputed. Rojas was a paid employee of the Salvation Army. Rojas was not. Was not required to be. The DET found that Rojas was ineligible because her former employer. Was exempt from contributing to Rhode Island's unemployment insurance scheme under sections 28 42 8(4) and 28 44 11 of the Rhode Island General Laws.1 Pursuant to the exemption for religious employers under section 28 42 8(4). No taxes were withheld from Rojas's wages by the Salvation Army. Her income was not reported to the DET. The DET's denial of benefits was upheld by a DET referee after a hearing. Later the referee's determination was upheld by the DET Board of Review. The DET determined that the Salvation Army is a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We have reviewed this case on a previous appeal. The relevant facts are described at length in Stemler v. Black was killed in a car accident shortly after police officers allegedly removed her from Stemler's car and placed her in the truck of her boyfriend. Kritis then began to chase the women on the streets of Florence before both the car and the truck were stopped by the police after a concerned citizen alerted them to the situation. Stemler was arrested for driving under the influence. Witnesses say that all the police officers present repeated Kritis's assertion that Stemler was a lesbian to each other and to others present. Black was either escorted or carried from Stemler's car to the passenger seat of Kritis's truck. Black was partially ejected from the passengerside window. Her arm was completely severed from her body and her head was split into two parts by some part of the guardrail. 1994.1 The complaint alleged that the defendants were liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Black's wrongful death because they had displayed deliberate indifference by forcing her into Kritis's car.2 Chipman's federal claims were dismissed by the district court in 1994.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Plaintiff Benjamin Orin was told by a community college official that he could protest abortion on campus only if he 15621 did not create a disturbance. Campus security asked Orin to leave because he was violating these conditions. We have jurisdiction. I Orin is a member of Positively Pro Life. The protest was to include display of two large posters graphically depicting aborted fetuses in various states of dismemberment.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Steven H. With her on the brief were John Ferren. Appellees argue that he should have brought his parole eligibility claims in habeas corpus. Would not have automatically resulted in his speedier release. Because we also find that the prisoner's pro se claim that he was denied access to prison programs on the basis of his race or ethnicity was sufficient to survive sua sponte dismissal. His complaint alleges that he was
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
1 which order was based on Spina's 1994 Connecticut conviction for first degree manslaughter in connection with the stabbing death of his estranged wife. Spina submits (1) that time he spent in pre conviction detention was not
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Subsequently filed a motion to reopen on the grounds that she is a United States citizen. Taniguchi also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging (1) that she is a United States citizen. (3) that her former attorney was ineffective. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Was admitted to the United States as an immigrant in July 1973. Taniguchi pled no contest to the offense of theft in the first degree (three counts) in Hawaii state court and was sentenced to five years imprisonment with each count to run concurrently. Was sentenced to an extended term of ten years with each of the counts to be concurrent to each other and to any other term she was serving. She was convicted in the United States District Court. She was also convicted of impersonating a citizen of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 911. That Taniguchi was removable under three separate grounds: (1) Immigration and Nationality Act (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Donlan and Fine was on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee Gerald Feigin. Akerson and Reardon & Reardon were on brief for appellees William M. Who is black. Is the sister of Gary Weems. Weems was also black. Weems was buried in Lowell as an
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Klinzing argues first that the DPPA is an unconstitutional exercise of the federal commerce power. Pamela gained full custody of their sons and Klinzing was ordered by the court to pay child support until the boys reached adulthood. Rule 803(6) permits introduction of business records without foundation testimony from the record custodian so long as the records are authenticated according to FED. 1 punishes the willful nonpayment of past 1 For the purpose of this appeal there is no meaningful difference between the earlier CSRA and later DPPA. The sole purpose of the legislation is to assist states in recovering past due child support payments beyond their borders. (...continued) sake we will refer to the statute only as the DPPA. Since then several circuits have reconsidered the issue in light of the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Klinzing still claims that the DPPA is unconstitutional. Because we agree with our analysis in Black that an interstate child support obligation is a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Who is originally from the Philippines. Was a science teacher in the Franklin (Wisconsin) School District from the 1990 91 school year through the 1997 98 school year when the District decided not to renew her employment contract. This is so because once the defendants moved for summary judgment. Salvadori was required by Eastern District of Wisconsin Civil Local Rule 56.2 to submit a specific response to the defendants' proposed findings of fact that clearly delineated only those findings to which she asserted the existence of a genuine issue of material fact.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The Creasons must have sufficiently alleged the City deprived them of a right
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Frank W. The essence of the 1996 amendments was to (1) extend a pre existing criminalization of firearms posses sion by persons convicted of domestic violence felonies to persons convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors. The amendments bringing about this change are as follows: Section 922(d)(9) of Title 18 makes it illegal to provide a firearm to any person
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Plaintiff Benjamin Orin was told by a community college official that he could protest abortion on campus only if he 15621 did not create a disturbance. Campus security asked Orin to leave because he was violating these conditions. We have jurisdiction. I Orin is a member of Positively Pro Life. The protest was to include display of two large posters graphically depicting aborted fetuses in various states of dismemberment.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Background The DCCC is an inmate facility operated by Douglas County (the County) in Omaha. The contracts require that the County receive 45% of the gross billable revenue that is generated from inmate calls. Collect calls originating from the DCCC are more expensive than normal collect calls.2 Gilmore's daughter was incarcerated at the DCCC from September 2002 through January 2003. Gilmore claimed that she needed to keep in constant communication with her daughter because she was caring for her daughter's children. These calls are reflected on Gilmore's phone bill. Gilmore filed a complaint against the County alleging that the 45% commission paid to the County by the DCCC's telecommunications providers is a tax or levy imposed on friends and relatives of inmates in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Gilmore has not alleged that she is a member of any suspect class or that a fundamental right has been infringed. When an equal protection claim is neither based on a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is hereby withdrawn and the amended opinion is substituted in its place. The opinion is amended in Part IV. IT IS SO ORDERED. Darrell
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We conclude that the City has not adduced sufficient evidence to establish that there are
|
|
01-6074 -- HARRIS V. SAFFLE -- 11/23/2001
The district court entered a new order denying the application which was affirmed by the OCCA. (3) that the procedures used by the district court and the OCCA were inadequate to protect his rights. Harris could not reasonably have known that such an argument existed until some time after the April 25. The procedural bar in the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act therefore could not apply because the equal protection argument was not a ground for relief
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was admitted to the United States as a refugee. The Immigration and Naturalization Service charged that he was subject to deportation on two legal grounds: committing (1) a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT). 842 43 (1984) (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
That the arbitration agreement signed by plaintiffs was fully enforceable pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
LLP were on brief for appellant.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
That the arbitration agreement signed by plaintiffs was fully enforceable pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We conclude that the City has not adduced sufficient evidence to establish that there are
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The Uniform Code of Military Justice has criminalized sex between service members of the same gender and provided that such conduct is an offense punishable by court martial. 10 U.S.C. § 925. Which limits the basis under which a service member will be ordered separated from the armed services for violations of § 925. Don't Tell
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Jonathan S. With him on the briefs were Daniel M. With him on the briefs were Peter D. Were on the briefs for intervenor United States of America. McKenna were on the brief for intervenor U S WEST. Muench were on the brief for intervenor Ameritech Corporation. Bell South claimed that s 274 was an unconstitutional bill of attainder. Are singled out by name. Is an unconstitutional bill of attainder and. Contesting both the FCC's finding that BellSouth is foreclosed from petitioning to provide service under s 271(c)(1)(B). It is a rational and nonpunitive congressional enactment that serves to open tele communications markets. Which it was surely free to do. We also find that the FCC was correct in concluding that BellSouth is foreclosed from petitioning to provide service under s 271(c)(1)(B). Because BellSouth has failed to demon strate that no
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Darrell
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Its ghost is reportedly responsible for numerous frightful encounters. Plaintiffs claimed they were exposed to a hostile work environment. Being Mayor of Sleepy Hollow is a As Mayor. Zegarelli is a voting member of the seven member Village Board and is responsible for its personnel practices. The Village Administrator makes recommendations to the Mayor on personnel decisions and is responsible for the Village's day to day operations. Plaintiff Demoret was the secretary/assistant to the Mayor and to the Administrator for six years from August 1997 to September 2003. Plaintiff Pell is the Village recreation 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 supervisor. During the three years she was employed by the Village prior to Douglas's hire as Village Administrator in May 2000. Douglas checked frequently at her desk to see if she was accomplishing her other duties for him. One of Demoret's charges is Douglas acted condescendingly toward her by closely supervising her work. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 She also asserts Douglas treated her rudely throughout the time they worked together in failing to say good morning to her or engage her in conversation.
|
|
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. Meeks sent Anderson a letter explaining why she was referred for a fitness for duty evaluation. The physician conducting the examination would not release Anderson's records to the City or to the psychologist who was evaluating her. Was possible. pre termination hearing. Bruce Meeks sent Anderson a termination letter stating that she was being terminated for violating personnel rules. She was granted a grievance hearing. among others. Alleging that she was retaliated against and that the defendants discriminated against her on the basis of her race.
|
|
CHAVIS V. CLAYTON COUNTY SCH. DIST. (8/6/2002, NO. 01-11981)
We affirm in part and vacate in part and remand.
|
|
CHAVIS V. CLAYTON COUNTY SCH. DIST. (8/6/2002, NO. 01-11981)
We affirm in part and vacate in part and remand.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Inmates in Ohio correctional facilities who were sentenced prior to Ohio's enactment of a revised sentencing system on July 1. Ohio inmates were given an indeterminate sentence comprised of a minimum and a maximum sentence. Parole decisions were delegated to the Ohio Adult Parole Authority (
|
|
TURTLE ISLAND RESTORATION NETWORK V. DONALD EVANS
Argued for plaintiffs appellants.
|
|
97-1304 -- ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS INC. V. SLATER -- 09/25/2000
We are just one race here. It is American.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Because full relief is available under the statute.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
After the Delaware schools' rudimentary attempts at desegregation were deemed insufficient by the district court in 1957. It was not until almost 20 years later (and 35 years after this court announced dissatisfaction with an original plan that called for grade by grade desegregation over a 12 year period) that the district court could announce that the marching orders had been obeyed: The school system has achieved unitary status by complying in good faith with our detailed desegregation decrees and by eliminating to the extent practicable the vestiges of de jure segregation. This was the ruling of the district court embodied in a judgment entered after a lengthy hearing. We will affirm. It is beyond dispute that racism and bigotry continue to tear at the fragile social fabric of our national and local communities. That our best efforts as citizens are needed to address this problem at many levels. Court supervised school desegregation alone cannot eliminate racial discrimination: [A]s the years have passed since Brown I and II [Brown v.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The benefits of recognition are several. If an organization is officially recognized by the law school. The upside is even more benefits. Groups that register with the No. 05 3239 3 university also get university money (it is not clear how much) and access to meeting space at the SIU student center. CLS is a nationwide association of legal professionals and law students who share (broadly speaking) a common faith Christianity. Members are expected to subscribe to a statement of faith and agree to live by certain moral principles. Is that sexual activity outside of a traditional (one man. One woman) marriage is forbidden. It explained that while
|
|
ALLI COMMTY MEDIA V. FCC
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Who are licensed merchant marine officers. 98 Stat. 2863 (1984) (current version at 46 U.S.C. § 2114 (2002)).2 The plaintiffs claim that they were discharged in retaliation for engaging in statutorily protected correspondence with the United States Coast Guard (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Who are unlicensed street vendors of clothing painted with grafitti. (2) its conclusion that remand is unnecessary to determine whether § 20 453 is a reasonable time. Because we hold that New York City's licensing requirement is a valid. We conclude that plaintiffs have not demonstrated a
|
|
01-1053 -- GONZALES V. CITY OF CASTLE ROCK -- 10/15/2002
Gonzales alleged that plaintiffs' substantive and procedural due process rights were violated when defendant police officers failed to enforce a restraining order against her estranged husband. Gonzales was seeking enforcement of the order. The order was entered into the central registry of restraining orders. The order was served on Mr. Gonzales was excluded from the family home and was prohibited from molesting or disturbing the peace of Ms. Simon Gonzales abducted the three girls while they were playing outside their house. Gonzales discovered the children were gone. Officers Brink and Ruisi were sent to the Gonzales home. The Officers
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Lara was decided April 19. The United States was entitled to intervene. Circuit Judge: This case concerns whether an Indian tribe can exercise criminal jurisdiction over a person who is not a member of the tribe. Who is an enrolled member of another Indian tribe. NAVAJO NATION 11195 Facts This is an appeal from a denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Who is an Omaha Indian. The offenses are misdemeanors under the Navajo Code. He argued that because he was not a Navajo. Means testified that he is a member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe of Indians. Means lived on the Navajo Indian Reservation from 1987 to 1997 when he was married to a woman who was a half Navajo. The alleged offenses occurred later when Means was visiting the Navajo reservation. Means testified that the difference between an OglalaSioux and a Navajo is as different as an American and a French person. § 316. 3 Membership in the Navajo Nation is conditioned upon no less than one fourth degree of Navajo blood. The Navajo Supreme Court decision says that while there are preferences for Navajos in employment and contracting.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The defendants are MDOC Inspector and Alger Maximum Correctional Facility Security Threat Group Coodinator Lyle Rutter. Is a Moorish American Muslim affiliated with a gang known as the Vice Lords. He indicated that he was contemplating legal action against Rutter.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We are asked to determine the constitutionality of a Michigan statute. Provides no equivalent right of appeal to state prisoners who are denied parole. Is a Michigan prison inmate who contends that the state legislature's 1999 amendment to § 791.234(9) that produced this dichotomy violates his right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Jackson was convicted of unarmed robbery in Michigan state court in 1989 and was sentenced to a prison term of 4 15 years. Although he was paroled in 1997. He was eventually arrested again. The petitioner's parole was revoked and he was re incarcerated. Concluding that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was Joseph H. With her on the brief were Lois J. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Patrick J. Were on the brief for amicus curiae Lincoln C. Aboriginal inhabitants of what is now Rhode Island. The Tribe was drawn into bloody warfare with Puritan colonists seeking to gain political authority over much of Rhode Island by securing claims to Indian land. The Settlement Act specifi cally stated that Narragansett settlement lands are
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Contending that his state conviction for sexual assault and attempted armed robbery was procured in violation of the Constitution. He also argues that he was denied a fair trial when the prosecution. Pruitt was sentenced to natural life imprisonment. Arguing that prosecutors were impermissibly exercising the challenges to strike prospective jurors based on their gender. Should Sims have then failed to appear at trial. She would have forfeited the $5. 000 and would fur No. 02 4100 3 ther have been subject to arrest and imprisonment. Neither the existence of the agreement nor the appearance bond was disclosed to Pruitt. Challenging the legality of his conviction on four grounds: (1) that the evidence against him was insufficient to support his conviction. (2) that he was denied the right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment. (4) that the prosecution failed to disclose that the key witness against him was compelled to appear at his trial by a $5. The court held that the Illinois Appellate Court's decision was not contrary to federal law.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Were on the briefs. Attor ney at the time the brief was filed. Was on the brief. Which were numerous and growing more so. Based upon the belief that most such suits were facially defective. The goal of the PLRA was to reduce the number of such meritless lawsuits: Section 2 will require prisoners to pay a very small share of the large burden they place on the Federal judicial system by paying a small filing fee upon commencement of lawsuits. The provision will deter frivo lous inmate lawsuits. The modest monetary outlay will force prisoners to think twice about the case and not just file reflexively. Prisoners will have to make the same decision that law abiding Americans must make: Is the lawsuit worth the price? 141 Cong. The statute provides that the district court
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Because these claims are untimely under Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court properly concluded that no genuine issues of fact remain and the defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. I. Akron Metropolitan Housing Authority is a public agency chartered by the State of Ohio and funded by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide subsidized housing for eligible citizens of Summit County. The position from which he was suspended on August 9. After which Singfield was escorted from the premises. Which included the following statement: This letter is to confirm our conversation earlier today. That you are being placed on a minimum thirty day unpaid suspension. You are also required to seek assistance for anger management. The reason for this suspension is due to an incident which occurred on August 8. You were sent home for the day. Your keys were found hanging from the lockbox. After examining the keys it was found that six of the keys were duplicated master keys.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Opinion by Judge Trott *This case was submitted for decision without oral argument. 11039 11042 YEE v. Is withdrawn. Are at liberty to file new petitions with respect to the new opinion. The broader principle in Batson and later case law is that a defendant opposing a peremptory challenge bears the ultimate burden of proving the challenge was improper and that this burden never shifts. The district court's sole basis for granting Yee's petition was the prosecution's inability to explain one of her peremptory challenges. Is not dispositive. Was reasonable. Was charged with three counts of sexual battery in violation of California Penal Code § 243.4(c). The first six were used to remove men.
|
|
HARTLEY V. PARNELL (10/28/1999, NO. 98-6829)
Because we conclude that Parnell was entitled to qualified immunity on the claims against him in his individual capacity. Hartley) was a 16 year old high school student at Washington County High School in Washington County. Hartley was enrolled in a two hour drafting class offered at the county's vocational technical school. Which was located on a separate campus from the high school. Hartley's drafting class was taught by Kenneth Godwin. She was friends with Godwin's 16 year old son Kenny and had been a frequent guest in the Godwin house when visiting Kenny. On November 1. Hartley was getting money from her backpack. I think a lot of you and I still have hopes for you and my son.
|
|
98-3247 -- WEST V. DERBY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 260 -- 03/21/2000
Circuit Judge.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The mandate is issued forthwith. Gonzales alleged that plaintiffs' substantive and procedural due process rights were violated when defendant police officers failed to enforce a restraining order against her estranged husband. Gonzales was seeking enforcement of the order. The order was entered into the central registry of restraining orders. The order was served on Mr. Gonzales was excluded from the family home and was prohibited from molesting or disturbing the peace of Ms. Simon Gonzales abducted the three girls while they were playing outside their house. Gonzales discovered the children were gone. Officers Brink and Ruisi were sent to the Gonzales home. The Officers
|
|
HARTLEY V. PARNELL (10/28/1999, NO. 98-6829)
Because we conclude that Parnell was entitled to qualified immunity on the claims against him in his individual capacity. Hartley) was a 16 year old high school student at Washington County High School in Washington County. Hartley was enrolled in a two hour drafting class offered at the county's vocational technical school. Which was located on a separate campus from the high school. Hartley's drafting class was taught by Kenneth Godwin. She was friends with Godwin's 16 year old son Kenny and had been a frequent guest in the Godwin house when visiting Kenny. On November 1. Hartley was getting money from her backpack. I think a lot of you and I still have hopes for you and my son.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Williams has demonstrated that his failure to timely file his objections was the result of
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was scheduled by his probation officer to submit to DNA collection while serving his term of supervised release. George Clive Hook was convicted by a jury of wire fraud. In the case of the latter if personally identifiable information is first removed. 42 U.S.C. § 14132(b)(3)(A) (D). He claims that requiring him to 4 No. 06 1362 submit to DNA collection is an impermissible modification of his term of supervised release. He contends that the imposition of the DNA collection requirement violates a contract he entered into with the United States at the time he was sentenced to a term of supervised release. A district court's imposition of conditions of supervised release or denial of requests for modification is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Hook first contends that the DNA collection requirement is a modification of his sentence of supervised release. Impermissible condition of his term of supervised release because it was not imposed as a condition originally at the time of his sentencing. To the extent that there was any modification.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Which is part of the Kent School District.
|
|
98-6320 -- U.S. V. MCKISSICK -- 02/24/2000
Delmar Anton Zeigler were arrested following a shooting at a nightclub in Oklahoma City. Zeigler was convicted of the drug trafficking charges in Counts Three and Four. The Defendants were tried jointly. Zeigler was sentenced to life without parole for each Count with the sentences to run concurrently. McKissick guilty on all three counts with which he was charged. McKissick was sentenced to 120 months imprisonment on Count One and 240 months imprisonment on Count Three. McKissick was also sentenced to five years imprisonment on Count Five. These appeals are addressed simultaneously in this opinion. The suspect vehicle was a 1970s model green Chevrolet Impala and the suspects were reported to be black males. Zeigler was handcuffed and placed in Officer Thomas's patrol car. McKissick later admitted the car was his. While Mr. McKissick was in the emergency room reception area. Who was also at the hospital for treatment of a gunshot wound. Simpkins further testified he was in a van with some other men in the nightclub parking lot when they encountered Mr.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Qualified immunity is available if a reasonable police officer could have believed that his or her conduct was lawful. The clearly established law of probable cause in this circuit was Criss v. Chief Schubert was not required to anticipate the majority's opinion here. Chief Schubert was entitled to rely on the plain holding of Criss. Could have read Criss to authorize the arrest. Of individuals who were in possession of particular goods that had been explicitly identified as stolen. Gardenhire's establishment was a thrift shop owned by Mary Della Sala. The bathroom and climate control panel for both stores were located in Ms. The two women were in the process of moving their merchandise. Television and VCR were among the items stolen. Who was also acting detective for the city. That some of these items were visible. There is no evidence in the record as to how the officers phrased this directive. Although Katherine Gardenhire is the sole owner of Uniquely Yours. The Gardenhires are an interracial couple: Katherine is Caucasian.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
KAHN Because we conclude that Parnell was entitled to qualified immunity on the claims CLERK against him in his individual capacity. Hartley) was a 16 yearold high school student at Washington County High School in Washington County. Hartley was enrolled in a twohour drafting class offered at the county's vocational technical school. Which was located on a separate campus from the high school. Hartley's drafting class was taught by Kenneth Godwin. She was friends with Godwin's 16 year old 2 son Kenny and had been a frequent guest in the Godwin house when visiting Kenny. Hartley was getting money from her backpack. I think a lot of you and I still have hopes for you and my son.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Because we conclude that Parnell was entitled to qualified immunity on the claims against him in his individual capacity. Hartley) was a 16 year old high school student at Washington County High School in Washington County. Hartley was enrolled in a two hour drafting class offered at the county's vocational technical school. Which was located on a separate campus from the high school. Hartley's drafting class was taught by Kenneth Godwin. She was Honorable William M. Hartley was getting money from her backpack. I think a lot of you and I still have hopes for you and my son.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Appellee Darnell Alton was one of four individuals charged in an indictment alleging various drug offenses. Alton was a heavy crack cocaine trafficker in the Pittsburgh area. Following a tip from a confidential informant that Alton was in possession of a large quantity of cocaine. Which he was selling from his house. Crack cocaine was found on Alton's person and cocaine powder and cash was found at Alton's residence. Alton was found guilty at trial on Counts One and Two but was acquitted on Count Three. We will vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.[fn1] II. A. At issue in this case are the provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1) that impose more severe sentences on those prosecuted for distribution or possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine[fn2] than on those prosecuted for similar crimes involving cocaine powder.[fn3] The disparity in the treatment of offenses involving the two substances originated in congressional action. Pursuant to which the penalty for an offense involving one controlled substance is tied to or converted to the weight of an unrelated controlled substance for sentencing purposes.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Each appellant was hired by the MPD before June 15. Which means he was subject to the Minneapolis Police Relief Association (MPRA) pension program. These other MPD officers were hired by the MPD after June 15. The Park Board and the MPD have contract provisions governing employee transfers. Section 7.7(b) (which is substantially similar to the MPD's provision) reads: Transfers between the [MPD] and the [Park Board] are not permitted. If a Minneapolis Police Officer is hired as a Park Police patrol officer. Under this provision MPD officers who become Park Board officers lose their rank and seniority but are given credit for their years of service for determining vacation accrual and placement on the salary schedule. 2 In 2003. The MPD officers referenced in this lawsuit applied and were hired. They transferred without any break in service and were given credit. The difference between these two groups is that the appellants were subject to the MPRA pension plan and the others were subject to the PERA pension plan.
|
|
96-1504 -- MAY V. TOWN OF MOUNTAIN VILLAGE -- 12/19/1997
The District Court found that the provision allowing nonresidents to vote was not irrational or arbitrary. Summary judgment was granted in favor of defendants on all federal law claims. Plaintiffs based their claim of the unconstitutionality of the Charter upon five arguments that is i) that the Equal Protection Clause bars nonresident landowner voting. Finding that questions involving districting and various amendments to the Charter were moot or not ripe for judgment. The Court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims and those issues are not before us.
|
|
VILLANUEVA V. CARERE
The Parents alleged that the decisions of defendant appellee the Board of Education for Pueblo School District No. 60 (the Board) to close the schools at which their children were enrolled and. Which they have not pursued on appeal. The issues for review are (1) whether the Parents met their burden of proving either discriminatory intent. (2) whether the Act is on its face discriminatory in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. 000 students of whom almost exactly 50% are Hispanic and about 64% are minorities. Although free transportation generally is not provided to those who choose to attend schools outside their neighborhood. The Colorado Charter Schools Act authorizes local school boards to contract with interested parties to establish charter schools public schools that are managed by their sponsors and financed primarily with the local school district's funds. Is less likely to succeed in a conventional educational environment.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
For Respondent PER CURIAM: We are called upon to address a matter of human tragedy. We are compelled to conclude that the statute which guides this Court's review denies Collier Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Medicare benefits because she does not have the required recent work history. Recognizing that we have no license to alter the legislative scheme. Collier was diagnosed with ALS. Since then Collier and her family 2 have expended more than $500. As that is the prerequisite for Medicare eligibility for those under 65. 42 U.S.C. § 426(b). The statute requires that an applicant above the age of 31 must have worked twenty of the previous forty quarters (i.e. It is undisputed that Collier did not have a recent work history as she left the paid workforce in 1994.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We will affirm the judgment of the District Court. I. Background and Procedural History Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural posture. We will provide only a brief synopsis of the events leading up to this appeal. Was employed under a series of term contracts by the Municipal Prosecutor's Office of the City of Atlantic City. Mosca was involved in the prosecution of the Reverend Al Sharpton for acts of civil disobedience. Langford was elected Mayor of Atlantic City and immediately began to plan the replacement of certain at will municipal employees with individuals of his choice. Mosca was told instead that his contract would not be renewed when it expired in February 2002. Smoger was short staffed and believed Mosca's experience at the Municipal Prosecutor's office made him a good candidate for a part time position as police liaison in the Solicitor's office. Namely the rapidly spreading rumor that Mosca had made a derogatory and possibly racist remark about Langford reportedly that Langford was a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Contends that he was denied access to the courts principally through defendants' denial of materials that he requested from the jail's law library. We further hold that constitutionally acceptable access to the courts through appointed counsel is not measured by reference to the Sixth Decided: October 5. All of which allegedly harmed Bourdon in his efforts to prepare and file pro se a timely pretrial motion to dismiss the state criminal indictment pursuant to which he was being detained. Bourdon an indigent prisoner was represented by court appointed counsel. Have the tools they need in order to defend against criminal charges. He argues that his appointed counsel was ineffective and therefore. 318 19 (1981) (holding that public defenders do not act
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Contends that he was denied access to the courts principally through defendants' denial of materials that he requested from the jail's law library. We hold that the appointment of counsel is a valid means of fully satisfying a state's constitutional obligation to provide prisoners. We further hold that constitutionally acceptable access to the courts through appointed counsel is not measured by Decided: October 5. All of which allegedly harmed Bourdon in his efforts to prepare and file pro se a timely pretrial motion to dismiss the state criminal indictment pursuant to which he was being detained. Have the tools they need in order to defend against criminal charges. Bourdon an indigent prisoner was represented by court appointed counsel. He argues that his appointed counsel was ineffective and therefore. 318 19 (1981) (holding that public defenders do not act
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Because suspension of deportation is unavailable to aliens who were paroled into and then ordered excluded from the United States prior to April 1. Was placed in exclusion proceedings. Asserting that he was entitled to suspension of deportation under section 203 of NACARA. Was to alert the world about Bulgaria's human rights violations. He also said he was not allowed to practice his religion openly in Bulgaria. Ruling that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The appropriate remedy is the granting of a defense motion for a more definite statement under Federal Rule 12(e). We will vacate the District Court's order insofar as it relates to qualified immunity and remand to the District Court with instructions to order the plaintiffs to file a more definite statement. We will reverse the District Court's order denying defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim with respect to the claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1986 against Wendy Potts Fleegal and the claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1986 against Sam M. We will also reverse the District Court's order denying defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim with respect to the unlawful taking claim under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Insofar as the claim is brought against the Individual Defendants. I. This is a civil rights action brought by Anthony W. Plaintiffs have pursued the transfer of a restaurant liquor license The complaint purports to assert an unlawful taking claim under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Tillman is a former prisoner who was assessed a fee of $10.00 per day for housing costs stemming from two periods of incarceration in a county facility for state parole violations. When Tillman was confined for the second term. For which his account was turned over to a collection agency after his release from prison. We will affirm. I. Facts The underlying facts are. Tillman was incarcerated in the Lebanon County Correctional Facility in Pennsylvania between January 30. Parole was again granted. These actions were taken pursuant to the facility's Cost Recovery Program. Prisoners are assessed a daily charge of $10.00 towards their housing expenses. The availability of prison services is not contingent upon keeping a clean account. A negative account balance is created. Any remainder is credited to the prisoner's inmate account for his or her personal use. If there is still an outstanding negative balance upon a prisoner's release from jail. Any funds remaining in his or her inmate account are put towards the debt.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The Defendants are the Pennsylvania Department of Education (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Appellants are 27 individuals who failed the 1999 Exam because they did not achieve the cut off score on a portion of the Exam. Which was designed to diminish the adverse impact on minority candidates. The District Court held that New Jersey did not act with discriminatory intent and that the 1999 Exam did not have a racially discriminatory impact. We will affirm. Alleging that New Jersey and twelve cities were engaged in employment discrimination by denying equal employment opportunity to African American and Hispanic applicants for entry level firefighter positions. These three elements comprised the biodata component and it was Dr. The principal issue was how the three components of the 1999 Exam should be weighed. The same exam was given to all 6 candidates and the exams were scored using the same key. All candidates were required to achieve the same minimum cut off score. The Department analyzed whether various cut off scores would have an adverse impact on candidates because of race or sex. The Department used the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Aaron Westendorp is a severely disabled child who requires a full time paraprofessional to function in a school classroom. I. Aaron is a twelve year old boy who lives in Edina. The cost of a paraprofessional is approximately $10. Is the same whether Aaron attends a public school or a private school. Aaron was able to attend the school from 1991 until 1994. The Westendorps were forced to transfer Aaron to a public school in Edina. Or any other location off the nonpublic school premises which is neither physically nor educationally identified with the functions of the nonpublic school
|
|
01-2157 -- MCCOOK V. SPRINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT -- 08/05/2002
Have been frequent and outspoken critics of Defendants since 1997. He
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Prime Media. The relevant facts of this case were set forth in the prior appeal as follows: In 1999. The purpose of the ordinance was
|
|
96-1325 -- WILKINSON V. PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMM. -- 05/04/1998
All of which were rejected. In federal district court seeking declarations that its property was a platted subdivision under mining law and. The plaintiff also sought a declaration that various zoning regulations and Pitkin County Land Use Code provisions were invalid because they violated due process and equal protection guarantees under the Colorado and United States Constitutions and exceeded defendants' police powers. In the first state court action. That the individual mining claims owned by plaintiffs were a platted subdivision. The claims were raised under state and federal constitutions and statutes. In three separate orders. As is relevant to the present action. The state district court dismissed the remaining regulatory takings claims as not ripe for determination and decided that each mining claim is not a separate lot or subdivided plat. The court concluded that the imposition of the Land Use Code regulations was a valid exercise of police power by the Board. The Colorado Court of Appeals concluded that plaintiffs' patented mining claims were not exempt from county subdivision regulations.
|
|
MITCHELL V. FARCASS
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Mitchell v. Asking him to explain
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2000/99-10640.man.html">LYONS V. GEORGIA PAC. CORP. SALARIED EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT PLAN (8/11/2000, NO. 99-10640)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1999/967623.TXT">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
000 Three Mile Island area residents who allege that they have developed neoplasms2 as a result of the radiation released into the environment as a result of the reactor accident. The first appeal is that of a group of ten trial plaintiffs who were selected by the parties after the District Court adopted the plaintiffs' case management order. The critical issue there is the trial plaintiffs' ability to demonstrate that they were exposed to doses of radiation sufficient to cause their neoplasms. Defendants challenged the admissibility of the experts' testimony and the District Court was therefore required to hold extensive in limine hearings pursuant to its
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></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-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1066.html">FESTO CORP V. SHOKETSU KINZOKU KOGYO KABUSHIKI CO<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were <u>Gerald T. Of counsel on the brief were <u>Charles L. Also of counsel on the brief was <u>James B. With him on the brief was <u>Louis T. Of counsel on the brief was <u>Joseph R. Of counsel on the brief were <u>John G. Also of counsel on the brief were <u>Rory J. With him on the brief were <u>Kendrew H. Of counsel on the brief were <u>Perry M. Also on the brief was <u>Mark J. Of counsel on the brief were <u>Frederick T. Also of counsel on the brief was <u>J. Of counsel on the brief was <u>James W. <u>Circuit Judge</u>.</p> <p ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr96/93-2225.wpd.html">RIDDLE V. TREVINO<BR></A><BR>
Who are convicted sex offenders and inmates in the Southern New Mexico Correctional Facility at Las Cruces. Only six of the twenty one plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal. They averred that each of them as convicted sex offenders have been denied adequate treatment for their mental disorders related to their
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/09/022335P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Mary Ottman (Ottman) was employed as a city planner with the City of Independence. 500.1 1 This salary was above the minimum rate of pay for the position. 2 Hahl also hired Jim Marwedel (Marwedel) as a city planner.2 Marwedel had a master's degree and considerable planning experience. Marwedel's starting salary was $33. When Marwedel was hired. Ottman was earning $34. Hahl promoted Richardson.3 When Ottman was not promoted. Ottman believed Hahl was giving her inferior job assignments because of her gender. Some of Ottman's assignments were expressly requested by the mayor. It does not appear Ottman specifically complained to Hahl she was being denied significant jobs because of her gender. The summary judgment record does not indicate when Marwedel was hired. It appears Marwedel was hired sometime in 1999. Richardson attended a leadership training seminar which Ottman was not allowed to attend. His disparate treatment was reflected in his words and actions. Richardson did not have supervisory authority over Ottman and did not have authority to recommend disciplinary action against Ottman.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200413800op2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The primary question in this appeal is whether petitioner. The facts we state are Williams's allegations. Was hiding in Cole's closet. As Brandon was sexually assaulting Williams. Cole was on the telephone with Steven Thomas. Cole told Thomas and Grant that they were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7F18E4E907E7D76388256F390079C342/$file/0217239.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction to determine whether the regulations are unconstitutional. There is no universally recognized legal definition of the phrase. The significance of the question is immediately apparent from the text of the Indian Commerce Clause of the United 15208 KAHAWAIOLAA v. Much of the theory that underpins Indian law is that the Indian tribes possessed certain sovereign rights based on their existence as distinct political entities exercising authority over their members prior to the incorporation of their territory into the United States. As far as the federal government is concerned. Which was intended in part to permit the tribes to set up legal structures designed to aid in self government. A group would need to adopt an appropriate conThis is not to say. The organization was required to be approved by the Secretary of the Department of Interior. Ninety nine tribes were organized. Nintey six were excluded. Acknowledgment under these regulations is a prerequisite for certain federal services and benefits.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2000/99-10640.man.html">LYONS V. GEORGIA PAC. CORP. SALARIED EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT PLAN (8/11/2000, NO. 99-10640)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200413800.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The primary question in this appeal is whether plaintiff. Was hiding in Cole's closet. The facts we state are Williams's allegations. As Brandon was sexually assaulting Williams. Cole was on the telephone with Steven Thomas. Cole told Thomas and Grant that they were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may97/96-3026.man.html">MITCHELL V. FARCASS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Mitchell v. Asking him to explain
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1929.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C. and Elizabeth Bartholet were on brief for defendants. Fiore and Sulloway & Hollis were on brief for Genevieve A. P.A. were on brief for Brian Miller. The plaintiffs Genevieve Scarfo and Brian Miller are former employees of defendant Cabletron Systems. Were also defendants in the district court. Each party opposing a claim of error asserts that no timely objection or request was made in the trial court. Is to ask: Should we hold that the appellant (or cross appellant) on each claim of error now before us is not entitled to be heard on the merits of that contention in the circumstances of this appeal? The search requires also that we take account of Supreme Court and circuit decisions handed down after this case was argued. Commentators and opinion writers have invoked imagery of the almost impenetrable. They have spoken. Dissenting) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/sept96/94-1471.wpd.html">SANCHEZ V. STATE OF COLORADO<BR></A><BR>
The district court denied them declaratory and injunctive relief concluding the Gingles' quantum of proof was unmet. We conclude plaintiffs have (2) Because of the concurrence of oral argument in this case and those the Supreme Court heard. Are Hispanic residents and registered voters in Center. A flatland whose western boundary is the San Juan Mountains. On its eastern boundary are the Sangre de Cristo Mountains. Although many of these early landowners were later dispossessed of their land. The Colorado Reapportionment Commission (the Commission) was reconvened to redraw the boundaries of state senate and house legislative districts to reflect the 14% increase in the state's population from 2.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0133p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
File Name: 00a0133p.06 raised the matters repeatedly in public fora (although the court noted that Chappel's private speech was also protected). His
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/10/963752P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
On reconsideration it concluded that the section is unconstitutional and reinstated the action with leave for Lyon to request in forma pauperis status. Their request for interlocutory review was granted. He had $138.40 in his prison account and $64.52 in his prison savings account and was receiving $67.20 in prison wages each month. His initial request for in forma pauperis status was denied because he had at least three prior actions which had been dismissed as frivolous and section 1915(g) therefore requires full payment of the filing fee unless the prisoner is in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053762p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will deny Caroleo's petition. Caroleo was indicted in New Jersey Superior Court on a number of charges related to an attack he committed on a woman in Middlesex County. Caroleo was sentenced. Caroleo was served by the INS with a Notice to Appear.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1261.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Weissberg & Garin were on brief. Kane and Hanify & King were on brief. Were on brief. Were on brief. The history of the conflict is of minimal import. The agreement contemplated the phasing out of the existing Charles Street jail once the new structure was in place. The new facility (the Nashua Street jail) was not completed until mid 1990 and was hard pressed from the start to cope with the Sheriff's escalating needs. The consent decree was modified by court order in 1985. He thereupon granted the Sheriff's motion to 1Notwithstanding the several emendations that have been made to the original consent decree. Apply the Act and evaluate the extent of the remediation to which the defendants are entitled. The PLRA is not a paragon of clarity. A defendant or intervenor shall be entitled to the immediate termination of any prospective relief if the relief was approved or granted in the absence of a finding by the court that the relief is narrowly drawn. Is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2688_029.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
She alleges that she was sexually harassed by a coworker. She was assigned to the department's Bosworth Yard location. Defendant Mike DiTusa was the Lot Supervisor at Bosworth Yard. His direct supervisor was Senese. DiTusa oversaw the 45 to 50 drivers assigned to his lot and was responsible for making sure trucks were serviced. Defendant Tominello was a driver at the Bosworth Yard location. Plaintiff alleges that Tominello was transferred to Bosworth Yard after a woman at his previous assignment. Complained that he was sexually harassing her. Julian asserted that Senese was aware of the harassment and that he told Tominello to stop. Tominello told her that he was going to Chinatown to get his
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C3D7CBA24AEEB09388256BD7008207B4/$file/0130170.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The order amending opinion and petition for rehearing was voted upon only by Judges Canby and Kleinfeld. 8583 UNITED STATES v. Is amended by adding a new footnote 2. The footnote is to state: The sentencing court has been held to have a duty under the ACCA to determine that a prior convic 8588 UNITED STATES v. STOKES tion for burglary was incurred under a statute (or. The petition for rehearing is DENIED. The first is whether the search of a probationer's car. The second question is whether the procedural distinctions between the Armed Career Criminals Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/95D2E7F6B1AF487588256E5A00707A9F/$file/9917264.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The Appellants are citizens of the Federated States of Micronesia who reside in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2001/00-10068.man.html">MOORE V. ASHCROFT (5/14/2001, NO. 00-10068)<BR></A><BR>
Introduction</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DA26FF01BBAA634988256EAF00541330/$file/0256566.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
SAN BUENAVENTURA 7735 that its federal claims were not ripe. (4) erred in not considering its argument that the city ordinance is preempted by state law. Approved increases were limited to seven percent of the base rent the first year an increase was requested or. Because no provision was made for rent increases in the event a mobile home was sold or transferred. The Ordinance was amended to provide for limited vacancy
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/02/961613P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who was convicted of murder in Missouri and sentenced to death. Kelvin Malone was convicted of the 1981 murder of William Parr. He was waiting in the cab line at the Greyhound Bus Terminal in St. Parr was first in line. The bank was less than three blocks from the bus terminal. Such deliveries were top priority. Parr had been shot and was lying face down with blood coming from his nose and right ear. He was taken to Christian Northeast Hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival. There was evidence that Kelvin Malone had arrived in St. Bego did not see who was there. The men drove off instead and were apprehended after a high speed chase. Three bullets test fired from one of these guns were later compared to a .25 caliber slug taken from Parr's brain. Louis police were inconclusive. Louis and which were found in the car at his arrest. Malone had been convicted and sentenced to death in California for two murders that took place in that state just a few days after Parr was killed in Missouri.3 Counsel was appointed in the Parr case on November 28.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DC763D6CA9638EBC88256B5E005D7616/$file/0016568.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We do not decide whether use of the prior findings at least in some fashion was improper. We conclude the procedure adopted here was flawed because it did not meet the requirements of our fair notice doctrine. While appeal of that dismissal was pending. We have discretion to remand a case to the district court for further consideration when new laws likely to influence a decision have become effective during the pendency of an appeal. Whether the PLRA exhaustion require2402 ment is an affirmative defense or a pleading requirement is an issue of first impression in this Circuit. We adopt the rule of the majority of circuits and hold that it is an affirmative defense. Facts and Procedural Background Wyatt is an inmate incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison in Ione. Defendants do not dispute that Wyatt's religious beliefs are sincerely held or that dreadlocks are a means of practicing the Rastafarian religion. That require him to cut his hair. 1 Female inmates are not subject to the same regulations.2 Wyatt has been disciplined by prison officials for refusing to comply with the regulations.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2001/00-10068.man.html">MOORE V. ASHCROFT (5/14/2001, NO. 00-10068)<BR></A><BR>
Introduction</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0A17E990A95C29FF882571C4007CE299/$file/0510365.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Robert Dean Ellsworth was convicted of robbery and first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole by a Nevada state court in 1988. He was paroled after serving 16 years. He was arrested while in the possession of a loaded nine millimeter semiautomatic handgun. The district court applied a two level offense enhancement in accordance with the advisory Sentencing Guidelines because the firearm he possessed was stolen. The government admitted that it could not prove Ellsworth knew that the gun was stolen. Knowledge is not necessary for this offense enhancement to apply. See also id. cmt. n.19 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1AD1D1AAB1E26F7F88256AF6005E2E22/$file/0070238.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Opinion by Judge Hawkins *John Ashcroft is substituted for his predecessor. He was convicted in California state court of petty theft. Finau was served with a Notice to Appear and placed in removal proceedings. 15248 The immigration judge (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1996/96a1421p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment because his appellate counsel failed to press his Equal Protection claim on direct appeal. We will reverse the judgment granting relief. Sistrunk was convicted for participating in the robbery and arson of a furniture store. During which one employee was murdered and others assaulted. He was awarded a new trial due to ineffective assistance of trial counsel. He was tried again on the same charges. Was required to show a pattern and practice of racial discrimination in jury selection across multiple prosecutions. Evidence that was not tendered by Sistrunk during his second trial. Who is black. He was again convicted. Petitioner's conviction was affirmed by the Pennsylvania Superior Court. While his petition for review was pending. Holding that the Equal Protection Clause is violated whenever a state prosecutor exercises a peremptory challenge to exclude a venireperson from the jury because of his or her race.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19975812.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which is more formally known as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The plaintiffs are a class of aliens who do not fit within any of the eligible categories. Because no members of the plaintiff class are illegal aliens. We will for convenience use the term
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19968095.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Alleging that the City's ordinance establishing a dress code for drivers of vehicles for hire is unconstitutional. If a hat is worn. His complaint contends that the dress code is unconstitutional. The court held that the dress code violated the Equal Protection Clause because it was not rationally related to a legitimate government objective.2 The district court said that the The Atlanta Code of Ordinances was recodified with a new numbering system effective January 1. The proceedings in the district court were conducted when the old numbering system was in place. Will follow that old numbering system. The district court also held that the dress code was an arbitrary exercise of police power. This holding was based upon the district court's finding that the dress code was not rationally related to a legitimate government objective. We will subsume discussion of the police power holding into our discussion of the 2 1 City had put forth two justifications for the dress code: (1) the need to improve public safety.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2003/014043p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Rita Dipeppe challenges the District Court's ruling that she is not entitled to seek relief from removal under INA § 212(c).2 For the reasons that follow. We will reverse the District Court's order as to § 212(h) and affirm it as to § 212(c). 1. INA § 212(h) is codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). 2. INA § 212(c) was codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (1995). 3 I. INA §§ 212(h) AND 212(c) INA § 212(h) previously gave the Attorney General the discretion to waive an alien's inadmissibility for crimes of moral turpitude if an alien was a spouse. That provision of the INA now removes this discretion in the case of aliens who were previously admitted as permanent residents and had either been convicted of an aggravated felony or had not resided in the United States for seven continuous years. INA § 212(h).3 The statute applies only to aliens who have the status of legal permanent resident (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-2782_009.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Board issued a decision stating that termination was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021430.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
COSBY Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Are these. McWaters was a member of the Board from 1996 through January 2000. At which point she was replaced by defendant T.J. Rick is the County Attorney of Powhatan County and has served in that capacity since 1997. Owen is the County Administrator of Powhatan County and has served in that capacity since 1993. Manning are members of the Board and have served in that capacity at all times relevant to this case. The Board members were divided on the issue of financial management of the Powhatan County School District. McWaters was a consistent and outspoken critic of the School Board and the District Superintendent of Schools on that issue. She was also critical of other members of the Board. Eyles confined her criticism to McWaters because her travel expenses in the aggregate were greater than the expenses of any other Board member and because McWaters had been a persistent critic of the Powhatan County School District and its spending practices.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2001/989009r.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was sentenced to death on the vote of a Delaware state jury in December 1982. It is not because there has been undue delay at any stage but because the case raises legitimate questions that go to the constitutionality of the original trial and sentencing. It was necessary to complete a series of proceedings in both state and federal court. Placed a bottle of beer on the counter and announced the store was being robbed. Who was then hopping up and down. As Riley and Baxter were proceeding to the door to leave. Williams were indicted on charges of felony murder. Baxter pled guilty to first degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment in exchange for his testimony against Riley. The murder and weapon charges against Williams were also dropped in exchange for his testimony against Riley. He was subsequently convicted of the robbery and conspiracy charges. Riley was represented at trial by appointed counsel. His pretrial motions for co counsel and funds for a private investigator were denied. The prosecutors in Riley's case were James Liguori and Mark McNulty.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AFD64FE849F9EBF288256A140062A3A7/$file/9917264.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The Appellants are citizens of the Federated States of Micronesia who reside in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2191.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Pierce were on brief for appellees. This is an appeal from the district court's order dismissing plaintiff Coyne's 42 U.S.C. 1983 action and state law claims against defendants. I. We discuss only so much of the background of this case as is necessary to provide context and support for our decision. He sought four job promotions and was awarded none of them. Were awarded to non certified applicants. We have given Coyne's complaint the indulgent reading it deserves. As is appropriate at this stage. A person
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200517126.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Illegally entered the United States in 1990 when he was four years old. Camacho Salinas was convicted in Florida state court of burglary. Camacho Salinas is eligible for a § 212(h) waiver of his convictions involving moral turpitude. Who was then nineteen years old. Was killed by Sandinista guerillas in 1979. Camacho Salinas then argued that he would be eligible for an INA § 212(h) waiver if he were an illegal alien rather than 3 an LPR and that the seven year residency requirement for § 212(h) eligibility for LPRs was a denial of his equal protection rights. The IJ found that Camacho Salinas was ineligible for an INA § 212(h) waiver of inadmissibility because his legal residence commenced in 2000 and did not continue for the required seven years prior to the initiation of the removal proceedings in February 2005. The IJ further found that even if Camacho Salinas was statutorily eligible for withholding of removal. Noted that the argument was meritless under Moore v. The BIA declined to consider the merits of CamachoSalinas's withholding of removal claim because he failed to challenge the IJ's conclusion that he was statutorily ineligible for relief.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar99/97-5812.man.html">RODRIGUEZ V. UNITED STATES (3/15/1999, NO. 97-5812)<BR></A><BR>
Which is more formally known as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The plaintiffs are a class of aliens who do not fit within any of the eligible categories. THE WELFARE REFORM ACT'S PROVISIONS AFFECTING THE ELIGIBILITY OF ALIENS</CENTER> FOR SSI AND FOOD STAMP WELFARE BENEFITS</P> <P> The federal government provides SSI benefits to impoverished individuals who are elderly. Aliens were eligible for both SSI and food stamp benefits on the same basis as citizens. The Act provides that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2257.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> EBEL. The district court sua sponte ordered that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/47DF728C1DEC89A388256E5A00707D34/$file/0070238.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Opinion by Judge Hawkins *John Ashcroft is substituted for his predecessor. He was convicted in California state court of petty theft. Finau was served with a Notice to Appear and placed in removal proceedings. 15248 The immigration judge (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2338.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellees Honorable Donald Rice. Was on brief for appellees William Miranda Marin. Tested positive for the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and was discharged from PRANG and from his technician job. The Guard is a hybrid state and federal 2 2 organization.1 While a part of the Armed Forces of the United States. In each state the National Guard is a state agency. The differences between Puerto Rico and a state are immaterial in this context. Every member of the state Air National Guard is also enlisted in a federal organization known as the Air National Guard of the United States (ANGUS). Which is activated when the Guard is called into federal service. 10 U.S.C. 261. Guard technicians are federal civil servants. Plaintiff's Separation from Service Plaintiff's Separation from Service Plaintiff enlisted in PRANG in 1967 and was hired as a Guard technician two years later. From 1969 until he was discharged. That result was confirmed by a second test in June or early July 1990.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan99/97-6808.op2.html">ALLEN V. ALABAMA STATE BD. OF EDUC. (1/11/1999, NO. 97-6808)<BR></A><BR>
The Board argues that the district court should have vacated the consent decree because (1) it has fully complied with it. This Court ultimately held that the consent decree was enforceable. <U>Allen v. The consent decree was finally approved and entered on May 14. Specifically forbade the use of any teacher certification examination that would have a discriminatory impact on African Americans unless that exam had been validated for teacher certification. To follow what is known as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/11/023700U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Alleging that he was (1) wrongfully placed in administrative segregation pending reclassification. The District Court was required to consider the sufficiency of his due process and equal protection claims even if defendants did not address them in their dismissal motions. He received all the process that was due before the $6.50 was assessed. The related equal protection and retaliation claims against these defendants were properly dismissed: Wheat's allegations did not involve violations of 1 Chris Weddle was never served. 2 fundamental rights. The decision to discipline him for damaging his room key was based on some evidence (although he challenged its truthfulness). We find that the District Court should not have dismissed Wheat's remaining retaliation and equal protection claims. He was not seeking damages based on a direct or indirect challenge to a parole board decision. A claim that would have been barred by Heck v. We read his complaint as claiming that he was placed in administrative segregation pending reclassification.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar99/97-5812.man.html">RODRIGUEZ V. UNITED STATES (3/15/1999, NO. 97-5812)<BR></A><BR>
Which is more formally known as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The plaintiffs are a class of aliens who do not fit within any of the eligible categories. THE WELFARE REFORM ACT'S PROVISIONS AFFECTING THE ELIGIBILITY OF ALIENS</CENTER> FOR SSI AND FOOD STAMP WELFARE BENEFITS</P> <P> The federal government provides SSI benefits to impoverished individuals who are elderly. Aliens were eligible for both SSI and food stamp benefits on the same basis as citizens. The Act provides that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042715p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an appeal from the District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants Penn Manor School District. We find no violation of Shuman's constitutional rights and will affirm the judgment of the District Court. The nature of the sexual misconduct whether consensual or not is firmly disputed by both students. Because the details of the underlying incident are not relevant for our purposes. Which is said by Shuman to have deprived him of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. 3 On December 10. Gale then called Shuman to his office at approximately 10:15 a.m. where he was questioned for ten to fifteen minutes regarding the incident. Shuman denied forcibly touching Becker and instead claimed that the incident was consensual. Shuman testified in his deposition: He asked me if I knew why I was there and asked he had asked about a situation that had occurred on the 7th. I know that there was something there but I didn't figure it was a situation there. He said that she was claiming that I physically forced my hand upon her.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19975812.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which is more formally known as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The plaintiffs are a class of aliens who do not fit within any of the eligible categories. Because no members of the plaintiff class are illegal aliens. We will for convenience use the term
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan99/97-6808.op2.html">ALLEN V. ALABAMA STATE BD. OF EDUC. (1/11/1999, NO. 97-6808)<BR></A><BR>
The Board argues that the district court should have vacated the consent decree because (1) it has fully complied with it. This Court ultimately held that the consent decree was enforceable. <U>Allen v. The consent decree was finally approved and entered on May 14. Specifically forbade the use of any teacher certification examination that would have a discriminatory impact on African Americans unless that exam had been validated for teacher certification. To follow what is known as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/99-2278.htm">99-2278 -- CORDOBA V. MASSANARI -- 07/20/2001<BR></A><BR>
The SSA is authorized to pay an attorney his fees directly from the past due benefits due a claimant. <u>See</u> 46 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-1547_010.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Concluding that RJB had not offered evidence from which a jury reasonably could find that the Board's decision was irrational or that the Board deprived RJB of a liberty interest. Background No. 06 1547 RJB is a minority owned business principally located in Orland Park. It has done business with the Board since 1987 and is owned by Ronald Blackstone. Blackstone admitted that his company was not a dairy. RJB was required to verify that it received the money it was due as an MBE subcontractor. 2001 report never came to a definitive conclusion about whether RJB engaged in misconduct because the OIG was unable to obtain documents such as contracts. The lawsuit was still pending. The case was eventually dismissed for reasons not disclosed in the record. 4 No. 06 1547 commercially independent function. Which was to get paid for doing very little. Who was then the Board's Chief Purchasing Officer. Scott asked whether Murphy was aware of any past issues regarding RJB's contract performance. Murphy said that he was not aware of any such issues but promised to investigate whether such issues existed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992122.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The purpose of the RuralAgricultural District
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/573F49D885A9D4B188257060004C1F40/$file/0455888.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
GMA contends that the definitions of the terms
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2161.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court's opinion provides a good history of the telecommunications industry and a detailed description of the instant dispute which will not be repeated at length here. The relevant facts are as follows. When the parties were unable to negotiate all of the terms of the Interconnection Agreement (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/52BA4A1C284B1E8488256B9C004E366C/$file/0130170.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The first is whether the search of a probationer's car. The second question is whether the procedural distinctions between the Armed Career Criminals Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200612636.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
His Form I 140 petition for an employment based visa was pending. He argues that the BIA and IJ denied him due process and equal protection of the law in denying his motion to continue while his visa petition was pending. Which time was extended one year. This case was initiated while the INS was still in existence. The BIA further found that Haswanee had not established that he was prima facie eligible for adjustment of status under INA § 245(a). 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) because he was not the beneficiary of an approvable visa petition and had been
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1045.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
George Helmstetter was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on six counts of passing. On appeal he <hr> challenges the peremptory challenge of a potential juror on the basis of youth and claims that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated when the district court precluded testimony about his codefendant's drug use. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm. Richmond were tried together. Richmond was also charged. She was charged in a second. Helmstetter] are not severed. Noting that its decision was not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-6004.html">RIGGIN V. OFFICE OF SENATE FAIR EMPL.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F9DC5E8659754C9E88256E5A00707C3A/$file/9916981.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is substituted for his predecessor. District Judge: Appellants (collectively
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTUyOTUtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-3823-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Granting defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint on the ground that defendant Tower Semiconductor Ltd. is a foreign private issuer exempt from Rule 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of Exchange Act Rule 3a12 3(b). The complaint alleges that a Tower proxy statement issued by defendants was materially misleading and therefore
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2002a/021127p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
To the Plaintiffs who were subjected to them they presented a paradigmatic case of racial profiling. Section 1981(a) reads:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTUyOTUtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5295-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Granting defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint on the ground that defendant Tower Semiconductor Ltd. is a foreign private issuer exempt from Rule 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of Exchange Act Rule 3a12 3(b). The complaint alleges that a Tower proxy statement issued by defendants was materially misleading and therefore
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8600030F90A4637488256AA3005A481F/$file/9916981.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is substituted for his predecessor. District Judge: Appellants (collectively
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-4316.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Have been audited by the Internal Revenue Service virtually. Every year since Richard Nixon was President. Kanter was a wellknown and accomplished tax and estate lawyer. Among Kanter's clients was the Pritzker family of Hyatt Corporation fame. Kanter was also an accomplished businessman. Was an expert on the subject of trusts and estate planning. His estate was subsequently substituted as the principal party to this litigation.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5070a.html">AUGUSTINE DAVID HENDERSON V. ROGER KENNEDY<BR></A><BR>
Argued the cause for appellees.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/00-1145.htm">00-1145 -- CONCRETE WORKS OF COLORADO INC. V. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER -- 02/10/2003<BR></A><BR>
Denver has amended the ordinance twice since this lawsuit was initiated but it remains essentially unchanged for purposes of this case. <p> In 1993. A bench trial was held and the district court entered judgment in favor of CWC on its claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. <em>See Concrete Works of Colorado. CWC's entitlement to damages was reserved and the district court directed entry of judgment under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. <em>See</em> <em>id</em>. at 1044. Anecdotal evidence which are discussed respectively in subsections IV.A. <a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/july96/95-4041.wpd.html">BATEMAN V. CITY OF WEST BOUNTIFUL<BR></A><BR>
The district court held that these claims were not ripe for adjudication because Bateman had neither received a final administrative determination concerning his property. Utah.(1) The lot was one of several one acre lots located on 400 North that were granted conditional use zoning by the City. Which is admitted for the most part by the defendants. one residence permitted on each portion. Because the right of way was necessary to provide access to the other two portions of the lot. The normal setback and side yard requirements were waived under the conditional use zoning scheme. The buildings were constructed in stages. The City was aware of the construction. The structures were completed in approximately 1980. This Certificate indicated that Bateman's property was not in compliance with the setback and side yard requirements of the West Bountiful building ordinance. Which is still on file in the county recorder's office. As was permitted under Utah law. Bateman also asserted that the City was estopped under state law from enforcing the setback and side yard requirements.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002388.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Service or business in [West Virginia] are employers . . . and are . . . required to subscribe to and pay premium taxes into the work C & H COMPANY v. Service or work in which they are engaged
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200106/00-5070a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the brief were Wilma A. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs Henderson and Phillips allege that they are evangelical Christians. Buttons and bumper stickers
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/12/001217P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
While Blaise Riggs was a member of the Banner County. Who were also road crew members. Riggs and the secretary were placed on paid leave pending the completion of an investigation. Riggs was eventually fired. The other road crew members were advised by letter that they would be subject to discipline. There were no restrictions on what the road crew members could say on their own time and away from county property. They were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="494"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1998/98a1945p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will review a dismissal for failure to state a claim. Appellant is an orthopedic surgeon who. Which is a private. Which is defined as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="494"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/Locator/3d/Jan2000/993072.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will reverse the judgment of the District Court and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 2 I. DeHart is currently serving a life sentence at SCI at Greene. Which are Buddhist religious texts. Challenge whether vegetarianism is a central tenet of any recognized Buddhist sect. A brief overview of the process by which Pennsylvania prisons provide meals to inmates is necessary for a proper understanding of DeHart's request. The food for those meals is obtained through bulk purchases. The therapeutic diet consists of the same foods (in different proportions) that are served on the master menu. The therapeutic meals are prepared individually. All inmates who have been prescribed a therapeutic diet eat together in one dining hall after it has been cleared of the other inmates. DeHart proposes that he be served a vegetarian meal when other inmates are served the therapeutic meals. As she 3 is not currently purchased by the Department of Corrections (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="494"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200101/00-1094a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Richard R. With him on the brief were Daniel M. Mikula were on the brief for intervenors Minority Media and Telecommunications Council. Campbell was on the brief for intervenor Nation al Organization for Women. Hunnicutt were on the brief for amici curiae Radio One. Whitehouse were on the brief for amici curiae The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and National Council of the Churches of Christ. Curran and Eduardo Pena were on the brief for amicus curiae Congressional Black Caucus. We hold first that the Broadcasters fail to substantiate their claim that the rule is arbitrary and capricious. Thus creating a race based classification that is not narrowly tailored to sup port a compelling governmental interest and is therefore unconstitutional. Because we find that the unconstitutional portion of the rule is not severable. Necessity will be served by the granting of such application.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="494"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1094a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were </P> <P> . Argued the cause for respondents. </P> <P>With him on the brief were Daniel M. Mikula were on the brief for intervenors </P> <P>Minority Media and Telecommunications Council. Campbell was on the brief for intervenor Nation </P> <P>al Organization for Women. Hunnicutt were on the </P> <P>brief for amici curiae Radio One. Whitehouse were on the </P> <P>brief for amici curiae The Leadership Conference on Civil </P> <P>Rights and National Council of the Churches of Christ. </P> <P>Andrew J. Curran and Eduardo Pena were on the </P> <P>brief for amicus curiae Congressional Black Caucus.</P> <P> . </P> <P> We hold first that the Broadcasters fail to substantiate </P> <P>their claim that the rule is arbitrary and capricious. Thus creating a </P> <P>race based classification that is not narrowly tailored to sup </P> <P>port a compelling governmental interest and is therefore </P> <P>unconstitutional. Because we find that the unconstitutional </P> <P>portion of the rule is not severable.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971628.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The amount of the fee is tethered to the classification of each property owner as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0134p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This decision was originally issued on April 3. It is now being issued to incorporate Judge Jones' separate concurring opinion. * 1 2 Rural West Tennessee. This conclusion is contrary to the Supreme Court's interpretation of § 2. The ability of blacks to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-1723a.html">TIME WARNER ENTRTNMT V. FCC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19958871.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was terminated from her employment. Was a party to the hearing. Childree's testimony was unfavorable to UAP/GA. The question on appeal is whether the district court correctly granted summary judgment to the defendants. The other defendant is ConAgra. UAP/GA is the Georgia branch of UAP. 1 * termination did not violate the whistleblower protection provision of the False Claims Act of 1986. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Because we are reviewing the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The facts are as follows. Whom Childree believed were merely subsidiary fronts for Varner Bass. Because she believed the re billing request was part of an attempt to defraud the United States government. Childree believed that Varner Bass's request for the re billings was an attempt to use subsidiary fronts to evade the $50.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0385p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiff's complaint was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claimed that Defendants wrongfully terminated her at will employment with the county because of her intimate association with one Steve Milam. Defendants responded that Plaintiff's relationship was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992487.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The district court rejected the County's legal argument that fire investigators are exempt from the requirements of the FLSA under that statute's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962544.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The table displays are set up and stocked entirely by private citizens who are not affiliated in any way with the schools. No one is allowed to enter classrooms to announce the availability of the religious or political material. No school announcement or assembly is allowed to mark the availability of the Bibles or any other religious or political material. School principals are charged with ensuring strict compliance with these guidelines. Westfall or school activity personnel
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2002/01-10859.opn.html">CLARK V. PUTNAM COUNTY (6/10/2002, NO. 01-10859)<BR></A><BR>
Appellants claim that these two districts were racially gerrymandered in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. <A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2002/01-10859.opn.html">CLARK V. PUTNAM COUNTY (6/10/2002, NO. 01-10859)<BR></A><BR>
Appellants claim that these two districts were racially gerrymandered in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. <A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug96/95-8871.opa.html">CHILDREE V. VAP/GA AG CHEM, INC.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Childree v. Was terminated from her employment. Was a party to the hearing. Childree's testimony was unfavorable to UAP/GA. Her testimony allegedly exposed UAP/GA's assistance to Varner Bass in its fraudulent scheme against the government.<p> The question on appeal is whether the district court correctly granted summary judgment to the defendants. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY</b><p> <p> Because we are reviewing the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The facts are as follows.<p> While employed by UAP/GA. Whom Childree believed were merely subsidiary fronts for Varner Bass. Because she believed the re billing request was part of an attempt to defraud the United States government. Childree believed that Varner Bass's request for the re billings was an attempt to use subsidiary fronts to evade the $50.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4. |
