Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to
consider using additional terms to narrow it.
 |
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief was Dalila Argaez Wendlandt. Of counsel on the brief were Susan G.L. With him on the brief were Mark E. The court held Pall in contempt for violating the Mykrolis Corporation is now known as Entegris. We will continue to refer to the company herein as Mykrolis. 1 injunction but. Pall appeals the district court's finding that Pall was in contempt. BACKGROUND Plaintiff cross appellant Mykrolis and defendant appellant Pall are competitors in the industry of filtration systems for semiconductor manufacturing. Mykrolis is the assignee of the '770 and '907 patents. Pall withdrew that motion as
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
McKusick sought a declaratory judgment that certain parts of the injunction are unconstitutionally overbroad. Or on their behalf
|
|
CHANDLER V. JAMES (7/13/1999, NO. 97-6898)
Because the states are bound by the First Amendment. We shall affirm the judgment of the district court as to the Governor's appeal.
|
|
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
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: This case was brought as a class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. While the case was being prepared for trial. The Dealers' appeal is No. 05 14543. Westgate's appeal is No. 05 15152. This is the second time the Dealers' breach of contract claims against Ford have been before this court. On the Dealers' petition for a writ of The petition for writ of mandamus is No. 05 14254. We have consolidated this petition with the appeals designated in note 2.
|
|
ADDITIVE CONTROLS V. FLOWDATA
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Peter D. With him on the brief were Benjamin F. The Secretary argues that the District Court erred in concluding that the milk cooperatives were
|
|
MCKUSICK V. CITY OF MELBOURNE
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > McKusick v. McKusick sought a declaratory judgment that certain parts of the injunction are unconstitutionally overbroad. Or on their behalf
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-10.gif" ALT="1000"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept96/95-2331.opa.html">MCKUSICK V. CITY OF MELBOURNE<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>McKusick v. McKusick sought a declaratory judgment that certain parts of the injunction are unconstitutionally overbroad. Or on their behalf
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-10.gif" ALT="1000"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216640.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1 physicians are suing many of this country's largest HMOs. The court held that certain claims were arbitrable. This order was slightly modified in In re Managed Care Litig. The district court certified a class in an order which is currently on appeal before this court. Whether the plaintiffs have adequately stated any claims. Or the merits of those claims An important point is that. It does not necessarily mean that arbitration of such a claim is prohibited or illegal. If this is done without the other party's consent. The result is a legal nullity. The first modification was in response to an inconsistency in its original opinion that the defendants pointed out. The second modification was made due to the subsequent history of 2 3 2 1 * procedural history leading up to them are not immediately relevant to this appeal. Are not being challenged here. The only claims remaining were those the court had ruled non arbitrable. The substance of these arbitration orders is not currently before us on appeal. The only important fact about the arbitration orders is that they designated some claims as arbitrable.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-10.gif" ALT="1000"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2323.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. This matter is before the en banc court to review issues emanating from the panel opinion in O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal v. The underlying facts relating to the parties and the issues are fully described in the panel opinion and are therefore unnecessary to reiterate here. The en banc court is divided over the outcome of this case. The en banc court holds that courts in this Circuit must recognize that any preliminary injunction fitting within one of the disfavored categories must be more closely scrutinized to assure that the exigencies of the case support the granting of a remedy that is extraordinary even in the normal course. Movants seeking such an injunction are not entitled to rely on this Circuit's modified likelihood of success on the merits standard. A majority of the en banc court is of the view that the district court's entry of a preliminary injunction in this case should be affirmed. The decision of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico to grant UDV's request for a preliminary injunction is hereby AFFIRMED.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-10.gif" ALT="1000"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july99/97-6898.man.html">CHANDLER V. JAMES (7/13/1999, NO. 97-6898)<BR></A><BR>
Because the states are bound by the First Amendment. We shall affirm the judgment of the district court as to the Governor's appeal.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-10.gif" ALT="1000"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/30443BDD97F95D3A882570A4005595EC/$file/0335058.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
To partially enjoin entry of the judgment on the ground that the state court award was inconsistent with the settlement reached in a prior nationwide class action involving L P and over which the court retained jurisdiction. Settled shortly after it was filed. Class claims related to the failure of Inner Seal Siding were released.1 L P also agreed to The settlement agreement required L P to make a minimum payment of $275. Qualified claims were paid from that fund and class members were barred from litigating any claim related to the failure of Inner Seal Siding for a period of four years from the date of the final order and judgment. At which time the claims administrator was ordered to notify L P if the settlement fund proved insufficient to satisfy all approved claims filed before January 1. L P was directed to advise class counsel whether it intended to satisfy the unfunded claims. It was required to make additional payments
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="980"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2001/00-13481.man.html">MILAN EXPRESS V. AVERITT EXPRESS (6/19/2001, NO. 00-13481)<BR></A><BR>
Have been involved in protracted litigation. The opposing companies argued that the proposed transfer was merely a pretense for avoiding the jurisdiction of the Alabama Public Service Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="980"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTIyNzUtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2275-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case was decided by a two judge panel. Circuit Judge: At issue in this appeal is whether the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Denise Cote. Was authorized to enter an injunction ordering an Alabama state court to postpone the trial of a related case until after the District Court had completed its own trial. To a date no earlier than sixty days following the completion of a class action trial that is scheduled to begin in the District Court on January 10. Who are not plaintiffs in the securities litigation in the District Court. We conclude that the District Court's injunction was barred by the Anti Injunction Act. That an injunction postponing the Alabama action was therefore
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="980"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2001/00-13481.man.html">MILAN EXPRESS V. AVERITT EXPRESS (6/19/2001, NO. 00-13481)<BR></A><BR>
Have been involved in protracted litigation. The opposing companies argued that the proposed transfer was merely a pretense for avoiding the jurisdiction of the Alabama Public Service Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="973"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1831.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Woodworth & Evarts LLP were on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellees Dubois and Matesanz. LLP were on brief for appellee AT&T Corp. Gilday was convicted of first degree murder and armed robbery. For which he is now serving concurrent life sentences at the Bay State Correctional Center in Norfolk. The relevant facts are related in the light most favorable to Gilday. Gilday alleged that federal and state officials were opening his prison mail and intercepting his telephone communications in a coordinated effort to gather information regarding others involved in the Brighton bank robbery. It is hereby ORDERED. Employees and attorneys of the Department of Correction are enjoined permanently. As they have been amended or may be amended Around the same time. Gilday proceeded with the action against the nonsettling DOC officials. 3 and as they have been construed or may be construed in reported decisions that are binding in this Court or in the state courts of Massachusetts. 2. [mail restrictions] 3.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="973"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200415585.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which was filed in 2001. Was consolidated with another case against the Monsanto Company filed in April 2002. Blair and Trussell's current law firms are Blair & Parsons. We refer to these parties collectively as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="956"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199807/97-5253a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on brief. Wright and Audrey Byrd Mosley were on brief. Glitzenstein was on brief. Circuit Judge: This appeal poses the recurring question of what remedy is appropriate for a federal agency's violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Which committee both the Department and the Academy concede was orga nized and operated in violation of FACA. Because we have serious doubts whether the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="956"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200316424.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which is controlled by the Army Corps of Engineers (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="954"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2001/002185.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were subject to the class settlement. Appellants have presented this Court with thr ee issues on appeal. While Appellants are subject to the class settlement. Therefore are enjoined from pursuing any claims that fall within that settlement. They are not enjoined from pursuing. Are collectively referr ed to as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="952"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1490.html">ADDITIVE CONTROLS V. FLOWDATA, INC.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="943"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2003/022209p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The principal issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred by retroactively increasing the amount of an injunction bond upon dissolution of a preliminary injunction. Sprint Communications Company L.P. is a provider of long distance telephone service. Inc. is a reseller of local telephone service. CAT Communications is a Competitive Local Exchange Carrier that leases lines from other Local Exchange Carriers and sells local telephone service available on these lines to the 3 public on a prepaid basis. None of these calls were paid for. The District Court found that the cost to CAT Communications of such restriction was at that point
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="943"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/020752FE40C3AEB788256E68007D0070/$file/0256842.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Enforma contends that the district court's unilateral substantive amendment of the parties' stipulated proposed preliminary injunction was an abuse of discretion. ENFORMA NATURAL PRODUCTS in support of the second injunction are insufficient and that the court's reliance on the court appointed expert was improper. Leading to lower levels of fat in the Because the factual and procedural histories of both appeals are intertwined. Enforma also agreed not to sell or market any product making the above or similar claims unless it possessed and relied upon
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="943"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7C69776C29CF001D88256E6F00728DAC/$file/0256842.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: At slip op. 3999. Spencer Letts (before this case was reassigned to District Judge Stephen V. Spencer Letts (before this case was reassigned to District Judge Stephen V. Enforma contends that the district court's unilateral substantive amendment of the parties' stipulated proposed preliminary injunction was an abuse of discretion. Enforma also argues that the findings and conclusions issued in support of the second injunction are insufficient and that the court's reliance on the court appointed expert was improper. Enforma also agreed not to sell or market any product making the above or similar claims unless it possessed and relied upon
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="941"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031116.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lay
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="939"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july98/97-3308.opn.html">MCDONALD'S CORP. V. ROBERTSON (7/28/1998, NO. 97-3308)<BR></A><BR>
McDonald's is not likely to succeed on the merits of its case. Because no issues of material fact were in controversy when the district court ruled on the motion for preliminary injunction. We affirm.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> A detailed recitation of the operative facts is necessary to understanding our holding. Shortly before the parties' original franchise agreement was due to expire. An operator's lease to the real property upon which the restaurant is located. If the franchise agreement were terminated. The audit disclosed that the Robertsons' restaurant was producing undercooked meat patties. The audit revealed the following: (1) cooked meat and poultry products were being held in staging cabinets at eight and three degrees below McDonald's prescribed temperatures. Was not maintained in good. (3) towels were not being sanitized.<U></U></P> <P> On September 12. Including the following: (1) the sundae machine refrigeration temperature was maintained twelve degrees above the maximum McDonald's recommended temperature.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="939"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july98/97-3308.opn.html">MCDONALD'S CORP. V. ROBERTSON (7/28/1998, NO. 97-3308)<BR></A><BR>
McDonald's is not likely to succeed on the merits of its case. Because no issues of material fact were in controversy when the district court ruled on the motion for preliminary injunction. We affirm.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> A detailed recitation of the operative facts is necessary to understanding our holding. Shortly before the parties' original franchise agreement was due to expire. An operator's lease to the real property upon which the restaurant is located. If the franchise agreement were terminated. The audit disclosed that the Robertsons' restaurant was producing undercooked meat patties. The audit revealed the following: (1) cooked meat and poultry products were being held in staging cabinets at eight and three degrees below McDonald's prescribed temperatures. Was not maintained in good. (3) towels were not being sanitized.<U></U></P> <P> On September 12. Including the following: (1) the sundae machine refrigeration temperature was maintained twelve degrees above the maximum McDonald's recommended temperature.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="939"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991979.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Asset freezing injunction on the United States' allegations that the defendant oncology service providers defrauded the Medicare and CHAMPUS1 programs and thereafter were engaging in complex reorganizations and transfers of assets to insulate themselves from liability. Concluding that because both money damages and equitable relief are sought in this case. The controlling authority is not Grupo Mexicano but Deckert v. Doctors Colkitt and Derdel are physicians specializing in radiation oncology. The United States alleges that the defendants claimed reimbursement on bills for radiation oncology services that were not provided or ordered by the physician and on bills for unnecessary radiation oncology services. Count V 8 alleges that payments were made to defendants under a mistake of fact. Count VI alleges that all actions of the defendants were actions of Colkitt under an alter ego theory. Profits
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="939"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19973308.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
McDonald's is not likely to succeed on the merits of its case. Because no issues of material fact were in controversy when the district court ruled on the motion for preliminary injunction. I. A detailed recitation of the operative facts is necessary to understanding our holding. Shortly before the parties' original franchise agreement was due to expire. An operator's lease to the real property upon which the restaurant is located. If the franchise agreement were terminated. The audit disclosed that the Robertsons' restaurant was producing undercooked meat patties. The audit revealed the following: (1) cooked meat and poultry products were being held in staging cabinets at eight and three degrees below McDonald's prescribed temperatures. Was not maintained in good. (3) towels were not being sanitized. Including the following: (1) the sundae machine refrigeration temperature was maintained twelve degrees above the maximum McDonald's recommended temperature. (2) the equipment was not kept in good. The audit revealed that the walk in refrigerator contained several items with expired freshness codes that should have been removed and destroyed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="939"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19973308.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
McDonald's is not likely to succeed on the merits of its case. Because no issues of material fact were in controversy when the district court ruled on the motion for preliminary injunction. I. A detailed recitation of the operative facts is necessary to understanding our holding. Shortly before the parties' original franchise agreement was due to expire. An operator's lease to the real property upon which the restaurant is located. If the franchise agreement were terminated. The audit disclosed that the Robertsons' restaurant was producing undercooked meat patties. The audit revealed the following: (1) cooked meat and poultry products were being held in staging cabinets at eight and three degrees below McDonald's prescribed temperatures. Was not maintained in good. (3) towels were not being sanitized. Including the following: (1) the sundae machine refrigeration temperature was maintained twelve degrees above the maximum McDonald's recommended temperature. (2) the equipment was not kept in good. The audit revealed that the walk in refrigerator contained several items with expired freshness codes that should have been removed and destroyed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="934"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021738.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chemical crabgrass control products are most effective when applied to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="934"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept97/95-6326.opa.html">LUCERO V. TROSCH<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lucero v. The following issues are raised on appeal: (1) whether the district court abused its discretion in failing to dismiss plaintiffs' state law nuisance claim after the court denied plaintiffs' application for a preliminary injunction on their federal FACE claim. Lucero is a doctor who performed various reproductive health services. The district court specifically found that much of this conduct was disturbing to the Clinic's staff and patients. These residential protests were quite loud and caused him to feel intimidated. We will return.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="934"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept97/95-6326.opa.html">LUCERO V. TROSCH<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lucero v. The following issues are raised on appeal: (1) whether the district court abused its discretion in failing to dismiss plaintiffs' state law nuisance claim after the court denied plaintiffs' application for a preliminary injunction on their federal FACE claim. Lucero is a doctor who performed various reproductive health services. The district court specifically found that much of this conduct was disturbing to the Clinic's staff and patients. These residential protests were quite loud and caused him to feel intimidated. We will return.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="932"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1101.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Ted G. Of Counsel on the brief were Jason Rantanen and Genevieve A. With him on the brief was Teresa Ragatz. Of counsel on the brief were Alan B. That Andrx had not shown a likelihood of proving that any of the patents are invalid. Arguing (1) that Abbott is collaterally estopped from asserting certain claims in the three patents because of findings of invalidity and unenforceability of the patents in proceedings against other defendants. (2) that the district court erred in finding that Abbott is likely to succeed in proving infringement with respect to any of the asserted claims of the three patents. Because we find that collateral estoppel does not apply and the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Abbott is likely to succeed on the merits. Three such cases are relevant to this appeal Abbott's cases against Teva Pharmaceuticals (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="930"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec2000/00-15981.ma2.html">SIEGEL V. LEPORE (12/6/2000, NO. 00-15981)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judges.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="930"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec2000/00-15981.ma2.html">SIEGEL V. LEPORE (12/6/2000, NO. 00-15981)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judges.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="926"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/06/02-6101.htm">02-6101 -- FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. KUYKENDALL -- 06/10/2004<BR></A><BR>
We agree with the panel and the district court that the underlying proceedings were correctly classified as civil contempt proceedings. Before that appeal was heard the parties entered into a settlement that was eventually incorporated into a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="917"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/09/02-2323.htm">02-2323 -- O CENTERO ESPRITA BENEFICIENTE UNIAO DO VEGETAL V. ASHCROFT -- 09/04/2003<BR></A><BR>
The district court granted UDV's motion for a preliminary injunction in a unpublished Memorandum Opinion and Order.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="913"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033392p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
ESQUIRE McDermott Will & Emery 227 West Monroe Street. This case involves twelve1 consolidated appeals from the District Court's order approving Combustion Engineering's bankruptcy Plan of Reorganization under 11 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.2 We will vacate and remand. The state and federal judicial systems have struggled with an avalanche of asbestos lawsuits. The difficulties with asbestos litigation have been well documented by RAND and others.3 Efforts to resolve the asbestos problem through global settlement class actions under Fed. P. 23(b)(3) and 23(b)(1)(B) have so far been unsuccessful. Mounting asbestos liabilities have pushed otherwise viable companies into bankruptcy. The centerpiece of the Plan is an injunction in favor of Combustion Engineering that channels all of its asbestos claims to a post confirmation trust (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="911"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511556opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
PER CURIAM: Plaintiffs have appealed the district court's denial of their motion for a temporary restraining order to require the defendants to transport Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo to a hospital to reestablish nutrition and hydration and for any medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. The district court entered a careful order which is attached as an Appendix to this opinion. Plaintiffs have also petitioned this Court to grant the same injunctive relief under the All Writs Act. Although we ordinarily do not have jurisdiction over appeals from orders granting or denying temporary restraining orders.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="911"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511556.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
PER CURIAM: Plaintiffs have appealed the district court's denial of their motion for a temporary restraining order to require the defendants to transport Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo to a hospital to reestablish nutrition and hydration and for any medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. The district court entered a careful order which is attached as an Appendix to this opinion. Plaintiffs have also petitioned this Court to grant the same injunctive relief under the All Writs Act. Although we ordinarily do not have jurisdiction over appeals from orders granting or denying temporary restraining orders.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="906"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2000/99-12507.man.html">FLORIDA ASS'N OF REHABILITATION FACILITIES, INC. V. FLORIDA DEP'T OF HEALTH (9/1/2000, NO. 99-12507)<BR></A><BR>
That in any event the relief ordered by the district court is barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the extent it effectively requires the State to pay money to redress pre judgment violations. We remand for determination of whether Plaintiffs' entitlement to prospective relief had become moot by the time of judgment.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="906"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2004/033977p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an appeal from the denial of preliminary relief in a trademark infringement action. Because the denial of the preliminary injunction was premised on legal errors. The following facts are undisputed. It advised Andrx to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="906"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2000/99-12507.man.html">FLORIDA ASS'N OF REHABILITATION FACILITIES, INC. V. FLORIDA DEP'T OF HEALTH (9/1/2000, NO. 99-12507)<BR></A><BR>
That in any event the relief ordered by the district court is barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the extent it effectively requires the State to pay money to redress pre judgment violations. We remand for determination of whether Plaintiffs' entitlement to prospective relief had become moot by the time of judgment.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-9.gif" ALT="900"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2000/993570.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who are individually named plaintiffs in a suit seeking to require Freedom Forge to continue funding the health benefits plan currently in place for retirees and spouses. The gravamen of the plaintiffs' claim is that Freedom Forge induced them into early retirement with oral assurances that their health insurance benefits would continue essentially unmodified until death. This suit was prompted by Freedom Forge's announcement that it would be switching from a self insured benefits program with no premiums to a managed care system in which retirees would be able to choose among plans. Asserting that they were reasonably likely to succeed on the merits. Faced with a large group of plaintiffs whom the court determines are reasonably likely to succeed on the merits. May grant a preliminary injunction to the entire group of plaintiffs if there is evidence that some. Of the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm. While none of the other plaintiffs presented evidence that they were threatened with irreparable harm or were similarly situated to those who testified.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="898"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200702/06-5126a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Peter D. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. With him on the brief were Susan L. Circuit Judge: In this case we have before us a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on behalf of Shawqi Ahmad Omar. He traveled to Iraq seeking reconstruction related work and would have left by November 2004 but for his arrest and detention. The government believes that Omar was part of Zarqawi's network and that he facilitated terrorist activities both in and outside of Iraq. The government alleges that four Jordanian foreign fighters and an Iraqi insurgent were captured along with Omar. That weapons and improvised explosive device making materials were found in his home. The panel also found that Omar was not a prisoner of war for purposes of the Third Geneva Convention. American MNF I officials have held Omar at various detention facilities in Iraq. The record indicates neither who made this decision nor what procedures were followed. The government also argues that even if the district court does have jurisdiction.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="893"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E69A3C8451B28902882571610057843B/$file/0516504.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). In which Andina was substituted for its predecessor in interest. Both the 1987 Agreement and the 1978 Agreement have the same forum selection and choiceof law clauses in favor of California: This agreement is entered into under the laws of the State of California. Including whether Gallo had delivered three shipments late and whether Andina was an exclusive distributor of Gallo products. Andina was allowed to choose this guardian. Andina was required to provide affidavits of two people who could swear to Yepez's reliability and could recommend her. Which was issued by the Ecuadorian military dictatorship in 1976 and had been repealed in 1997. The decree was intended to protect Ecuadorians who acted as agents. The Decree stated that any legal action brought under the law was to be heard by a judge at the Ecuadorian company's main residence.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="893"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992485.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is a high tech business engaged in designing. Jarrard was paid $300. Her compensation was in the range of $500. Was a competitor or a client of the Company. Was a client of the Company. The agreement was. Was stated by CIENA on belief to be worth in excess of $5 million. An assertion with which Jarrard has not taken issue except to note that stock options in a start up company are often difficult to value. Sycamore Networks' stated mission is to improve the optical network infrastructure available to the telecommunications industry. (2) that Jarrard misappropriated and will continue to misappropriate CIENA's trade secrets in performing her new job with Sycamore Networks. CIENA notified Jarrard of this action on the date that the complaint was filed Friday.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="891"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/29D56C277CF48D238825734F0059E271/$file/0617288.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that when a debtor applies for a 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) preliminary injunction to stay a proceeding in which the debtor is not a party. I. BACKGROUND Hoffman is the founder and a major shareholder of both Indivos and Excel. One of the main purposes of these agreements was to separate Hoffman from the management of Indivos. Which was controlled by Hoffman and separately owned Indivos shares. Was not a party to the Settlement Agreement or the Pledge Agreement. Excel was a party to the Voting Trust and Standstill Agreement. Including whether their positions on patent ownership were taken in good faith. Ruling that all of the patents Excel accused Indivos of infringing were actually owned by Indivos. The parties were attempting to schedule additional hearing dates to finish the proceeding. Hoffman's bankruptcy petition was dismissed in September 2004. Hoffman argued to the arbitrator that the stay established by Excel's bankruptcy petition applied to Indivos' claims against him because those claims were intertwined with Indivos' claims against Excel.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="887"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/06/062658P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Goss was the major manufacturer of large printing presses in the United States for more than a century and enjoyed dominance in the United States printing press market into the late 1990s. A clawback statute is a countermeasure that enables defendants who have paid a multiple damage judgment in a foreign country to recover the multiple portion of that judgment from the plaintiff. Canada that allows companies which have paid treble damages under United States antitrust law judgments to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="887"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1275.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I The University of Colorado is comprised of four campuses. One of which is the Health Sciences Center. One of which is the School of Medicine. Was appointed Professor of Medicine in the School of Medicine on or about July 1. He received continuous tenure and was subsequently appointed Head of the Renal Division of the Department of Medicine. The doctor was appointed Chair of the Department of Medicine. Department Chairs are responsible for the organization of their department and for implementing policies initiated by the Chancellor and Dean of their respective units. It is undisputed that the possibility of the transition of the Health Sciences Center from its Ninth Avenue location to Fitzsimons was the subject of extensive debate within the University community. He also maintains that his concerns about whether and how the Health Sciences Center should be migrated to the Fitzsimons site have evolved over time. The University maintains that Dean Krugman was not required to consult with faculty before dismissing Dr.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="882"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/03/993064P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court denied the motion for class certification on the grounds that (1) the proposed class definition of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="880"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1433.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Ted G. Of counsel on the brief were Jennifer L. Of counsel were Todd J. With him on the brief were Maria Luisa Palmese and Robert V. Abbott moved for a preliminary injunction against Teva on the grounds that Teva was infringing claims 2. We have jurisdiction to review the district court's order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(1). I. Clarithromycin is a broad spectrum antibiotic from the macrolide family of antibiotics. All of which are derived from erythromycin A. (2) immediate irreparable harm will result if the relief is not granted. (4) the public interest is best served by granting the injunctive relief. 386 but as this case is a limited appeal of the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(1) and that preliminary injunction did not extend to the claims of the 6. Those two patents are not before us today and will not be discussed. 05 1433 3 1 Abbott Labs. v. Teva alleged that the asserted patent claims were invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="880"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C883CCB34DCECFB888256E5A00707D5D/$file/0015132.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
While others were unable to represent themselves adequately at such proceedings. (4) the plaintiff class was improperly certified and is not entitled to system wide relief. The Board argues that plaintiffs have no due process right to a parole hearing. We have jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. I. BACKGROUND The instant action was brought by a class of prisoners and parolees suffering from six categories of disability: mobility impairments. The divisions have different areas of responsibility regarding prisoners and parolees. Litigation against the two divisions was bifurcated and proceeded on two separate tracks. A. Parties The named plaintiffs are prisoners sentenced under California Penal Code § 1168 to life with the possibility of parole who complain that the Board failed to provide them with adequate accommodations at a variety of parole hearings. Parolees who complain about the lack of accommodations during the parole revocation process.1 The defendants in the part of the case now on appeal are Gray Davis.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="880"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/c883ccb34dcecfb888256e5a00707d5d/$FILE/0015132.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
While others were unable to represent themselves adequately at such proceedings. (4) the plaintiff class was improperly certified and is not entitled to system wide relief. The Board argues that plaintiffs have no due process right to a parole hearing. We have jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. I. BACKGROUND The instant action was brought by a class of prisoners and parolees suffering from six categories of disability: mobility impairments. The divisions have different areas of responsibility regarding prisoners and parolees. Litigation against the two divisions was bifurcated and proceeded on two separate tracks. A. Parties The named plaintiffs are prisoners sentenced under California Penal Code § 1168 to life with the possibility of parole who complain that the Board failed to provide them with adequate accommodations at a variety of parole hearings. Parolees who complain about the lack of accommodations during the parole revocation process.1 The defendants in the part of the case now on appeal are Gray Davis.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="880"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0484p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an appeal from the district court's decision finding Defendant Appellant Boyd B. The central issue on appeal is whether Greene timely appealed the district court's orders finding him in contempt and directing him to pay compensatory damages. Used product specifications for the StakPak that were almost verbatim the same as Gnesys's specifications for the HYDRASEP device. The district court found that Greene willfully violated four provisions of the Injunction and consequently was in contempt. A party must file a notice of appeal with the district court
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="880"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/32ceecd24573adbd88256b12005f31ee/$FILE/0015132.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
While others were unable to represent themselves adequately at such proceedings. (4) the plaintiff class was improperly certified and is not entitled to system wide relief. The Board argues that plaintiffs have no due process right to a parole hearing. We have jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. I. BACKGROUND The instant action was brought by a class of prisoners and parolees suffering from six categories of disability: mobility impairments. The divisions have different areas of responsibility regarding prisoners and parolees. Litigation against the two divisions was bifurcated and proceeded on two separate tracks. A. Parties The named plaintiffs are prisoners sentenced under California Penal Code § 1168 to life with the possibility of parole who complain that the Board failed to provide them with adequate accommodations at a variety of parole hearings. Parolees who complain about the lack of accommodations during the parole revocation process.1 The defendants in the part of the case now on appeal are Gray Davis.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="880"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/32CEECD24573ADBD88256B12005F31EE/$file/0015132.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
While others were unable to represent themselves adequately at such proceedings. (4) the plaintiff class was improperly certified and is not entitled to system wide relief. The Board argues that plaintiffs have no due process right to a parole hearing. We have jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. I. BACKGROUND The instant action was brought by a class of prisoners and parolees suffering from six categories of disability: mobility impairments. The divisions have different areas of responsibility regarding prisoners and parolees. Litigation against the two divisions was bifurcated and proceeded on two separate tracks. A. Parties The named plaintiffs are prisoners sentenced under California Penal Code § 1168 to life with the possibility of parole who complain that the Board failed to provide them with adequate accommodations at a variety of parole hearings. Parolees who complain about the lack of accommodations during the parole revocation process.1 The defendants in the part of the case now on appeal are Gray Davis.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="876"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1816.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
DaimlerChrysler timely filed this appeal and raised the following issues: 1) whether the district court erred in applying the doctrine of progressive encroachment to its dilution claim by finding that laches barred the claim even though prior sales of H1 vehicles occurred in a different market than the mainstream SUV market where the H2 is 1 (...continued) the early 1980s and was later released for consumer sales in 1992 as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="871"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/10/01-1084.htm">01-1084 -- DOMINION VIDEO SATELITE INC. V. ECHOSTARE SATELLITE CORP. -- 10/25/2001<BR></A><BR>
INTRODUCTION</strong> <p> <strong> </strong>This interlocutory appeal arises from a contract dispute based on diversity jurisdiction that is currently in arbitration. Dominion is a television and radio broadcaster of predominantly religious programming that operates the Sky Angel network. <p> Each of EchoStar's satellites houses multiple transponders. The contract provides for several offsets against Dominion's cash payments to EchoStar if certain conditions were met. <p> The contract defines a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="871"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1997/97a1572p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This case comes before us a second time for a determination whether New Jersey's regulation of the disposal of solid waste is constitutional under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Are Atlantic Coast Demolition & Recycling. The latter two plaintiffs are. The defendants are the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). The Carbone plaintiffs and the defendants have appealed the district court's decision. We will affirm the district court's findings that New Jersey's flow control laws and regulations are unconstitutional insofar as they discriminate against out of state waste processing facilities. We will not. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. I. FACTS As this nation's prosperity and consumption have increased over the years. States have attempted to meet those concerns by limiting or banning the importation of solid waste. States and municipalities have erected barriers to the exportation of solid waste in the hope that in state control of solid waste facilities will protect their communities from environmental harm.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="871"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/02-4126.htm">02-4126 -- SALT LAKE TRIBUNE PUBLISHING CO. V. AT&T CORP. -- 02/24/2003<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="867"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981030.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
One such employee was John Rogers. Only Cheil was producing in line coated films. Nan Ya was not. The remainder of the record then was to become public. It was not identified and removed by either party when the case file 3 was reviewed. Arguing that the remedy granted was overbroad because it exceeded the remedy Hoechst had requested during the hearing. We have jurisdiction over Nan Ya's appeal. We have jurisdiction over Nan Ya's appeal of this order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1):
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="867"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar99/99-11145.opn.html">WILSON V. MINOR (8/4/2000, NO. 99-11145)<BR></A><BR>
The district court found that the 1988 injunction changed the size of the County Commission and was therefore an impermissible remedy for a voting rights violation in light of recent Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit precedent. Because the law prohibiting changes in the size of a governing body in order to remedy a section 2 violation is plain. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in vacating the 1988 injunction and affirm its order.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="867"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3560D72FE2ED06EF88256D780079E014/$file/0256412.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This interlocutory appeal is before us following our decision in Bernhardt v. Although the merits of those claims remain pending before the district court where Bernhardt is appearing pro se. We are now asked to determine whether the district court properly denied Bernhardt a preliminary injunction barring the County's lump sum policy so that 10730 BERNHARDT v. We hold that although the district court did not err in denying Bernhardt a broad preliminary injunction that would have barred the County's use of a lump sum settlement policy in all civil rights cases pending the trial of her case. Bernhardt is entitled to a narrow injunction barring the application of the County's alleged policy to her case alone. After she was unable to retain an attorney to represent her in that case (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="867"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012194.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 5 the word
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="867"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar99/99-11145.opn.html">WILSON V. MINOR (8/4/2000, NO. 99-11145)<BR></A><BR>
The district court found that the 1988 injunction changed the size of the County Commission and was therefore an impermissible remedy for a voting rights violation in light of recent Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit precedent. Because the law prohibiting changes in the size of a governing body in order to remedy a section 2 violation is plain. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in vacating the 1988 injunction and affirm its order.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="867"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2000/99-11145.man.html">WILSON V. MINOR (8/4/2000, NO. 99-11145)<BR></A><BR>
The district court found that the 1988 injunction changed the size of the County Commission and was therefore an impermissible remedy for a voting rights violation in light of recent Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit precedent. Because the law prohibiting changes in the size of a governing body in order to remedy a section 2 violation is plain. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in vacating the 1988 injunction and affirm its order.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="867"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2000/99-11145.man.html">WILSON V. MINOR (8/4/2000, NO. 99-11145)<BR></A><BR>
The district court found that the 1988 injunction changed the size of the County Commission and was therefore an impermissible remedy for a voting rights violation in light of recent Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit precedent. Because the law prohibiting changes in the size of a governing body in order to remedy a section 2 violation is plain. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in vacating the 1988 injunction and affirm its order.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="863"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-1298.html">THE CARBORUNDUM CO. V. MOLTEN<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="863"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/September2004/032868p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The dispute is an outgrowth of aggressive and expansionist banking f l o wi n g f rom the C ongressional liberalization in recent years of national banking laws. Citizens National Bank of Evans City (CNBEC) is a community bank founded in 1878 in Evans City. (CFG) is a subsidiary holding company of the Royal Bank of Scotland. CNBEC claimed that nine of these former Mellon Bank branches were located near CNBEC branches. In addition some of the branches in Butler County were located on the same streets.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="863"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032868p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The dispute is an outgrowth of aggressive and expansionist banking f l o wi n g f rom the C ongressional liberalization in recent years of national banking laws. Citizens National Bank of Evans City (CNBEC) is a community bank founded in 1878 in Evans City. (CFG) is a subsidiary holding company of the Royal Bank of Scotland. CNBEC claimed that nine of these former Mellon Bank branches were located near CNBEC branches. In addition some of the branches in Butler County were located on the same streets.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="863"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2001/001389.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Two policyholders who were members of the class appeal the district court's order enjoining them from prosecuting suits they filed in state court in Florida based upon policies that were eligible for inclusion in the nationwide class. We will affirm. 2 I. The class is comprised of [over 8 million] Prudential policyholders who allegedly were the victims of fraudulent and misleading sales practices employed by Prudential's sales force. We will only set forth the background of the underlying class action here to the extent that it places our inquiry in context and assists our discussion. 2. Pa. 1997)
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="863"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1582.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Silva IV were on brief for appellants. This is an appeal by KEETON. As the matter was presented by Defendants Appellants. That predecessors of Defendants Appellants in positions of authority in the institution and the state correctional system had violated and were continuing to violate constitutionally protected rights of the inmates by intercepting and monitoring their telephone calls. We will refer to Plaintiffs Appellees as plaintiffs or by name. One was the Judgment of Dismissal. All of the claims by both plaintiffs in this action are dismissed with prejudice and without costs or attorney's fees to any party. The other was a Permanent Injunction in view of the Settlement Stipulation: 1. Employees and attorneys of the Department of Correction are enjoined permanently. As they have been amended or may be amended and as they have been construed in reported decisions that are binding in this Court or in the state courts of Massachusetts. 2. Were required to be pre approved. Plaintiffs refused to sign the consent forms and were denied telephone access.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="861"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002170.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(5) the Official Committee's motion to intervene should have been allowed. Pinewood is located in Sumter County. Is within 1200 feet of Lake Marion. Safety Kleen was required to apply for a new hazardous waste permit from DHEC. DHEC scheduled a public hearing and solicited comments on whether and under what conditions Safety Kleen was entitled to a final permit to operate Pinewood. It did not specify whether nonhazardous An acre foot is the volume of water necessary to cover one acre to a depth of one foot. It is equal to 43. Safety Kleen agreed not to apply for additional landfill space until Pinewood was within three years of reaching its capacity. Was not binding on either the hearing officer or the DHEC Board. Was prospective only. While Safety Kleen was not pleased with the Board's decision to reject the separate cap for nonhazardous waste. Safety Kleen estimated that Pinewood would have between four and one half to six years of unused space left under the permit. The Board consists of seven members who are appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the state Senate. 2 SAFETY KLEEN.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="861"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-4294_027.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Facts A more thorough rendition of the facts underlying this case is available in our opinion addressing the merits of the district court's preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs are child care workers and foster parents who had been indicated. The district court found that a number of the DCFS policies that the plaintiffs had challenged were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="861"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1090.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for appellee.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="856"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200305/02-5103a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="856"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-8.gif" ALT="856"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200412/03-5262a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="856"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-8.gif" ALT="856"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021013.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. RINCKWITZ The trustees who were elected after the 1991 COLA was enacted later learned that the decision to enact the 1991 COLA was based upon an incorrect valuation of the Plan's liabilities. The trustees sued their predecessors for breach of fiduciary duty and sought a declaration that the 1991 COLA was void. The district court ruled in favor of the trustees and declared that the 1991 COLA was void as to all retirees. The trustees sought a declaration that the 1997 rescission of the 1991 COLA was appropriate and binding on all Plan participants or. That the 1991 COLA was void as to all Plan participants. Although Devlin who was retired when the 1991 COLA took effect was initially named as a representative for the Retiree Subclass. Another class representative was substituted for Devlin. The settlement provided that any disputes concerning the settlement were subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="852"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3431.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because the district court acted properly when enjoining the state from enforcing its law on what is most likely Indian land. Joe Reardon is substituted for Carol Marinovich as Mayor of Kansas City. Provided the Wyandotte with no notice that they were going to be enjoined and because it relied on a misreading of a previous order of this court. The injunction against the Wyandotte is VACATED. The United States have been locked in litigation in multiple fora over the fate of the Shriner Tract. It is necessary to review this epic tale of claims and counter claims. Two of which are still pending. Kan. 2005) (challenging Secretary's determination that only statutory funds were used to take Tract into trust). 000 Ä was to be used
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="852"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0068p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that the district court's primary holding was error. I. Until 2000 most first trimester abortions in this country were surgical abortions performed by vacuum aspiration or curettage. This approval was based on clinical trials which involved the oral ingestion of 600 mg of mifepristone followed two days later by the oral ingestion of 0.4 mg of misoprostol.1 Upon examining the results of these trials. The FDA concluded that this regimen was a safe and effective method of medical abortion when employed up through forty nine days' gestation. The FDA labeling and approval letter indicated that the appropriate treatment regimen was to administer 600 mg of mifepristone orally followed by 0.4 mg of misoprostol administered orally two days later and that mifepristone was not to be administered after forty nine days' gestation. This is a widely employed practice known as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="852"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1693p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are confronted with a tension between bankruptcy law and labor law. These claims were based on alleged seniority integration rights stemming from a pending labor arbitration dispute and were filed following Continental's acquisition of Eastern and subsequent refusal to bargain over the seniority integration of Eastern's pilots. Both of which are no longer represented by ALPA. Appealed to this court.1 Resolution of this dispute requires us to determine: (1) whether the bankruptcy claims that the LPP Claimants and the Group of 31 seek to enforce constitute
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="852"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-7121a.html">O'HARA ET AL. V. DIST NO 1 MEBA NMU<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="852"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0129a-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs' petition for panel rehearing. We hold that the district court's primary holding was error. I. Until 2000 most first trimester abortions in this country were surgical abortions performed by vacuum aspiration or curettage. This approval was based on clinical trials which involved the oral ingestion of 600 mg of mifepristone followed two days later by the oral ingestion of 0.4 mg of misoprostol.1 Upon examining the results of these trials. The FDA concluded that this regimen was a safe and effective method of medical abortion when employed up through forty nine days' gestation. The FDA labeling and approval letter indicated that the appropriate treatment regimen was to administer 600 mg of mifepristone orally followed by 0.4 mg of misoprostol administered orally two days later and that mifepristone was not to be administered after forty nine days' gestation. This is a widely employed practice known as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="848"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200607/05-5143b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Peter D. We have no jurisdiction to review its denial of partial summary judgment. Because we conclude Appellants have satisfied the requisite showing of irreparable harm for an Establishment Clause violation. Any officer a promotion selection board considers but does not recommend for promotion is deemed to have
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1581.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
McLaughlin</SPAN> was on brief for appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec95/95-4391.man.html">LEVINE V. COMCOA LTD.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Levine v. This retainer was placed in a trust account maintained by Grossman on behalf of Comcoa. Grossman was attorney of record for Comcoa at this hearing. The hearing was completed.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2000/97-6347.man.html">REYNOLDS V. ROBERTS (3/29/2000, NO. 97-6347)<BR></A><BR>
Recognizing that the issuance of an order to show cause rather than an injunction is the appropriate device for enforcing a consent decree. We vacate both orders and instruct the district court to restore the <EM>status quo ante.</EM></P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P><CENTER>A.</CENTER> </P> <P> The procedural history of this case is set out in our opinion in <EM>Reynolds v. Might have to the terms of the proposed decree. Consisting of the Department's non black employees.</P> <P> The January 19 hearing was held as scheduled. The objections to the race conscious aspects of the proposed consent decree were such that the parties withdrew it and. Consent Decrees II and III contained provisions that were acceptable to the plaintiffs and the Department. Adopted it in full.</P> <P><CENTER>B.</CENTER> </P> <P> Consent Decree I is composed of a series of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2001/00-15378.opn.html">CBS BROAD. V. ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATION CORP. (9/17/2001, NO. 00-15378)<BR></A><BR>
Chief Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/12/02-6101.htm">02-6101 -- FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. KUYKENDALL -- 12/11/2002<BR></A><BR>
(d) the award of $39 million for consumer redress is contrary to undisputed record evidence. <strong><u></strong></u> <p> In addition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19976347.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Recognizing that the issuance of an order to show cause rather than an injunction is the appropriate device for enforcing a consent decree. The procedural history of this case is set out in our opinion in Reynolds v. The lawsuit was styled initially as Reynolds v. Butts was the director of the Department when the Adams Intervenors took this appeal. He was replaced as director by G.M. Might have to the terms of the proposed decree. Who were permanent employees under the Department's merit system (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec95/95-4391.man.html">LEVINE V. COMCOA LTD.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Levine v. This retainer was placed in a trust account maintained by Grossman on behalf of Comcoa. Grossman was attorney of record for Comcoa at this hearing. The hearing was completed.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2000/97-6347.man.html">REYNOLDS V. ROBERTS (3/29/2000, NO. 97-6347)<BR></A><BR>
Recognizing that the issuance of an order to show cause rather than an injunction is the appropriate device for enforcing a consent decree. We vacate both orders and instruct the district court to restore the <EM>status quo ante.</EM></P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P><CENTER>A.</CENTER> </P> <P> The procedural history of this case is set out in our opinion in <EM>Reynolds v. Might have to the terms of the proposed decree. Consisting of the Department's non black employees.</P> <P> The January 19 hearing was held as scheduled. The objections to the race conscious aspects of the proposed consent decree were such that the parties withdrew it and. Consent Decrees II and III contained provisions that were acceptable to the plaintiffs and the Department. Adopted it in full.</P> <P><CENTER>B.</CENTER> </P> <P> Consent Decree I is composed of a series of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-2336.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2001/00-15378.opn.html">CBS BROAD. V. ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATION CORP. (9/17/2001, NO. 00-15378)<BR></A><BR>
Chief Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19976347.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Recognizing that the issuance of an order to show cause rather than an injunction is the appropriate device for enforcing a consent decree. The procedural history of this case is set out in our opinion in Reynolds v. The lawsuit was styled initially as Reynolds v. Butts was the director of the Department when the Adams Intervenors took this appeal. He was replaced as director by G.M. Who were permanent employees under the Department's merit system (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="843"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/04opinions/04-1014.html">INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER CORPORATION V. IXYS CORPORATION<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff <span class=SpellE>appellee</span>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>David E. <span class=SpellE>Killough</span></u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Glenn W. <span class=SpellE>Trost</span></u>. Argued for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Nancy L. Line height:200%'>The issue in this case is whether the injunction granted the patentee is overly broad. What is the proper remedy.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>International Rectifier Corporation ( IR ) is the assignee of U.S. We vacate the injunction and remand for the district court to issue an injunction of proper scope.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Since IXYS had withdrawn its affirmative defenses relating to the validity and enforceability of the patent before judgment was entered. That part of the court s decision is affirmed.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoBodyTextIndent2 align=center style='text align:center.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug05/03-50288-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
History of the Lawsuit The lawsuit underlying these appeals is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200015378.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: This is an interlocutory appeal from the entry of a preliminary injunction in a copyright infringement suit that was initiated by four major television network stations and associations representing hundreds of local network affiliates against EchoStar Satellite Company and its subsidiaries. That there was a substantial likelihood that the Networks could establish that EchoStar provides distant network signals to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2003/013575.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This opinion and judgment are being entered insofar as the remaining judges are unanimous in this decision. 2 Michael I. We will affirm both Orders. The requirements of the Preliminary Injunction and the process to which the DCIU was entitled. I. Facts and Procedural History John T. is a twelve year old mentally retarded child with Downs Syndrome. The DCIU is charged by Pennsylvania law with the provision of special education services to children with disabilities attending private schools within Delaware County. A dispute arose regarding the programs and services that DCIU was obligated to provide John T. for the 1998 99 school year. While the DCIU was willing to provide services to John T. at a public school. John T. and the DCIU were unable to resolve their dispute before the school year began.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug05/03-50919-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
History of the Lawsuit The lawsuit underlying these appeals is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug04/03-50288-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
History of the Lawsuit The lawsuit underlying these appeals is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug04/03-50919-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
History of the Lawsuit The lawsuit underlying these appeals is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1313.html">SEIKO EPSON CORP. V. NU-KOTE INTERNATIONAL INC.<BR></A><BR>
With him on the brief were <U>Brian M. With him on the brief was <U>Ronald S. Of counsel were <U>Robert D. While the appeal of the preliminary injunction was pending Epson amended its complaint to add counts of infringement of three additional patents. 472 (together
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="839"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200215103.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1 have taken this interlocutory appeal from the district court's order denying their motions for class certification and preliminary injunction. The other seventeen property owners are George Cashin. The other appellees are the Glynn County Board of Equalization. The Glynn County Board of Education and City Commission of the City of Brunswick have not joined in the cross appeal. 2 2 1 * jurisdiction over this lawsuit. I. The essential background and procedural facts are these. This lawsuit arises out of a grievance they have with the way Glynn County assessed their ad valorem property taxes in the year 2000. Glynn County's system for assessing property taxes and adjudicating assessment disputes is complex. Which is responsible for assessing the county's property taxes. At which point the Board must notify any taxpayers whose assessments have been changed within five days. See O.C.G.A. § 48 5 302. 3 A taxpayer who is dissatisfied with the Board's reassessment of his property may appeal through the process set forth in O.C.G.A. § 48 5 311.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="835"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2002/01-11373.opn.html">RICCARD V. PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. (9/24/2002, NO. 01-11373)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="835"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/08/002255P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Our task is to decide whether the injunction violates the Anti Injunction Act. It was disclosed that the new entity would take a $372 million charge off for a bad loan to D.E. Twenty four class actions were filed in six federal district courts by stockholders of the The Honorable John F. One of the federal cases was filed on behalf of appellant Lani Rothstein by the law firm of Milberg. The cases were consolidated by order of the Multidistrict Litigation Panel. The five California class actions were consolidated as Allison Desmond v. One of the proposed class representatives was subsequently stricken after it was learned that he was a convicted felon with a record of fraudulent conduct. The motion was denied due to conflicts among members of the proposed single class and because the proposed lead plaintiffs. Were not truly representative of the whole proposed plaintiff class. The district court to which the Desmond case had been removed concluded that defendants' notice of removal was premature and remanded the case to state court.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="835"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1764.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
L.L.P. were on brief for defendants Douglas L. The question presented on this appeal is whether a state plan deregulating the electric utility industry in New Hampshire was properly enjoined by the district court pending trial on the merits. The injunction was originally obtained by Public Service Company of New Hampshire (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="835"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul13/03-60529-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case was tried to the magistrate judge. Arguing that this court was without jurisdiction because the order from which MDOC appeals was inherently tentative. The order from which MDOC appeals is the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="835"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2002/01-11373.opn.html">RICCARD V. PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. (9/24/2002, NO. 01-11373)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="835"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2754.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That preliminary injunction is the subject of these cross appeals by Watts and Zurich. While Zurich claims it should have been broader that the district court was mistaken in holding that the RookerFeldman doctrine applied to some of the issues. The appeals were decided by a brief order on September 30. Was an insured under the policies (until it was later sold by Watts). Watts and Jones were sued for fraud in two actions in California. So Watts and Jones separately sued Zurich in California Superior Court for coverage under the policies and the two coverage actions were consolidated. Even if it were liable under the policies. Holding that the dispute under the deductible agreements was severable from the coverage dispute pending before it. Which held that the order for summary adjudication and the denial of Zurich's motion to stay were not appealable orders. Although noting the possible ambiguity regarding which issues were actually decided in the California court's order denying Zurich's motion for a stay.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-4057.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
These matters are before the court on two separate petitions for rehearing. The petitions were filed separately and correspond to the two opinions issued in these appeals on April 17. The requests for panel rehearing are denied by the original panel which decided these cases. The en banc petitions were transmitted to all of the judges of the court who are in regular active service. A poll was requested. The decisions of the panel will stand. The en banc requests are denied. Judges Lucero and McConnell have filed dissents to the denial. They are attached and incorporated in this order. That response is also incorporated in this order. Because the panel's opinion will leave our circuit unnecessarily entangled in future review of time. It is important to distinguish between transitory and permanent speech. Not unlike most public parks in America in which permanent monuments have been placed. The government must have exercised some control over the form and content of the speech before the fact. 1141 43 (10th Cir. 2001) (holding sign was government speech where the city had
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981934.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
332 at 34
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1324.html">INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER CORP. V. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS, LTD., ET AL.<BR></A><BR>
Was <u>David E. Etc. and 03 1046.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the briefs were <u>John W. Were <u>Mary A. Of counsel in 03 1046 was <u>Marce
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200111373.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sitting by designation. 2 * William Riccard was demoted by his employer. The result of Riccard's demotion was to lessen the amount of disability payments he received. We have before us appeals that Riccard has filed contesting orders and judgments. Is also an appellant to the extent necessary to challenge sanctions imposed against Rasch. We will take up each of them after setting out some background. 3 I. BACKGROUND Riccard began working for Prudential in 1970 as a sales representative and was eventually promoted to sales manager. He was demoted from his position as sales manager back to sales representative. He was subsequently placed on long term disability leave and received disability payments from Prudential until November 1999. We will refer to them in the order in which they were filed as Riccard I IV. That Prudential had violated their employment agreement by demoting him from sales manager to sales representative which resulted in his disability benefits being lower than they would have been had he not been demoted.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="828"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/56EE8299939A3A9688256C6000730733/$file/0017222.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Walters is substituted for his predecessor. P. 43(c)(2). **Asa Hutchinson is substituted for his predecessor. P. 43(c)(2). ***John Ashcroft is substituted for his predecessor. Thompson is substituted for his predecessor. Chief Judge: This is an appeal from a permanent injunction entered to protect First Amendment rights. Where the basis for the government's action is solely the physician's professional
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkxOThfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9198_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
To protect the collateral estoppel effect of a judgment of a District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. injunction bars the biological father of an adopted child The from relitigating the questions of whether his parental rights were validly terminated by a Texas state court decree and whether the adoption decree of the Texas state court should be set aside. Background Woosley is the biological father of Kyle Smith (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F9697D946CA355A188256FB2007FCE0D/$file/0355754.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction to review the district court's preliminary injunction order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Only one is directly relevant here: a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="824"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021736.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It does not present the question of whether mountaintop coal mining is useful. Therefore that the Corps'
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199807/97-5343b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were John L. With him on the briefs were Joel I. Were on the brief of certain States as amici curiae. An operating system is. Windows 95 is an operating system that integrates a DOS shell with a graphical user interface. Each operating system's APIs are unique. Install operating systems and other software that they have licensed from vendors such as Microsoft. Marginal production costs are negligible. Most relevant here is s IV(E) of the decree: Microsoft shall not enter into any License Agreement in which the terms of that agreement are expressly or impliedly conditioned upon: (i) the licensing of any other Covered Product. The Internet is a global network that links smaller net works of computers. The World Wide Web (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/10/963261P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jurisdiction was asserted in the district court based upon 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). Jurisdiction on appeal is proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a). The notice of appeal was timely filed under Fed. I. Background The relevant facts are not in dispute and are taken in large part from the district court's original order. Transport is a Louisiana corporation engaged in the business of transporting freight to and from railroad cars. Railway is a Missouri corporation engaged in the operation of an interstate railroad with operations in eleven states. Transport and Railway were parties to a contract under which Transport operated the intermodal (piggyback) ramp and provided loading and unloading services for Railway at Kansas City. Article 40 of the CBA provides that all differences arising between Transport and the Union or any employee are to be settled within the context of a grievance arbitration process. Railway is not a signatory to the CBA. Transport did not have any work to perform at the Kansas City. Transport terminated seventeen employees that were represented by the Union.2 The Union subsequently filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19948700.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are asked to review various orders entered by the district court in a trademark infringement case.1 Appellants and Cross Appellees. The two cases were consolidated pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Inc. is listed as a separate defendant in Case No. 93 CV 2938. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon. 3 are involved in the restaurant business. Concluded that Defendant's rights were superior in Georgia. We remand the matter to the district court to determine if Defendant is entitled to attorneys' fees under the Lanham Act. The first such restaurant was opened in October 1989 in Winston Salem. We treat these separate entities as if they were one. 3 North Carolina. The LONE STAR CAFE mark covers both clothing items and The mark covering restaurant services was by a New York City nightclub operator. restaurant services. registered in 1981 Plaintiff's predecessor corporation purchased the LONE STAR CAFE mark from the nightclub in 1992. Which registration is now incontestable under 15 U.S.C. § 1065.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-2173.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: p.9. P.C. were on brief for Monarch Life Insurance Company. P.C. were on brief for Ropes & Gray. We now affirm the district court on the ground that Monarch Life is collaterally estopped from asserting a state court challenge to the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction to enter the permanent injunction incorporated in the confirmed reorganization plan. This Order constitutes an injunction against all persons (other than the FDIC as Receiver) from taking any of the following actions (other than an 2Ropes & Gray was scheduled as a creditor in the chapter 11 proceeding. None are material to this appeal. 5Section 105(a) provides in relevant part:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8FEB0CC4B736A08988256EAC0059289D/$file/0316553.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is an injunction. Whether an interlocutory order denying seizure is thus appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Because the district court's denial of a motion for an ex parte seizure order is neither an automatically appealable literal refusal of an injunction nor a practical denial of ultimate injunctive relief. All proceedings so far have been ex parte and filed under seal. The defendant is designated as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199806/97-5343a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were John L. With him on the briefs were Joel I. Were on the brief of certain States as amici curiae. An operating system is. Windows 95 is an operating system that integrates a DOS shell with a graphical user interface. Each operating system's APIs are unique. Install operating systems and other software that they have licensed from vendors such as Microsoft. Marginal production costs are negligible. Most relevant here is s IV(E) of the decree: Microsoft shall not enter into any License Agreement in which the terms of that agreement are expressly or impliedly conditioned upon: (i) the licensing of any other Covered Product. The Internet is a global network that links smaller net works of computers. The World Wide Web (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1236_014.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because the union has not shown that it will suffer irreparable harm absent the injunction. Bellon was hired to remove the road deck from the MacArthur bridge. For reasons that are not clear from the record. The agreement provides that the union will maintain a list of eligible laborers. Bellon hired 1 We do not comment on whether the oral amendments were effective. We assume without deciding that the union's account of the oral amendments is accurate. That it will suffer irreparable harm absent the injunction. It is not entitled to a preliminary injunction under either analysis.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="819"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2002/013636.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Classification of its claims in the Belgian proceedings and ordering that these issues be determined exclusively by the Delaware Bankruptcy Court in accordance with the Bankruptcy Code was issued without consideration of all relevant legal principles. We will reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. S 158(a) and we have jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. Have applied an abuse of discretion standard to entry of an anti suit injunction as 3 well.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002453.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The pseudonyms were as follows: Victoria Smyth. Required that an applicant for welfare in Virginia either identify the father of any child for whom aid was requested or. The plaintiffs asserted that they were unable to identify the fathers of their children4 as required by the policy. The federal AFDC program was replaced. The program will be referred to hereinafter as TANF. 4 Smyth stated that she could not identify any of several men who might be the father of her child to Virginia DSS officials. Both men were proven not to be the father of her child by subsequent blood tests. RIVERO unless the Commissioner had substantial evidence the attestation was false. That the plaintiffs were thus likely to succeed on the merits.5 The preliminary injunction entered by the court prohibited the Commissioner from denying welfare benefits to the plaintiffs
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/01/03-1274.htm">03-1274 -- DOMINION VIDEO SATELLITE INC. V. ECHOSTAR SATELLITE CORP. -- 01/29/2004<BR></A><BR>
Asserting EchoStar was violating its contract. Dominion moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent EchoStar from taking further action and to preserve the status quo while the merits of the case were being decided. EchoStar's DBS network is broadcast as the DISH Network. Dominion's network is called SkyAngel. Which is in part comprised of twenty television channels. The DISH Network broadcasts an extensive variety of programming which is not limited to any specific genre and offers over 150 channel options to subscribers. <p> EchoStar has a satellite from which it broadcasts its DISH Network programming. That satellite contains more transponders than EchoStar is permitted to use under its FCC license.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june98/96-5092.man.html">AM. RED CROSS V. PALM BEACH BLOOD BANK, INC. (6/16/1998, NO. 96-5092)<BR></A><BR>
Defendant appellant argues both that plaintiff appellee's lists are not protectable trade secrets and that the injunction is impermissibly vague. Is a non profit Florida corporation engaged in the business of collecting. Is also a non profit corporation engaged in collecting. Though its activities are more national in scope. Competition between the two companies is especially keen regarding recruitment of apheresis donors. Red Cross discovered that Palm Beach was using at least one of Red Cross's donor lists for Palm Beach's own solicitations. They are going to be exacerbating what they have already done by using our donors.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june98/96-5092.man.html">AM. RED CROSS V. PALM BEACH BLOOD BANK, INC. (6/16/1998, NO. 96-5092)<BR></A><BR>
Defendant appellant argues both that plaintiff appellee's lists are not protectable trade secrets and that the injunction is impermissibly vague. Is a non profit Florida corporation engaged in the business of collecting. Is also a non profit corporation engaged in collecting. Though its activities are more national in scope. Competition between the two companies is especially keen regarding recruitment of apheresis donors. Red Cross discovered that Palm Beach was using at least one of Red Cross's donor lists for Palm Beach's own solicitations. They are going to be exacerbating what they have already done by using our donors.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5322a.html">ANIMAL LEG DEF FUND V. SHALALA DONNA<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="815"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19958751.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plaintiffs are SunAmerica Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary. Sun Life Insurance Company of America The (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/02/951803P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Dinwiddie from further violating FACE and from engaging in a number of other activities whenever she is within 500 feet of a facility that provides reproductive health services. We affirm the District Court's holding that FACE is constitutional and that Mrs. I. Regina Rene Dinwiddie is an opponent of abortion who. A clinic where abortions are performed. Intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been. A physician who is the Medical Director of Planned Parenthood. Gunn [a physician who was killed in 1993 by an opponent of abortion] . . .. He is not in the world anymore . . .. Includes the building or structure in which the facility is located. (2) Interfere with. You have not seen violence yet until you see what we do to you.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5E8062E92D0210668825734D007E25AA/$file/0555852.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
** District Judge. *Dirk Kempthorne is substituted for his predecessor Gail Norton as Secretary of the Department of the Interior. Dennis Schramm is substituted for his predecessor Mary Martin as the Superintendent of the Mojave National Preserve. Including the land where the cross is situated violates the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. Congress enacted a statute directing that the land on which the cross is situated be transferred to a private organization in exchange for a parcel of privately owned land located elsewhere in the Preserve. That land exchange is already in progress and would leave a little donut hole of land with a cross in the midst of a vast federal preserve. The issue we address today is whether the land exchange violates the district court's permanent injunction. BACKGROUND1 1 Further background detail is found in the district court's order and our prior opinion on the merits of the Establishment Clause challenge. Both the BLM and the NPS are federal agencies under the Department of the Interior (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar96/95-8751.opa.html">SUNAMERICA CORP. V. SUN LIFE ASSURANCE CO.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Sunamerica Corp. v. The plaintiffs are SunAmerica Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary. The defendants are Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada and its subsidiary. The district court's judgment permanently enjoined SunAmerica from further use of any SUN LIFE mark.<p> Although Sun Life of Canada is the senior user of the SUN LIFE mark. Were it not for the existence of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041788np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Liveware contends that: (1) the District Court erred in issuing the preliminary injunction where there was no showing of immediate irreparable injury to Best Software Inc. (3) the injunction is an overbroad prior restraint on speech. Our jurisdiction over the granting of an injunction is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a). We will affirm. The facts are known to them. We will discuss only those facts pertinent to this appeal. Liveware is a Delaware corporation that owns and licenses a software program called R&R Report Writer. Liveware's contractual claims were submitted for arbitration in April 2002. Who was earlier assigned to the case.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/05-7181b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Thomas A. With her on the brief was Matthew H. Ellipso alleged that Mann Tech was selling those shares and diverting the proceeds. We affirm the district court's order because the appellants have not shown that the district court abused its discretion. That it was fraudulently induced to enter a loan agreement with the appellants and sought various remedies including rescission of the loan. Ellipso was struggling financially and hired Robert Patterson to secure financing from investors. Nor Registry Solutions have appealed the grant of the preliminary injunction. 1 3 Patterson did. The ICOHA shares were valued at about $180. While he was acting as Ellipso's agent in securing the financing from Mann Tech. Sometime thereafter (the record is not clear) Mann Tech sold off nearly another 453. The record is not clear as to the precise amounts or accounts). Mann Tech counters that it was entitled to sell the shares because their value had fallen below $10. (2) there was a likely threat of irreparable injury to Ellipso from Mann Tech's further sale of the ICOHA shares because they were Mann Technologies' only substantial assets.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0432n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Last time it was here. Before us now is Deja Vu's appeal from the district court's decision dissolving a permanent injunction which had enjoined the enforcement of Metropolitan Code of Laws Chapter 6.54
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/04/992376P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The removal of Nebraska from further HHS was previously known as the Nebraska Department of Heath. The department is referred to as HHS throughout this opinion. 21 supervision of the licensing process and appointment of a third party to exercise supervision. This appeal by Nebraska is from a preliminary injunction issued by the district court2 which enjoined the state parties from continuing with the administrative proceeding related to denial of the license for the disposal facility.3 We affirm. Which was passed as original legislation by each of the states and by Congress. Also pending in this court are appeals by Nebraska. The state selected as the host for a disposal site is required
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar96/95-8751.opa.html">SUNAMERICA CORP. V. SUN LIFE ASSURANCE CO.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Sunamerica Corp. v. The plaintiffs are SunAmerica Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary. The defendants are Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada and its subsidiary. The district court's judgment permanently enjoined SunAmerica from further use of any SUN LIFE mark.<p> Although Sun Life of Canada is the senior user of the SUN LIFE mark. Were it not for the existence of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1751.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is corrected as follows: On page 11. Hill & Barlow were on brief. Coleman were on brief. BACKGROUND The EEOC is currently investigating three sexual harassment charges filed against Astra. The employee stated that she possessed relevant information but was unable to disclose it
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041640p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At issue is whether a permanent injunction barring defendant Thurston Paul Bell from promoting and selling unlawful tax advice is permissible under the First Amendment. We will affirm the injunction with modifications. 2 I. Thurston Paul Bell is a professional tax protester who ran a business and a website selling bogus strategies to clients endeavoring to avoid paying taxes. An entity dedicated to the proposition that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="809"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992619.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The trustees (the new trustees)1 of the Transportation Communications Interna1 tional Union Staff Retirement Plan (the Plan) and the named representatives of the class2 agreed to the elimination of cost of living 2 adjustment (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/08/02-7104.htm">02-7104 -- ALLOWAY V. HODGE -- 08/13/2003<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Defendants in this case appeal from the district court's order denying their motion to terminate an injunction entered under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The facts leading up to the district court's issuance of injunctive relief are well known to the parties and recounted in detail in the court's September 21. He was not allowed to continue with his prescribed treatment after transferring to his current facility. So there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of this claim. There is no dispute that plaintiff suffers from serious liver disease. They have failed to articulate the medical rationale for their denial of these treatments which were allowed at a previous DOC facility. <p> Aplt. Stating that plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if he is not allowed to continue the prescribed treatments and that the injunction will not cause damage to defendants or be adverse to the public interest. The court concluded
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2002/01-15929.opn.html">BRANDON, JONES, SANDALL, ZEIDE, KOHN, CHALAL & MUSSO, P.A. V. MEDPARTNERS, INC. (11/27/2002, NO. 01-15929)<BR></A><BR>
In which the different cases were collected. MedPartners pays the Orthopedic Center a monthly payment that is based. Upon the doctors' productivity. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2002/01-15929.opn.html">BRANDON, JONES, SANDALL, ZEIDE, KOHN, CHALAL & MUSSO, P.A. V. MEDPARTNERS, INC. (11/27/2002, NO. 01-15929)<BR></A><BR>
In which the different cases were collected. MedPartners pays the Orthopedic Center a monthly payment that is based. Upon the doctors' productivity. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1495.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Nellcor also alleged that Masimo's asserted patents were invalid on anticipation. The district court reversed the jury's verdict that the '785 patent was infringed. It upheld the jury's verdict that the `222 and `850 patents were not invalid and infringed. The district court also upheld the jury's verdict that the `830 patent was not invalid and infringed. It held that the `222 patent was not invalid for indefiniteness. The appeal was submitted for decision after oral argument on July 7. The district court's judgment is affirmed in part. If a patient moves while the sensor is attached to his finger. The development of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5254a.html">CITYFED FINCL CORP V. OTS<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011037.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The defendants were directed to cease and desist from violating the copyright owned by Candle Factory. TAG is a corporate entity headquartered in the State of Illinois. TAG's candles are made for it by a company CANDLE FACTORY v. TRADE ASSOCIATES GROUP 3 known as Will & Baumer at a manufacturing facility in Mexico. Contending that its candles are noninfringing. That they were independently created from molds of actual seashells and starfish. Candle Factory forwarded TAG a letter advising that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="804"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F89AAE12A4F1993C88256EA80080076A/$file/0216543.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs are a class of California residents who received debt collection letters from defendant Commonwealth Equity Adjustments. Were subsequently found in contempt for violating the injunction and sanctioned by the magistrate judge. Background Commonwealth is a debt collection agency located in California. Plaintiffs are a class of California residents who received form debt collection letters from Commonwealth. The plaintiff class was certified. The
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2003/024046p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Daffy's is a chain of retail clothing stores specializing in selling popular brands of goods and apparel at discount prices. Inc. was recognized as a reputable supplier. The events leading to the purchase began when a representative of Sara's approached Daffy's regarding some Gucci handbags that were being diverted to the United States from a merchant in the Far East. Although Daffy's representatives were confident that the bags were genuine. A Daffy's employee presented one of the bags to the Gucci clerk and informed the clerk that she had received the bag as a gift 3 and was not certain of its authenticity. The employee asked the clerk to examine the bag and confirm that it was genuine. Informed the Daffy's employee that the bag was authentic. That conclusion was based on certain indicia of authenticity including the quality of fabric and leather. Daffy's also sent one of the bags it had purchased that was damaged to the Gucci repair center in New York for repair. Daffy's concluded that the bags it had purchased from Sara's were genuine Gucci bags.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0321p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1 all commissioners of insurance or Mike Pickens is a defendant on ly in the action brought by First Tennessee Bank. Therefore is a party only to Appeal No. 03 5521. 1 The Honorable Gordon J. Who were sued in their official capacity as receivers for various insolvent insurance companies (collectively. Because it lacked jurisdiction or because it should have declined jurisdiction in its discretion. While at the same time controlling the unregistered brokerage that was supposedly investing the large cash reserves that insurance companies typically have on hand. He was funneling the money to overseas bank accounts. Frankel was the subject of a four month. Bank accounts used in Frankel's money laundering scheme were held by the insurance companies at both AmSouth. The Receivers argue that the Banks were negligent in not realizing the massive fraud that those accounts were being used to commit. The Receivers concluded they might have claims against AmSouth. That tolling agreement was extended six times. Negotiations were ongoing.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1995/95a1162p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Have moved to dissolve three consent judgments enforcing orders of the National Labor Relations Board and to vacate four consent contempt adjudications for violating the consent judgments. We will deny the motion for the reasons that follow. Some indication of the background of the order can be gleaned from the Board's Findings of Fact that the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company was engaged in the manufacture and sale of tires at Pottstown. An object thereof is forcing or requiring . . . any . . . person . . . to cease doing business with . . . any other person. This court was again presented with a Decision and Order of the NLRB reflecting a settlement stipulation and a consent judgment. Specifically prohibited was any action encouraging employees of Gulf. BCTC stipulated that it was in civil contempt of the judgments entered March 4. The NLRB once again found itself faced with charges that BCTC was responsible for secondary boycotts. The General Counsel took the position before the Board
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2000/98-4211.opn.html">DAVID VINCENT, INC. V. BROWARD COUNTY (1/18/2000, NO. 98-4211)<BR></A><BR>
Senior Circuit Judge:</P> <P> Plaintiffs appellants are adult bookstores in unincorporated Broward County. The district court ruled that Broward County's zoning ordinance for adult businesses was constitutional both facially and as applied to plaintiffs.</P> <P> The adult bookstores raise three issues on appeal. They question the district court's ruling that Broward County's zoning ordinance is facially constitutional. Support the district court's ruling that the zoning ordinance is facially constitutional. We cannot say that the district court's findings as to the number of sites available for adult businesses under the zoning ordinance are clearly erroneous. We affirm the district court ruling that Broward County's zoning ordinance is constitutional both facially and as applied. </P> <P> </P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2000/98-4211.opn.html">DAVID VINCENT, INC. V. BROWARD COUNTY (1/18/2000, NO. 98-4211)<BR></A><BR>
Senior Circuit Judge:</P> <P> Plaintiffs appellants are adult bookstores in unincorporated Broward County. The district court ruled that Broward County's zoning ordinance for adult businesses was constitutional both facially and as applied to plaintiffs.</P> <P> The adult bookstores raise three issues on appeal. They question the district court's ruling that Broward County's zoning ordinance is facially constitutional. Support the district court's ruling that the zoning ordinance is facially constitutional. We cannot say that the district court's findings as to the number of sites available for adult businesses under the zoning ordinance are clearly erroneous. We affirm the district court ruling that Broward County's zoning ordinance is constitutional both facially and as applied. </P> <P> </P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F2123EC61ABB9D688825735300509F5D/$file/0535408.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This appeal challenges an injunction limiting but not entirely prohibiting coal bed methane development while the Bureau of Land Management expands an environmental impact statement.1 Facts The Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming is the largest coal deposit in the United States and among the largest in the world. Farmers and ranchers generally have surface rights to the land involved in this case. The land is thought to cover vast amount of methane. This coal bed methane is a natural gas generated by coal deposits and trapped in coal seams by groundwater. Coal bed methane is extracted by pumping the groundwater out of the land and into rivers. As the water is removed. The hydraulic pressure on the gas is relieved. So the gas percolates and is piped to the surface. This opinion is written in ordinary English. The pollution of the rivers and streams into which the groundwater is pumped. So that ranchers' and farmers' (and expanding suburban developers') wells run dry unless they are drilled deeper.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2000/985509.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We consider the validity of a provision in Continental Airlines' plan of reorganization that released and permanently enjoined shareholder lawsuits against certain of Continental Airlines' present and former directors and officers who were not themselves in bankruptcy. We will reject Continental Airlines' contention that claim preclusion and the doctrine of equitable mootness prevent us from considering the merits of this appeal. We will reverse the District Court's order approving the validity of this provision. Which is legally and factually insupportable. I. Appellants are plaintiffs in several securities fraud class action lawsuits brought against directors and officers of Continental Airlines Holdings. That order was affirmed on appeal on June 28. The District Court decision noted that the injunction could have been more narrowly crafted to permit some portion of Plaintiffs' class actions to continue. Insureds and the Insurers will provide releases to each other.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/06A5D5A139A7477B8825706F000D1421/$file/0535569.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I The Columbia River is the fourth largest river on the North American continent. The Snake River is the Columbia River's main tributary. Salmon runs have declined to a small percentage of their historic abundance. There are now thirteen species of Columbia. Willamette River salmon and steelhead that are protected by the Endangered Species Act.2 The district court found in this case that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992389A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
OPINION PER CURIAM: This case was argued before the en banc Court on February 27. (2) holding that the establishment of a magnet schools program was an ultra vires. King and Gregory in the affirmative) attorneys' fees for work done on the unitary status issue are denied. Nominal damages and attorneys' fees in that regard are denied. The injunction is vacated. The imposition of sanctions is affirmed. The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed on the finding of unitary status and the imposition of sanctions. The judgment of the district court vacating and dissolving all prior injunctive orders and decrees is affirmed. The Board is to operate the school system without the strictures of these decrees no later than the 2002 2003 school year. Circuit Judge: This case is hopefully the final chapter in the saga of federal court control over the Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7362E8AE987F2CDA88256CD90080AD4E/$file/0135869.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At issue is whether we may exercise our pendent appellate jurisdiction to review. Because resolution of the Younger abstention issue is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0421p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. The facts underlying this case are undisputed and uncomplicated. Mario Andretti was a successful and well known race car driver before he retired from automobile racing. Andretti is now a corporate spokesman for companies that contract with Andretti for the exclusive right to utilize his name. Borla's attorney attached his own declaration to the notice of removal stating that Andretti's pre suit demands to Borla were about $200. His claims were moot due to Borla's offer to enter a permanent injunction. The Judgment was in favor of Andretti and M.A. 500. The permanent injunction was worded identically to the preliminary injunction. The district court ruled that Andretti was a prevailing party and therefore that Borla was not entitled to costs or attorney fees as provided in Rule 54(d) and the Lanham Act. The court also determined that Borla was not entitled to attorney fees under the Copyright Act because. Even though Borla had argued that several of plaintiffs' claims were preempted by the Copyright Act.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2003/023154up.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
L.P. (collectively
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031708.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That is. Possession before just compensation is determined and paid in a condemnation action. The main question in this appeal is whether a gas company can obtain immediate possession through the equitable remedy of a preliminary injunction. I. East Tennessee Natural Gas Company (ETNG) is a regional gas transportation company. The procedure for obtaining a certificate from FERC is set forth in the NGA. (2) a statement of the facts showing why the project is required. Notice of the application is filed in the Federal Register. Public comment and protest is allowed. At the end of the process FERC issues a certificate if it finds that the proposed project
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="798"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200115929.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
In which the different cases were collected. MedPartners pays the Orthopedic Center a monthly payment that is based. The Agreement requires Orthopedic Center (that is. The doctors) to maintain the same level of productivity the contract uses the term
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/89AE13D39D4D4BAA88256B8700619C17/$file/0115998.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At issue is the district court's order forcing Napster to disable its file transferring service until certain conditions are met to achieve full compliance with the modified preliminary injunction. We 4801 have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The name(s) of one or more files that have been available on the Napster file index containing the protected copyrighted work. Both parties are required to adopt reasonable measures to identify variations of the file name. Napster was able to prevent sharing of much of plaintiffs' noticed copyrighted works. Plaintiffs nonetheless were able to present evidence that infringement of noticed works still occurred in violation of the modified preliminary injunction. The district court determined that Napster was not in satisfactory compliance with the modified preliminary injunction. The district court ordered Napster to disable its file transferring service until certain conditions were met and steps were taken to ensure maximum compliance. It will not be reversed simply because [we] would have arrived at a different result if [we] had applied the law to the facts of the case.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7C0ED6058FC7BF228825704A00770660/$file/0535569.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I The Columbia River is the fourth largest river on the North American continent. The Snake River is the Columbia River's main tributary. Salmon runs have declined to a small percentage of their historic abundance. There are now thirteen species of Columbia. Willamette River salmon and steelhead that are protected by the Endangered Species Act.2 The district court found in this case that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1248.html">CANON COMPUTER V. NU-KOTE<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3310.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The amended opinion is attached to this order. The petition for rehearing is denied. The petition for rehearing en banc was transmitted to all of the judges of the court who are in regular active service. That petition is also denied. Other individuals to notify the state government whenever they have
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CF3286801B95425B88256D0B007A6A6F/$file/0135869.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: 4974 MEREDITH v. Delete the paragraph on pages 815 16 that begins
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031326.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We believe that the court did have jurisdiction. The Plan provides that salaried and hourly employees cannot use vacation benefit days and will not be paid any vacation benefits upon termination of their employment until and unless they have completed. The purpose of the letter was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BF7AED3870353A3E88256C8D00576B6C/$file/0135472.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
CV 01 00010 EJL *Ann Veneman is substituted for her predecessor. P. 43(c)(2). **Dale Bosworth is substituted for his predecessor. We have received amicus briefs from: Washington Legal Foundation and United States Senators Larry E. VENEMAN that the Roadless Rule was promulgated without proper process and that it is invalid. An appeal was taken in both cases by intervenors. We consolidated the appeals and have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). That plaintiffs have standing to challenge the Roadless Rule. The co plaintiffs joined with the Kootenai Tribe are: the BlueRibbon Coalition. There are now 58.5 million acres of inventoried roadless areas in the National Forest System. 2.8 million acres of roadless areas have been developed by the Forest Service. Against the Forest Service on This is perhaps reminiscent of George Orwell's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5D908D1C3A422ECF88256F4E005EE419/$file/0355858.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: 1. Which is equitable in nature. As is his cause of action for a constructive trust. Which is equitable in nature. Does not bar the issuance of a preliminary injunction freezing assets where fraudulent conveyance or equitable causes of action are pleaded in the bankruptcy context. An involuntary bankruptcy case was filed against Focus Media. John Pringle was appointed trustee. On the same day that the complaint was filed. These proofs of service IN RE: FOCUS MEDIA INC. 15963 reflect that service on Rubin was made
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb97/94-8700.opa.html">LONE STAR STEAKHOUSE & SALOON, INC. V. LONGHORN STEAKS, INC.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon. We are asked to review various orders entered by the district court in a trademark infringement case.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2028.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Were on brief. The federal Safe Water Drinking Act (SDWA or Act) authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prescribe criteria specifying when public water systems are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://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-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3831.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court found that a clause in the agreement stipulating that it would be governed by Georgia law was enforceable. The Joneses have attempted to challenge the merits of the district court's choice of law decision. We conclude that only the ruling on the preliminary injunction request is properly before us. One of InfoCure's officers approached Susan at a trade show and told her that InfoCure was interested in acquiring PRISM. 000 price tag was to be calculated using the average stock price over the 20 day period prior to the closing. Relying on the diversity jurisdiction of the federal court (because the Joneses were both citizens of Indiana. InfoCure is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Georgia. The individual defendants were citizens of Alabama and Connecticut. Or in the alternative to have it transferred to the Northern District of Georgia under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The Joneses moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent InfoCure from taking various actions that were allegedly irreparably damaging PRISM.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb97/94-8700.opa.html">LONE STAR STEAKHOUSE & SALOON, INC. V. LONGHORN STEAKS, INC.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon. We are asked to review various orders entered by the district court in a trademark infringement case.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/071231p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Similar nationwide claims were consolidated by a Multidistrict Litigation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021483.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
E One's AMERICAN EAGLE mark
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/08/063373P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Though our appellate jurisdiction is normally limited to reviewing final orders. I. Background The preliminary injunction was issued after an expedited briefing and hearing schedule. The full text of that policy is reproduced in Appendix A to this opinion. To continue to allow the Gideons to distribute Bibles as we have done in the past.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/85E12F7AAC2A420688256FB70000CDB6/$file/0315695.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We further conclude that NASD rules approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission have preemptive force over conflicting state law. Section 6 of the California Constitution requires the [California Judicial Council] to improve the administration of justice by . . . [a]dopting rules for court administration and rules of practice and procedure that are not inconsistent with statute . . . .
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july99/98-4616.man.html">TEFEL V. RENO (7/14/1999, NO. 98-4616)<BR></A><BR>
(2) the district court's order denying the INS' motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction.</P> <P> Appellees/Plaintiffs (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/06E1CD159644A5D988256E5A00707C14/$file/9956169.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994) and we affirm. Was affiliated with two companies. These companies were approached by the principals of a company called EDP to help create a market for EDP stock. The stock was not registered with the SEC. The SEC alleges that EDP was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EF4A85A0B9A1D9ED88256A9C005A0E5A/$file/9956169.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994) and we affirm. Was affiliated with two companies. These companies were approached by the principals of a company called EDP to help create a market for EDP stock. The stock was not registered with the SEC. The SEC alleges that EDP was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-2076.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Meagher & Flom were on brief. Frazier were on brief. Sanchez Betances & Sifre were on brief. McConnell Valdes were on brief. BACKGROUND This is presumably the final skirmish in a decade long conflict. Other jousts are chronicled in a series of published opinions. We believe that a condensed summary of the hostilities will suffice for the nonce. Although bureaucrats are reputed to abhor a vacuum. Ostensibly concerned that the oil companies were taking unfair advantage. Since large oil companies are not in business to lose money. A wholesaler could choose between paying a refund based on a retrospective GPM of 13 per gallon for the injunction period or paying one based on whatever profit margin would have allowed it to achieve an annual return on assets equal to the average return on assets for the electric utility industry. The wholesalers were not mollified. It revivified the court action originally instituted by the oil companies and filed a motion for restitution seeking an award equal to the excess profits that the wholesalers would have been forced to disgorge 2We refer to the three oil companies collectively as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A108E25BD9F7F07E88256E5A00707C18/$file/0016708.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Solano is a medium security prison about thirty five miles southwest of Sacramento. 800 are enrolled in the prison's work incentive program. Being late or
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/39CB2AE80E0EAB7488256A9C005A88E8/$file/0016708.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Solano is a medium security prison about thirty five miles southwest of Sacramento. 800 are enrolled in the prison's work incentive program. Being late or
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/998C4FAC8B2B2708882569F1005FA015/$file/0016401.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs are engaged in the commercial recording. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1613.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Richard J. Of counsel on the brief were Robert L. With him on the brief were Robert S. With him on the brief was Richard S. The active ingredient in Plavix® is clopidogrel bisulfate. Which is covered by Sanofi's patent. Which will expire on November 17. It is necessary to have a generalized understanding of stereochemistry. Stereochemistry refers to the threeMolecules that dimensional spatial arrangement of a molecule's constituent atoms. have the same chemical substituents. Are referred to as stereoisomers. They exist as nonsuperimposable mirror images of each other and are referred to as enantiomers. Enantiomers are optically active because they are capable of rotating plane polarized light. Enantiomers that rotate polarized light to the right are referred to as dextrorotatory enantiomers. Enantiomers rotating polarized light to the left are referred to as levorotatory enantiomers. Or l enantiomers.1 A mixture of equal amounts of both types of enantiomers is referred to as a racemic mixture.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8CCAA9E2E2A0A50988256E5A00707A45/$file/0016401.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs are engaged in the commercial recording. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA2LTIxMDYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/06-2106-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The present action was commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in April 2006 by or on behalf of artists whose ages then ranged from 16 to 20. New York residents are adults at age 18.). That plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their claims that the challenged provisions violate their First Amendment and equal protection rights. Defendants have appealed. Contending principally that the district court erred in finding that plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their claims. Amendments to § 10 117 were adopted to expand former § 435 13.2(c)'s prohibitions by raising the age restriction on the sale of such items from 18 to 21 and by introducing a strict liability provision that prohibits persons under the age of 21 from possessing such items in certain places. The Challenged Provisions of the City Code The new or amended subsections that are challenged in this action provide as follows: (c) No person shall sell or offer to sell an aerosol spray paint can.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8CC48F105ABA72EA88256F40005E99EC/$file/0355858.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Does not bar the issuance of a preliminary injunction freezing assets where fraudulent conveyance or equitable causes of action are pleaded in the bankruptcy context. An involuntary bankruptcy case was filed against Focus Media. John Pringle was appointed trustee. On the same day that the complaint was filed. These proofs of service reflect that service on Rubin was made
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4558CF875AD93D4B88256E5A00707AD0/$file/0016401.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2001 in this appeal is amended as follows: 4222 Slip opinion at 2196. Nimmer On Copyright §§ 12.04[A][2] & [A][2][b] (2000) (confining Sony to contributory infringement analysis:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1994/94a0889p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because the lawsuit filed by the Commonwealth was not frivolous. We will reverse the award of attorney's fees against the Commonwealth. The application was denied by the district court because the Fraternal Order of Police lacked standing. The intervening defendants were treated as plaintiffs and the plaintiff Commonwealth and defendant City were deemed defendants for the purpose of awarding fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The order granting the intervening defendants' motion for summary judgment and denying their motion to dismiss the original complaint for failure of the Commonwealth to prosecute was affirmed on appeal. The appeal of the attorney's fees award was dismissed because the fee award had not been quantified and therefore was not a final order. The Commonwealth was required to pay 75%. The City was ordered to pay 25%. Or the facts on which the determination rests are clearly erroneous.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6A17BB3944F3170788256A23005B515C/$file/0016401.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2001 in this appeal is amended as follows: 4222 Slip opinion at 2196. Nimmer On Copyright §§ 12.04[A][2] & [A][2][b] (2000) (confining Sony to contributory infringement analysis:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/69A4AA15F8D6CBD6882569F1005E7D93/$file/0016401.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs are engaged in the commercial recording. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F61C1B2A2DDACE1E88256E5A00707A56/$file/0016401.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs are engaged in the commercial recording. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1998/98a1880p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The injunction was sought pending the resolution by the NLRB of unfair labor practice charges against appellee Dorsey Trailers Inc. Which is the bargaining representative of the workers affected by the denial of injunctive relief. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Our review of the denial of a S 10(j) injunction is for abuse of discretion. We have held we may reverse the denial of a S 10(j) 2 injunction if the factual findings do not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1222.html">PPG V. GUARDIAN<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2408.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gray LLP</SPAN> were on brief. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2003/01-16588.opn.html">FOUR SEASONS HOTELS V. CONSORCIO BARR (2/5/2003, NO. 01-16588)<BR></A><BR>
Four Seasons filed a complaint in the District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging that Consorcio was gaining unauthorized access to the Four Seasons computer network. Appellants were served with the complaint. Appellants' lawyer cross examined Four Seasons' witness but did not present any witnesses or affidavits. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200413234.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Our Virgin Islands Labor Union (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1830.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Moring LLP</SPAN> were on brief for appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0F0E18540654AF5F88256EEB00573AF1/$file/0316319.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Specifically they argue (1) that the injunction is overbroad as it relates to a book they sell. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a). I. Background Irwin Schiff has a long history of opposition to the federal income tax laws.1 For over thirty years he has maintained that the federal income tax is voluntary. Co defendant Lawrence Cohen is an employee at Freedom Books. Is sold individually and as part of tax avoidance packages. Which authorizes a district court to enjoin any person from conducting activities that are subject to penalty under 26 See. Including organizing or selling a plan or arrangement and making or furnishing a statement regarding the excludability of income that they know or have reason to know is false or fraudulent as to any material matter. Including organizing or selling a plan or arrangement and making or furnishing a statement regarding the excludability of income that they know or have rea (2) (3) UNITED STATES v. SCHIFF 10821 son to know is false or fraudulent as to any material matter.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3779_031.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That motion was denied. Facts Spamhaus is a non profit company limited by guarantee and organized under the laws of the United Kingdom. It is an internet watchdog group in the business of identifying and blocking internet
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8D8E586240111EE68825718D0074F92F/$file/0415787.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0447p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
In violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.1 Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the displays were unconstitutional. Shortly after the complaint was filed. Some of which were excerpted. Defendants responded to Plaintiffs' motion by arguing that the new displays were not similar to the previous displays. Contended that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/11/02-4030.htm">02-4030 -- HEIDEMAN V. SOUTH SALTLAKE CITY -- 11/04/2003<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981519.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1998 the district court held a hearing on the government's motion for a preliminary injunction and entered the preliminary injunction that is the subject of this appeal.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2003/01-16588.opn.html">FOUR SEASONS HOTELS V. CONSORCIO BARR (2/5/2003, NO. 01-16588)<BR></A><BR>
Four Seasons filed a complaint in the District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging that Consorcio was gaining unauthorized access to the Four Seasons computer network. Appellants were served with the complaint. Appellants' lawyer cross examined Four Seasons' witness but did not present any witnesses or affidavits. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2004/024582p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Class members were entitled to opt out at various stages. Those who chose to opt out initially were freed to pursue their remedies elsewhere. Those who did not opt out at the beginning were afforded opportunities to opt out
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2631.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which was called HydraStop and employed Petolick. The nondisparagement clause in the consulting agreement may thus have been a substitute for a noncompete clause. Which would be unenforceable if its duration were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1289.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. That she was ABPN certified. The court denied relief because it believed she was unlikely to infringe in the future. While the case is close. I. BACKGROUND The facts are largely undisputed. ABPN is a non profit Illinois corporation that certifies psychiatrists and neurologists as specialists qualified in their respective fields.1 ABPN secured and owns a federal registration for the mark:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/10B30B019A9B51118825711E00825DE2/$file/0435402.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The interest organizations have in not being compelled to communicate messages not of their choosing. Plaintiff Edward Gathright is an evangelical Christian who preaches outdoors to the general public. Gathright himself has observed that it is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200511/05-5068a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Peter D. With him on the brief were Dennis M. The means by which they were to fulfill this duty. The defendants argue that reissuance of the injunction was an abuse of discretion. In trust for the sole use and benefit of the Indian to whom such allotment shall have been made.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4DF1F5195513ED3A88256CDE00819F03/$file/0255883.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Many of which were never presented to the district court. All are without merit and we affirm. The background of this case is long and colorful. Various facial cosmetic surgeries were documented and billed as procedures to correct deviated septums. Breast implants were billed as biopsies. The fraud was aided by patient recruiters who sought patients. From all over the country and were paid a fee per patient. Haya's now ex husband Ezeckiel Zilka was a surgeon at several of the clinics during the time these fraudulent acts occurred. Alleging that she was involved in the fraud scheme as a patient recruiter. Plaintiffs submitted declarations from two insiders who testified that Haya was a patient recruiter. Asserted that the checks by themselves did not prove she was a recruiter. She also argued that the insider declarations were inadmissible because they were not based on first hand knowledge.1 Judge Letts granted plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint. The declarations were admissible they specifically describe acquiring knowledge of Haya's recruiting from Haya herself. 2 In the recusal order.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D375A00ECC19178C882572F30082443E/$file/0536195.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
ORDER The Opinion in this case was filed November 9. A timely petition for panel rehearing and for rehearing en banc was filed. Is deleted. A substituted footnote 2 is inserted in its place. The question of whether the FHA generally applies to homeless shelters was not at issue because the parties did not dispute that the FHA applied. We have never squarely addressed the issue of whether all temporary shelters fit within the Act's definition of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2001/00-16472.opn.html">DELTA AIR LINES V. AIR LINE PILOTS ASS'N (1/18/2001, NO. 00-16472)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2001/00-16472.opn.html">DELTA AIR LINES V. AIR LINE PILOTS ASS'N (1/18/2001, NO. 00-16472)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0111p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plaintiffs in this case are eight individuals involved in a clinical drug trial sponsored by Amgen. When the study was terminated. The plaintiffs sued claiming that Amgen was legally required to continue providing them with the drug. I. The plaintiffs are all Kentucky residents that suffer from Parkinson's disease. None of these current treatments are curative. Amgen was now faced with the problem of how to effectively deliver GDNF to the brain. In which the drug is injected directly into the central fluid filled cavities of the patient's brain. Was effective. These studies failed to prove that ICV was safe or effective as a delivery method. Although the study yielded favorable results because the study was open label. Meaning study participants knew they were receiving GDNF and no participants received a placebo. Amgen concluded that more research was necessary. Another open label study was also conducted at the University of Kentucky medical center in which GDNF was administered via IPu to ten patients.1 All ten of these patients showed benefits after six months of treatment but.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1109.html">;AMAZON.COM, INC. V. BARNESANDNOBLE.COM, INC<BR></A><BR>
With her on the brief were <U>J. Of counsel was <U>John R. Of counsel on the brief were <U>David J. With him on the brief were <U>William G. Of counsel on the brief were <U>Michael N. Of counsel was <U>Stanton T. This is a patent infringement suit brought by Amazon.com. We have jurisdiction to review the district court's order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(1) (1994).</P> <P ALIGN=
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0220p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Amouri's Grand Foods Page 2 Background Lorillard manufactures and sells cigarettes under a variety of brand names (J.A. 55).1 One of its most popular brands is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0D7A8B3C1A68E5538825722100018A28/$file/0536195.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which was managed by CHI and provided housing to men. The women and families were removed from Community House. The plaintiffs assert that the district court abused its discretion by denying a preliminary injunction that (1) would have COMMUNITY HOUSE v. (2) would have voided the City's lease with the BRM. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We reverse the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction that would have required reinstatement of all former residents. Because the City's men only policy is facially discriminatory. We conclude that the district court abused its discretion by determining that only a limited injunction was necessary to avoid an Establishment Clause violation. A broader preliminary injunction is required. Which they have raised for the first time in this appeal. I. BACKGROUND CHI is a non profit corporation that provides housing services to homeless and low income persons. About seventy five percent of its residents were disabled. The BRM is a Christian non profit organization that has served the homeless population of Boise.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C2C93C6130624C3C88256DF800713B84/$file/0216999.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
By the time it was extinguished in September. A
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1132.html">OAKELY, INC V. SUNGLASS HUT<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3239_032.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=07-2658_018.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plant at which it slaughters the horses is in Illinois. It is considered a delicacy in Europe and Cavel exports its entire output. 225 ILCS * The appellants' motion for an injunction pending appeal was decided in a brief order (Chief Judge Easterbrook dissenting) with a notation that opinions explaining the ground for the order and the dissent would follow. The opinions are being released in typescript. Or accept any horse meat if that person knows or should know that the horse meat will be used for human consumption.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1329.html">SILENT DRIVE, INC V. STRONG INDUSTRIES<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>Edmund J. Harty</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>Ronald M. Argued for defendents appellees.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Margaret C
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2000/98-7024.man.html">MILAN EXPRESS V. AVERITT EXPRESS (4/7/2000, NO. 98-7024)<BR></A><BR>
Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=07-2658_026.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plant at which it slaughters the horses is in Illinois. It is considered a delicacy in Europe and Cavel exports its entire output. Or accept any horse meat if that person knows or should know that the horse meat will be used for human consumption.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1994/94a0882p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The underlying action is Acierno's request for declaratory and injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages for the County's alleged violations of the Constitution and laws of the United States and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West 1994).[fn1] Presently before us is the County's appeal from an order entered by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granting Acierno's motion for a mandatory preliminary injunction directing the County to issue Acierno a building permit for development of a shopping mall. The district court also concluded that Acierno would suffer irreparable harm unless the County was compelled to issue the building permit and halt its interference with Acierno's development. The County argues Acierno failed to show he will be irreparably harmed unless a preliminary injunction issues against the County. A primary purpose of a preliminary injunction is maintenance of the status quo until a decision on the merits of a case is rendered. There is no evidence in this record to show that a delay in issuance of the building permit until this case can be decided on its merits would cause irreparable harm to Acierno.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2000/98-7024.man.html">MILAN EXPRESS V. AVERITT EXPRESS (4/7/2000, NO. 98-7024)<BR></A><BR>
Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2485.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellees. This is an appeal from a preliminary injunction issued pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011382.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Section 1
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/03/99-1284.htm">99-1284 -- KIKUMURA V. HURLEY -- 03/09/2001<BR></A><BR>
Because the district court committed legal error in holding Plaintiff did not have a substantial likelihood of success on his RFRA claim and would not be irreparably harmed absent an injunction. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY</strong> <p> Plaintiff appellant Yu Kikumura is an inmate in the United States Penitentiary. Defendant John Hurley is Warden at the Penitentiary. Gallegos is an Associate Warden at the Penitentiary. Who is originally from Japan. Rickard's request to visit Plaintiff was denied by prison officials. <p> During the next several months Plaintiff. Defendant Hurley then sent letters to Plaintiff and Yasutake explaining that the requests were denied because they did not meet the criteria for pastoral visits established by Bureau of Prisons (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EB342847E32C4B7888256C4700551B32/$file/0115901.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who are Arizona residents and taxpayers. The action is justiciable in federal court. I. BACKGROUND The statute at issue in this case is Arizona Revised Statute § 43 1089 (hereinafter
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4010.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of showing that two provisions of the ordinance requiring solicitors to provide their fingerprints and post a $1. Inc. is a distributor of Kirby vacuum cleaners. Seven of those who were arrested (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1331.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. THE FACTS AND THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW The facts are set out in the district court's opinion. Presented in a manner that recognizes the statutory edge 1Section 10(l) provides in relevant part: Whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in an unfair labor practice [as defined in other sections of the NLRA]. The officer or regional attorney to whom the matter may be referred has reasonable cause to believe such charge is true and that a complaint should issue. The sequelae were predictable: overcrowded parking lots. The record reveals that on at least two of the occasions store managers complained to a Union official who was on the premises. Because the Union's actual labor dispute was with the primary employer. The Union asseverated that these shop ins were efforts to publicize its grievance with Busch. Were thus beyond the statute's proscriptive reach. Asserting that she had reasonable cause to believe that the associational shopping amounted to an illegal secondary boycott because its real purpose was to force the retailers to cease purchasing beverages from Busch.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1998/98a1941p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Before us is an expedited appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1226.html">BELL & HOWELL V. ALTEK SYSTEMS<BR></A><BR>
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0375a-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Last time it was here. Before us now is Deja Vu's appeal from the district court's decision dissolving a permanent injunction which had enjoined the enforcement of Metropolitan Code of Laws Chapter 6.54
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6370802B473DC4D6882572A6008183A3/$file/0655559.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction to review the district court's order The class also includes children at imminent risk of foster care placement. 1 3392 KATIE A. v. A class of children who were in Los Angeles County foster care or at risk of being placed into foster care (Katie A. The complaint alleged that the class was entitled to and had not received
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july99/98-2387.man.html">EPIC METALS CORP. V. SOULIERE (7/22/1999, NO. 98-2387)<BR></A><BR>
The ordered modification was overbroad. Alleging that Condec's CONDEC steel decking product was a Lanham Act trade dress infringement of Epic's EPICORE steel decking product and that Condec had infringed Epic's Copyright in EPICORE catalogs and promotional materials. Epic sought to prevent Condec from holding out to the public that CONDEC has a Underwriter's Laboratory (UL) fire rating until the product's fire resistance is independently tested. Which could have been as high as $70. The trial court also found UL certification is essential because most building codes. Epic's motion asked the court to prevent Condec from
</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/03/07/021694P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The school is a part of a complex that spans Lewis. The individual plaintiffs are parents whose children were involved in the incident that led to the preliminary injunction. Waddle is the Chief Juvenile Officer for the Second Judicial Circuit in Missouri. Alleging that these defendants were harassing and intimidating Heartland. The case was pending when. The removal was without notice to Heartland. Authorities had ex parte probable cause state court orders to remove only about seventy five of the students who were taken into custody. As well as orders for approximately forty children who no longer lived at Heartland and for four others who were over the age of eighteen. That is. Which evidently was inaccurate by October when he decided that all of the children living at Heartland needed to be removed immediately. The students were confined by juvenile authorities. They were given a copy of a letter from a juvenile The Heartland parents were added as plaintiffs on February 14. Lewis County were not included in Waddle's notice of appeal.
</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=03-2704.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lund LLP</SPAN> were on brief. Flexner</SPAN> were on brief. <SPAN STYLE=
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0563n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It is from the granting of injunctive The Honorable James L. I. Curtis 1000 sells custom printed products through sales representatives who are assigned to specific geographic territories. Are not limited to a geographic area. ASB is not in the manufacturing business. Martin and Bean were both hired by Curtis 1000 in 1984 as sales representatives and were assigned different sales territories in Central Tennessee. Martin and Bean were both responsible for building their own client bases. Bean's agreement was executed on June 22. Specified that it was governed by the laws of Delaware. [T]he Sales Representative will acquire by reason of his employment valuable information concerning the Company's accounts. Any and all such information other than known generally by persons not affiliated or formerly affiliated with the Company is to be treated by the Sales Representative as
</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=99-1754.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for defendants. Alexander and Ransmeier & Spellman were on brief for intervenors. This appeal is a sequel to prior litigation growing out of the same district court proceeding. The merits have not yet been decided in the district court. Familiarity with our prior decisions is assumed. The Commission and PSNH engaged in negotiations and have been moving toward a possible settlement of their differences. While proceedings in the district court as to a permanent injunction for PSNH have been deferred pending approval of the settlement. Two new and quite distinct disputes have arisen one relating to the preliminary injunction upheld in Patch IV and the other to the further interim relief that we disallowed in Patch V. The proposed New Hampshire restructuring plan would have triggered changes in the company's financial statements. Our decision in Patch IV affirming the preliminary injunction against the restructuring plan was rendered on December 3. The district court's decision on this motion is the first issue on this appeal.
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200313671.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0689n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which were consolidated before this court. He was hired as a part time yard worker. He was promoted to the position of Manager Trainee in July 2000. He was not required to sign any documents related to his employment with 84 Lumber. Among those documents was the 84 Lumber Dispute Resolution Program. When the Associate became aware of it. 84 and Associates agree that failure to initiate arbitration within this six (6) month limitation period will constitute an absolute bar to the institution of any proceedings and a waiver of the claimed wrongful action. The
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0488p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He claims that the materials comprising the Tax Toolbox were never introduced into evidence at the hearing on the injunction. Because the injunction's scope is appropriately tailored and does not unduly burden his livelihood.
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A3AC4A8F164DA30288256BBA0080B31D/$file/9935320.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
FACE gives aggrieved persons a right of action against whoever by
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0F569EF00290007188256BC0005876E6/$file/9935320ebcorrected.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\temp21\PlannedParenthoodLetter1.wpd
|
 |
POLYMER TECH. V. BRIDWELL
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
LLP were on brief. LLP was on brief. The first is whether the health centers serving those populations have enforceable rights to sue. The second is how a federal court hearing such a prospective claim should proceed when parallel litigation is proceeding in a state court. Such parallel suits are not uncommon.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was on the briefs. Was on the brief. Circuit Judge: We must decide whether an architectural firm is entitled to a preliminary injunction prohibiting a client from using its LGS ARCHITECTS v. The licensing agreement is based upon the language of the American Institute of Architects' Standard Form of Agreement for Residential Projects. It provides that [a]ll architectural documents prepared by Architect pursuant to this contract are instrumentalities of the Architect's services and are Architect's property solely for use by the Client on this project and no other. Any other use of such architectural documents is prohibited unless the Client first obtains express written authorization from Architect. C. These provisions are also applicable to the parties'
|
|
EPIC METALS CORP. V. SOULIERE (7/22/1999, NO. 98-2387)
The ordered modification was overbroad. Alleging that Condec's CONDEC steel decking product was a Lanham Act trade dress infringement of Epic's EPICORE steel decking product and that Condec had infringed Epic's Copyright in EPICORE catalogs and promotional materials. Epic sought to prevent Condec from holding out to the public that CONDEC has a Underwriter's Laboratory (UL) fire rating until the product's fire resistance is independently tested. Which could have been as high as $70. The trial court also found UL certification is essential because most building codes. Epic's motion asked the court to prevent Condec from
|
|
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED V. TESSERA, INC.
With him on the brief were Mark N. Newton.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Bruce M. Of counsel was Herbert W. Inc. were Darrell L. Of counsel on the brief were David M. Nor do we conclude that the district court abused its discretion in determining that infringement is likely and that the harm and public interest favors enjoining Teva and Ranbaxy. injunction. Many ACE inhibitors including quinapril are susceptible to degradation due to cyclization. They chose excipients known to have low moisture content. Claim 1 is a composition claim: A pharmaceutical composition which contains: (a) a drug component which comprises a suitable amount of an ACE inhibitor which is susceptible to cyclization. Claim 16 is a process claim: A process for stabilizing an ACE inhibitor drug against cyclization which comprises the step of contacting the drug with: For more background on the development of ACE inhibitors. Drug and Cosmetic Act.2 Because Teva was the first company to file an ANDA for the generic version of Accupril®. Teva was entitled to a 180 day generic market exclusivity period pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(5)(B)(iv).
|
|
UNITED STATES V. DBB, INC. (7/14/1999, NO. 98-3447)
Circuit Judge: The United States and various defendants separately appeal from a district court order granting a preliminary injunction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1345(a)(2) freezing the defendants' assets that were traceable to their fraudulent activities. Procedural History and Background This action was originally filed by Gary E. The individual defendants are directors and officers of various companies that provide Durable Medical Equipment (
|
|
02-8087 -- GREATER YELLOWSTONE COALITION V. FLOWERS -- 02/20/2003
4321 et seq. Plaintiffs claim that the project will cause irreparable harm to three bald eagle nesting territories. Finding no irreparable harm and concluding that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits. The purpose of building the golf course was to provide additional income so that the remainder of the Ranch could remain viable as a ranching operation.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was found to have violated the plaintiffs'. The award of injunctive relief was found to be unnecessary. E. The declaratory judgment relied upon by the panel majority in the instant appeal to support its reasoning and judgment is non existent. F. The Plaintiffs' have failed to prevail on a single cause of action charged in their complaint. G. The district court's sua sponte application of the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Have sought a preliminary injunction to prevent defendants from refusing to renew plaintiffs' franchise and from evicting them from the franchise location. Which plaintiffs have occupied since 1978. Plaintiffs' initial request for injunctive relief was denied on the ground that the event required to trigger the enforcement provisions of the PMPA. The question presented by this appeal is whether injunctive relief is still an available remedy for these plaintiffs against these defendants. (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
David Woods is scheduled to be executed by lethal injection on May 4. OE This decision was originally released as an unpublished order. Minor punctuation and grammar changes have been made. 2 I. Woods was convicted of murder and robbery and was sentenced to death. Woods was granted leave to intervene on April 10. (3) an irreparable harm will result if the injunction is not granted.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The district court's decision is AFFIRMED. Construction was completed. The bridge and its approaches were rebuilt. Certain rail lines were surplus. The rail line crossing the bridge was one such line. The rail line spanning the bridge was thus abandoned.1 Five years later. The bridge's approaches were removed. Of which he was president. Their suit sought a declaratory judgment of their right to insulate the bridge from The record is not clear on what exactly was abandoned. One way to read the record indicates that only the rail line was abandoned. This amb iguity does not affect our resolution of the case. 1 Because the sale contra ct was co ntingent upon the gra nt of certain perm its from the City and the Wa terfront Developm ent Corporation. The sale may not have been consumm ated. The court reasoned that: (1) the bridge is not in interstate commerce. This was no bar to condemnation because the City and the Waterfront Development Corporation could condemn the franchises and pay the plaintiffs reasonable compensation for them.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
On counsel were W. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were Walter F. This is a post award bid protest case. PGBA filed suit in the United States Court of Federal Claims seeking to have the award of the contract to WPS set aside. Rule that PGBA was entitled to recover its reasonable bid preparation and proposal costs. TRICARE is a military health care benefits program that provides health care benefits to dependents of active duty service members and to retired service members and their dependents. TRICARE is administered within the Department of Defense by TMA. The TRICARE system was divided into eleven geographical PGBA filed its first motion for reconsideration after the court issued its original order under seal. TMA will consolidate the MCS contracts from seven contracts covering eleven regions to three contracts covering three regions. This new contract is called the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The sole elaboration in GNAPs\' motion was that it briefly\ flagged the issues it claimed it wanted to litigate. Margin right: 1in
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This is such a case. It is a class action that seeks to settle the claims of between 250. 000 individuals who have been exposed to asbestos products against the twenty companies known as the Center for Claims Resolution (CCR).[fn2] Most notably. These
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Before the court are several related appeals. While Taylor's case was still pending in the district court. Taylor was a member of CWA Local 6301. After summary judgment was entered. At the time her employment was terminated. After the complaint was logged. Taylor went to her supervisor and admitted that she was the employee who had been accessing the Brooks account. Who was the father of her child. She was afraid that he would physically harm her and wanted to keep track of his whereabouts. Taylor claimed to her supervisor that Ann Thomas had given her permission to access her mother's account since it would reveal the location from which Robert Brooks was making collect calls. Employees are informed that violations of the Code may lead to disciplinary action. After discovery was complete. Southwestern Bell moved for summary judgment on the basis that Taylor had not shown that she was discriminated against on the basis of her race or that she had a disability as defined by the ADA. Taylor argues on appeal that her disability claims should not have been dismissed because race was a factor in her dismissal and because her conduct in accessing a customer account was caused by her depression and her fear of Robert Brooks.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Plaintiff Ronnie Randolph was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life in prison. Randolph was initially incarcerated at Jefferson City Correctional Center (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
P.S.C. were on brief. Were on brief. The parties have filed cross appeals which raise difficult questions about the lawfulness and proper scope of the injunction in light of arguably conflicting federal statutes that. That Puerto Rico's restrictions on delivery were preempted by federal law. That an administrative fine imposed by the Secretary was invalid and unenforceable. The Secretary also makes an alternative argument that the injunction is overbroad. Factual and Procedural Background
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The United States Army Corps of Engineers is charged with the responsibility of managing this river and its attendant reservoirs. The Corps is forced to make hard choices. The Missouri River Basin was in the midst of just such a prolonged drought. Where Lake Oahe is located. The Corps is charged. The Act also laid out certain substantive interests that it was to serve. The dominant functions of the Flood Control Act were to avoid flooding and to maintain downstream navigation. The Act's dominant functions were expressed repeatedly in three Congressional Documents: Senate Documents 191 and 247 and House Document 475. These responsibilities are not at issue in this case. 7 1 and wildlife. Which explains how the Corps is to go about managing the River system. The most recent version of the Master Manual was promulgated in 1979. Section IX lays out the
|
|
UNITED STATES V. DBB, INC. (7/14/1999, NO. 98-3447)
Circuit Judge: The United States and various defendants separately appeal from a district court order granting a preliminary injunction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1345(a)(2) freezing the defendants' assets that were traceable to their fraudulent activities. Procedural History and Background This action was originally filed by Gary E. The individual defendants are directors and officers of various companies that provide Durable Medical Equipment (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This case was brought under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act by the Washington Post Company and its wholly owned subsidiary Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Company. Purdy1 from appropriating Internet domain names2 that incorporate and are confusingly similar to their trademarks and servicemarks. Purdy was later found in contempt and fined for violating the injunctions. I. Both the common law and Congress have provided protection to the holders of recognized trademarks to prevent others from appropriating or copying them and taking advantage of the owner's good will for their own benefit. One legislative purpose of that act was to ensure that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
28 U.S.C. § 2283. that this relief is improper under both the Eleventh Amendment and the We disagree. Conclude that Construing injunctive relief is proper in the circumstances of this case. relief. On the last occasion during which these parties were before us. We stated that it was
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. The landowners are the former owners of two large properties located along the Marmaton River also known as the Little Osage River in Missouri (the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The Original Packaging Weight Watchers is a leading provider of weight loss products and services. It has offered a diet plan known as the Points or Winning Points plan in which foods are given a point value based on the number of calories and grams of fat and fiber they contain. Weight Watchers members are assigned a points range principally based on their body weight and may eat what they choose so long as the total point value of the food they eat throughout the day does not exceed their assigned ranges. Defendant Luigino's Inc. (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This is the second infringement case we have heard regarding the same trademark. It may fairly be said that in many cases a handbag is so essential that its owner would be lost without it. We emphasized that to determine whether two products are confusingly similar it is improper to conduct a side by side comparison in 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 lieu of focusing on actual market conditions and the type of confusion alleged. Vuitton's trademark Multicolore handbag design is the same as it was in the earlier case.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Clapp were on brief for appellant.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. Background Plaintiffs are six former tenants of three substandard Single Resident Occupancy hotels (
|
|
MICCOSUKEE TRIBE V. S. FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DIST. (2/1/2002, NO. 00-15703)
The suit alleges that the Water District was violating the Clean Water Act by discharging pollutants from the S 9 pump station into Water Management District 3A without a national pollution discharge elimination system (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The district court concluded that the dispute was a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is president and sole shareholder of Fish. There were four licensed. The income which the adult entertainment industry generates for the Village is critical. Ex. 11.) 1 Joelner claims to have been doing business at the 2226 Kingshighway location since 1990 or 1991. The stated goal of the increase was to protect the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Vacated that portion of the injunction that prevented the Department from charging the publishers a rental or use fee that was revenue raising. The en banc court also said that the district court should consider any claim the Department might have for fees that it had been enjoined from collecting. The 1996 plan would have governed the placement and allocation among publishers of newsracks in the airport. They were granted a preliminary injunction against its implementation. The preliminary injunction was subsequently clarified. The Department moved to dissolve the preliminary injunction and filed a new plan to be implemented once the injunction was dissolved. While the preliminary injunction was still in force. The district court denied the Department's motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction and declined to consider the 1997 plan because it found that the 1997 4 plan was not properly at issue in the litigation. (2) requiring publishers to pay a fee that was not tied to the Department's costs in administering the newsrack plan but was instead revenue raising.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge:* The parties are engaged in a dizzying web Pursuant to 5TH CIR. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. It is therefore unfortunate. That in denying plaintiff's request for an injunction that would have yielded finality. I. The facts and proceedings are aptly described in our prior opinion. Martin Group
|
|
97-3313 -- MARCUS V. STATE OF KANSAS DEPT. OF REVENUE -- 03/23/1999
The Department of Justice developed regulations requiring that where parking is provided for public buildings. That are required to provide that individual or group with the nondiscriminatory treatment required by the Act or this part. Id.
|
|
MICCOSUKEE TRIBE V. S. FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DIST. (2/1/2002, NO. 00-15703)
The suit alleges that the Water District was violating the Clean Water Act by discharging pollutants from the S 9 pump station into Water Management District 3A without a national pollution discharge elimination system (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
District Judge: This appeal presents the question whether a suit in the District Court for the District of Delaware brought by certain Delaware property owners challenging assessments charged to them to provide for an expanded sewer system is barred either by the Tax Injunction Act. The plaintiffs appellants in this court are several persons owning real property in the expanded sewer district (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
AOC was a Lake Arrowhead. WILSON 5203 The agreement provided that arbitration was to be the sole dispute resolution method. Was to be conducted pursuant to the rules of the American Arbitration Association (
|
|
00-4045 -- BAD ASS COFFEE CO. OF HAWAII V. BAD ASS COFFEE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP -- 10/30/2001
BACH sought and was granted preliminary injunctions enjoining BACLP from using the Trademark in Hawaii and Nevada. The three cases were consolidated in this appeal. This court affirms. - FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The parties are well acquainted with the copious record in this case. This court includes only the background material necessary to fully understand our holding. Jones was formerly employed by Royal Aloha Coffee. BACLP is a Nevada limited partnership in which Jones is the principal. Nevada. Almost before the ink was dry on the agreements. BACH sent BACLP written notice that it was terminating both the MDAN and the TDAN based on BACLP's default under the Promissory Note and the APSA. Concluding that BACH was entitled to terminate the MDAH. BACLP's motion to vacate the arbitration award was denied. This motion was granted on April 13. The appeals were consolidated and all are properly before this court. - DISCUSSION
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. In 1993 South Dakota enacted a law providing that no abortion can be performed without the patient's voluntary and informed consent unless it is impossible to obtain such consent due to a medical emergency. The patient's consent will be informed only if certain information has been given to her at least 24 hours before an abortion procedure. The information required by the 1993 law includes the name of the physician who will perform the abortion. The probable gestational age of the embryo or fetus she is carrying. The patient must also have been told that medical assistance benefits may be available. All of whom were granted leave to intervene after this appeal was filed. 22 1 fetuses at various gestational ages. A provider's failure to comply with the state's informed consent requirements is a class 2 misdemeanor. In 2005 South Dakota enacted House Bill 1166 (the Act) which is the subject of this action. The disclosures required under the new law are contained in § 7 of the Act. The doctor's written statement provided 2 hours before an abortion must inform the patient: (b) That the abortion will terminate the life of a whole.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Peabody & Brown were on briefs. Kohler Co. were on briefs. This is an appeal from the district court's issuance of a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants Kohler Company and Robern. There were two basic claims before the trial court: that the Falling Water faucet
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Dina Warner and Dechert Price & Rhoads were on brief for appellant. Crabtree & Strong were on brief for appellee. Because we find that the primary ground of the court's order is a defense that was waived by Sylvania. That the court's findings were insufficient to support its action on the alternative ground urged by Sylvania. The primary problem was the tendency of the sole to separate from the 2 2 leather body of the shoe. Knapp was assured by Sylvania on various occasions between 1987 and 1989 that the sole adhesion problem had been remedied. Were untrue. Laws Ann. ch. 93A (count 8).1 The gravamen of all these claims was that too many of the shoes manufactured by Sylvania and sold to Knapp were defective. Knapp's complaint was quite detailed in setting forth the categories of damages it claimed to have suffered. Increased costs because Knapp was forced to make substitute purchases from other manufacturers. Losses in good will and in customer orders due to Sylvania's conduct. The counterclaim suggested that any defects were due to Knapp's own specification of materials to be used in manufacturing its shoes.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge:* The parties are engaged in a dizzying web Pursuant to 5TH CIR. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. It is therefore unfortunate. That in denying plaintiff's request for an injunction that would have yielded finality. I. The facts and proceedings are aptly described in our prior opinion. Martin Group
|
|
01-5166 -- FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. SKYBIZ.COM INC. -- 01/30/2003
The
|
|
97-4015 -- STATE OF UTAH V. BABBITT -- 03/03/1998
Summary of Utah Wilderness Debate A brief review of the history of the wilderness debate in Utah is necessary to put the facts of this case into context. These public lands comprise approximately one fifth of the nation's land and are primarily located in eleven western states and Alaska. See id. FLPMA
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: On page 6. Carreras Rovira were on brief for appellants. Brooks & Smith were on brief for appellee. The Company and the Unions were parties to a collective bargaining agreement covering the Company's knit. It is enough for present purposes to say that the Company believes that no effective contract was adopted at that time or thereafter. Is currently in force. 2 2 On November 5. Its explanation for agreeing is that the contract that expired on February 29. The Unions learned that some of the Company's employees desired to decertify the Unions as the representative of the Barranquitas workers and were preparing to petition the National Labor Relations Board for a new election. In early December 1992 there was a strike and certain employees were disciplined by the Company for what it said was strike and picket line misconduct. The Company objected that there was no contract and thus no basis for arbitration of new disputes arising after February 29. The Company also sought a judicial stay of the arbitration while the contract issue was being determined by the court.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge:* The parties are engaged in a dizzying web Pursuant to 5TH CIR. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. It is therefore unfortunate. That in denying plaintiff's request for an injunction that would have yielded finality. I. The facts and proceedings are aptly described in our prior opinion. Martin Group
|
|
MOVA PHARM CORP V. SHALALA DONNA
Anthony Figg was on the briefs. Howard S. United States Attorney at the time the briefs were filed. Were on the briefs. Steven J. Bickart was on the briefs. Ronald L. Rubin was on the brief. John F. This section was designated 21 U.S.C. 355(j)(4)(B)(iv). Because the statutory scheme governing the ap proval of successive generic drug applications is quite com plex. We will. The FDA was barred from approving Mylan's similar application until after the end of that 180 day period. Because at the time Mylan submitted its application Mova had not yet
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This matter is before the court on Appellees' Motion for Clarification and Appellant's Petition for Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc. The motion for clarification is granted. A revised order and judgment is attached. Appellant's petition for rehearing is denied. The petition for rehearing en banc was transmitted to all of the judges of the court who are in regular active service as required by Fed. That petition is also denied. Notified DWG that it was infringing on RUFI's mark. Prime
|
|
99-5233 -- JOHN ZINK CO. V. ZINK -- 02/27/2001
We affirm. I. Plaintiff John Zink Company was founded in 1929 by John Steele Zink. The father and son were plaintiff's sole shareholders. All of plaintiff's shares of stock were sold for $40. 000 was paid for the physical assets and $29. 000 was paid
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 >
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The United States was engaged in a criminal investigation of Plaintiff Steven Warshak and the company he owned. (2)
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The suit alleges that the Water District was violating the Clean Water Act by discharging pollutants from the S 9 pump station into Water Management District 3A without a national pollution discharge elimination system (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 >
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Said fictitious names being intended to designate organizations or persons who are members of defendant organizations. Others acting in concert with any of the defendants who are engaging in. Circuit Judge: This is an action brought for declaratory and injunctive relief to stop blockades of abortion clinics. Aspects of this dispute have been before the courts for almost seven years. We will reverse the denial of the motion. We will remand the case to the district court with instructions to grant the motion. I. The underlying action was originally brought on June 29. It was brought in response to Operation Rescue's
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
On the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were John D. We affirm the decision of the Court of International Trade denying Yancheng an award of attorney fees because even though we find that the government was correctly held in contempt. I The United States Department of Commerce (
|
|
POMPEY V. BROWARD CTY.
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Pompey v.
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19954214.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</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/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/cee298df6be46cf088256ab4006d9c29/$FILE/0015128.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is hereby amended as follows: Slip Op. at 9033. That is. Hence that Walker and In re Collins are 11440 no longer good law. The definition of
</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/199804/97-5082a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Anthony Figg was on the briefs. United States Attorney at the time the briefs were filed. Were on the briefs. Bickart was on the briefs. Rubin was on the brief. This section was designated 21 U.S.C. s 355(j)(4)(B)(iv). Because the statutory scheme governing the ap proval of successive generic drug applications is quite com plex. We will. The FDA was barred from approving Mylan's similar application until after the end of that 180 day period. Because at the time Mylan submitted its application Mova had not yet
</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/9E259207B0F126FA88256E5A00707BEC/$file/0015128.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ellett seeks declaratory and injunctive relief barring Goldberg from collecting certain pre petition state income tax obligations that were allegedly discharged in his bankruptcy proceeding. Ellett's Chapter 13 plan was confirmed in April 1995 and was completed two years later. The FTB notice stated that such obligations were not discharged in bankruptcy and that collection action was
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1677.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Hall & Stewart were on brief for appellant. With whom Konowitz & Greenberg was on brief for appellees. This is an appeal by William KEETON. The error was harmless in relation to the issues before us in this appeal. These conclusions relate to issues that are at least potentially mixed legal factual issues that would be more appropriately decided. After the parties have had a full opportunity for discovery and development of evidence bearing upon the factual elements of the legal factual mix. They are open to de novo consideration in the district court during further proceedings there. Before July 1989 Donoghue is an investment adviser well known as an expert on money markets and mutual funds. One of his business entities was The Donoghue Organization. A Massachusetts corporation of which Donoghue was the sole stockholder. Its flagship publication was Donoghue's MoneyLetter a semi monthly newsletter introduced by Donoghue in 1980. Donoghue's MoneyLetter was voted
</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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/05/02-1364.htm">02-1364 -- UBEROI V. CITY OF BOULDER -- 05/01/2003<BR></A><BR>
The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> These cases were consolidated on appeal because both were dismissed as a result of the enforcement of a permanent injunction prohibiting plaintiff/appellant Mahinder S. This case was dismissed due to Mr. Attorney's fees were awarded to the University. We thoroughly reviewed the basis of the district court's ruling and agreed with its conclusion that a permanent injunction was necessary because
</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/04571662AAE1564488256A8B005A3339/$file/0015128.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ellett seeks declaratory and injunctive relief barring Goldberg from collecting certain pre petition state income tax obligations that were allegedly discharged in his bankruptcy proceeding. Ellett's Chapter 13 plan was confirmed in April 1995 and was completed two years later. The FTB notice stated that such obligations were not discharged in bankruptcy and that collection action was
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept96/95-4214.opa.html">POMPEY V. BROWARD CTY.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Pompey v.
</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.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6320.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. (
</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/CEE298DF6BE46CF088256AB4006D9C29/$file/0015128.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is hereby amended as follows: Slip Op. at 9033. That is. Hence that Walker and In re Collins are 11440 no longer good law. The definition of
</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.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031125.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court should have entered a preliminary injunction because he satisfied the test governing preliminary injunctions with regard to his claims that the challenged portion of Jouett's 2002 2003 dress code is both unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. I A Students at Jouett and their parents are provided each year with a student/parent handbook that is updated every summer. Who at the time was a twelve year old student in the sixth grade at Jouett. Sitting at a table on the opposite side of the cafeteria with his back towards her.1 Pitt's attention was drawn to Newsom by his purple t shirt. Over 500 students were enrolled in the sixth. She had the immediate impression that the figures were
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1053.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for appellant Superior Court of Puerto Rico for the District of Arecibo. Bonnet Rosario was on brief for appellants Rivera Santos. William Ramirez Hernandez with whom Nora Vargas Acosta was on brief for plaintiffs. Jeanne Finberg and National Senior Citizens Law Center were on brief for intervenors appellees. The Superior Court judgment was based on a determination that Casa Marie was operating in violation of local zoning ordinances and JDA restrictive covenants. A. The Opening and Expansion of Casa Marie The Jardines de Arecibo housing development was established in 1967. Each property in the development is subject to restrictive 3 covenants allowing only detached single family residences. Was established by Maria Pla Placencio on a dead end street in a section of JDA zoned residential (R 3). Elder care facilities are not allowed except as a variance. Casa Marie was granted a six month provisional DSS license to operate an elder care facility on Lots 19 and 20. Casa Marie was denied a permanent DSS license due in part to the discovery that the A.R.P.E. 1As these endorsements were not seriously at issue.
</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/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/9e259207b0f126fa88256e5a00707bec/$FILE/0015128.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ellett seeks declaratory and injunctive relief barring Goldberg from collecting certain pre petition state income tax obligations that were allegedly discharged in his bankruptcy proceeding. Ellett's Chapter 13 plan was confirmed in April 1995 and was completed two years later. The FTB notice stated that such obligations were not discharged in bankruptcy and that collection action was
</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/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/60ed92e6d721f94188256e5a00707c76/$FILE/0015128.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is hereby amended as follows: Slip Op. at 9033. That is. Hence that Walker and In re Collins are 11440 no longer good law. The definition of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200412420.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which are small loans with interest rates averaging 400 500% APR due on the next payday. This appeal presents the question of whether the State of Georgia may regulate a narrow segment of agency agreements between in state payday stores and out of state banks or whether the Georgia Act in issue is preempted by § 27(a) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/04571662aae1564488256a8b005a3339/$FILE/0015128.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ellett seeks declaratory and injunctive relief barring Goldberg from collecting certain pre petition state income tax obligations that were allegedly discharged in his bankruptcy proceeding. Ellett's Chapter 13 plan was confirmed in April 1995 and was completed two years later. The FTB notice stated that such obligations were not discharged in bankruptcy and that collection action was
</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/5E06981E462F2C6E88256E31005DCB30/$file/0355765.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inclusive individually defendants are sued in their official capacities. Rancho is a County hospital dedicated primarily to providing inpatient and outpatient rehabilitative care to disabled individuals. Plaintiffs are current and future Medi Cal patients with special needs that require medical services offered at Rancho. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a). I. Rancho one of six County hospitals is a 207 bed facility that specializes in rehabilitation and the acute care needs of patients with chronic diseases. BONTA inpatients and 58 percent of Rancho's outpatients are MediCal recipients.1 Rancho has served Los Angeles's homeless. Were invented at Rancho. Rancho was also the first facility to replace wood with plastic for prosthetic limbs. Rancho was becoming legendary for its occupational therapy. 865 Los Angeles area polio victims were treated at Rancho.2 In 2002. These services were also offered at other County facilities. Currently about 60 percent of Rancho's inpatients are transferred to Rancho from the other five County hospitals.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/00/00-4276.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The preliminary injunction was issued without a hearing and Equitrac had to place language on its web page to remedy violations of the Lanham Act. I. BACKGROUND Promatek and Equitrac are competitors in selling costrecovery equipment. The district 1 Metatags are HTML [HyperText Markup Language] code intended to describe the contents of the web site. There are different types of metatags. Those of principal concern to us are the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/60ED92E6D721F94188256E5A00707C76/$file/0015128.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is hereby amended as follows: Slip Op. at 9033. That is. Hence that Walker and In re Collins are 11440 no longer good law. The definition of
</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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/06/04-1060.htm">04-1060 -- ROTHBERG V. LAW SCHOOL ADMISSION COUNCIL -- 06/16/2004<BR></A><BR>
We reverse. <ol> <li><strong>BACKGROUND</strong></li> </ol> <p> Rothberg is a senior at Syracuse University who hopes to attend law school. The LSAC is a non profit entity that administers the LSAT. The median score was 150. <p> Rothberg filed a second request for accommodations in November 2003 along with new supporting information obtained from a clinical psychologist. The heightened standard was inapplicable because Rothberg sought relief under a civil rights statute. The court concluded that Rothberg had demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on her ADA claim because the diagnoses of Griffiths and Allen supported her contention that she is substantially limited in the major life activities of reading and learning. Rothberg was not required to demonstrate irreparable injury. The court concluded that Rothberg had demonstrated irreparable injury because any relief granted after a full trial on the merits
</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.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-4012_040.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Examples of these products are car seats. The industry is highly competitive and when DiMartinis began working at Dorel. That leave was unexpectedly lengthened when her child was born with medical problems that required her attention. The primary responsibility of that position is to supervise and mentor product managers and participate in product development. Dorel clarified that it was seeking only a six month injunction because it expected that the products at No. 06 4012 3 the core of its concerns were going to be introduced to the public in the second quarter of 2007. The plaintiff was required to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits and a substantial threat of immediate irreparable harm if injunctive relief was not granted. If those two thresholds were met. The court found that the principal information at stake in the case was brand positioning strategies in certain categories of the juvenile products industry. Although the information was sensitive and generally treated as confidential by Dorel.
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/02/062371P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which were necessary to prevent the release of further contaminants into soil and groundwater. CBS contends that the injunction did not sufficiently specify which acts were required of it. That the evidence showed there was no need for MERA relief. That is. It was not preempted by MERA. 375 F.3d at 742 46. 2 On remand. The rationale for these specifications was that soil deeper than twelve feet and soil under the building was not immediately accessible to human or ecological
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001252.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is unconstitutional. Holding that the regulation is unconstitutional and enjoining the FEC from enforcing the regulation against VSHL or any other party in the United States. We hold that the regulation is unconstitutional because it is not limited to communications that contain express words of advocacy as required by Buckley v. Is too broad. The injunction will be limited to barring the FEC from proceeding against VA. Our holding that the regulation is unconstitutional and the injunction that we have authorized give VSHL complete relief. I. VSHL is a Virginia based nonprofit corporation established
</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/176138E4BA37484F88256A150060011C/$file/0055621.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is the third appeal by Defendant Southwest Marine. Were consolidated and earlier heard by this court. While the consolidated appeal was pending. Work is conducted at its five piers and two floating dry docks.
</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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-7064a.html">SCOTT BENJAMIN W. V. DC<BR></A><BR>
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1641.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellant.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE=
</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.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1471.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Because Porta Stor's discovery appeal is interlocutory and not properly before us. Is the assignee of U.S. Which is directed to an apparatus and method for lifting. The magistrate judge who was assigned to the case recommended that a preliminary injunction be granted. Based on a finding that PODS was likely to prevail on its claim of infringement of independent claims 1 and 29. That motion was denied without prejudice. The magistrate judge explained that with due diligence Porta Stor could have presented that information prior to the issuance of the preliminary injunction. Because the original report and recommendation was based on a finding that PODS would likely prove infringement of 05 1471. The magistrate judge concluded that Porta Stor's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></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="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/08/02-4098.htm">02-4098 -- KEIRNAN V. UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY -- 08/12/2003<BR></A><BR>
Appellant uses an electric wheelchair which weighs 612 pounds when occupied and is longer than forty eight inches when her leg rests are included in the length. Appellant's leg rests are extended because she is unable to bend her knees. UTA's entire paratransit fleet is equipped to handle larger mobility devices such as Appellant's. <p> In December 2001. <a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011553.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We will refer to the cases as having been brought by D'Elegance and Malaco. 1 S & D LAND CLEARING v. Although these current appeals have not been formally consolidated. They are factually interrelated to such a degree that we conclude it is appropriate to resolve them in a single opinion. Commenced supplemental proceedings to enforce the judgment against D'Elegance and ordered Appellants not to transfer any property of D'Elegance that was not exempt from execution. The challenges to the March 16 and July 3 orders are unreviewable as interlocutory. The district court did not err in allowing supplemental proceedings and the order not to transfer D'Elegance's property was appropriate under such proceedings. The small amount of C & D debris Malaco was allowed to remove was the least profitable.3 Malaco encountered other difficulties. Including D'Elegance's efforts to hire away Malaco's truck drivers with promises of higher pay and warnings that Malaco did not have a contract and was not going to get paid.
</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/B8A530287D28BB0E88256E5A00707AA5/$file/0055621.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is the third appeal by Defendant Southwest Marine. Were consolidated and earlier heard by this court. While the consolidated appeal was pending. Work is conducted at its five piers and two floating dry docks.
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0162p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Philip Ray Workman is scheduled to be executed by the State of Tennessee on May 9. Even though the components of the procedure that Workman challenges today have been in existence in the main since 1998. Workman's prospects for success on the merits also are dim. Several state and federal courts have upheld this same three drug protocol (including the Tennessee Supreme Court in 2005). Workman acknowledges that the new procedure is only slightly different from the old procedure. The State has done in reviewing and revising the procedure shows that it is trying to prevent Workman from suffering any pain during his execution. Not that it is trying or willing to allow a procedure that imposes unnecessary and wanton pain. Oliver stopped the defendant as he was exiting. Which also was unsuccessful. A brief review of the history of Tennessee's execution procedures is in order. Quickly anesthetizes the inmate and is sufficient to cause death in the absence of the two additional chemicals in the protocol. Pancuronium bromide is a
</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/2001/07/00-4058.htm">00-4058 -- UTAH LICENSED BEVERAGE ASSOCIATION V. LEAVITT -- 07/24/2001<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-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1801.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
. . . and which merely restate claims which have already made [sic] and which have been denied
</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/1E387F8447EB62A488256F090072552A/$file/0355114.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is the latest round in a protracted trademark dispute between Jerry's Famous Deli (
</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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1526.html">THE NAUTILUS GROUP V. ICON HEALTH AND FITNESS, INC.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Mark S. Argued for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>On the brief were <u>Larry R. Todd</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel were <u>Robyn L. Trademark to sell its exercise equipment.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Nautilus is the holder of the ". Tab stops:.5in'>Nautilus and ICON are direct competitors in the market for home exercise equipment.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Both produce resistance training systems that use bendable rods.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>In Nautilus's product. The rods are arranged vertically. Outward.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The rods are structured to resist this outward movement. 000 machines have been sold. The bendable rods are arranged horizontally so that they bend downward. Is replaced by a circular crosshairs.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Beneath the mark. Line height:200%'>While its appeal of the patent infringement issue was pending.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982565.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. I VSHL is a non profit organization whose stated purpose is to educate the general public about pro life issues. VSHL and Andrea Sexton (hereinafter both parties are simply referred to as VSHL) filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia) in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. Which are part of Vir3 ginia's Campaign Finance Disclosure Act. Were unconstitutional on their face and as applied to VSHL. A Statement of Organization was required to include. Virginia Code Annotated § 24.2 901(A) (Michie 1995) defined
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511556REH.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. Would have . . . the practical effect of diminishing the court's power to bring the litigation to a natural conclusion.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/12/951565P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND Ernest Smith and John Stewart were both inmates at the Cummins Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction. While they were asleep in their beds. They were brutally stabbed by fellow inmate Robert Lewis. Smith was seriously injured. These inmates were all incarcerated together in Barracks No. 8. Inmates in the open barracks are free to move about the entire room. Sitting by designation. 3 No. 8 housed 86 general population inmates at the time of this incident and was not staffed with a correctional officer inside the room. Barracks Nos. 5 and 6 are similarly organized and similarly lack the presence of a supervising correctional officer inside them. Contending that the prison officials were not complying with the requirements imposed in a prior case. Who was a current resident of the Cummins Unit. The district court determined that Rudd was not entitled to a jury trial on his equitable claim for an injunction and held a five day bench trial. The district court also determined that the prison officials were inadequately staffing the open barracks and had done nothing to alleviate the dangers posed by this shortcoming.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1550.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the brief were Stephen J. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were Ada L. With him on the brief were R Alan Luberda and David A. Whereas it should have declared the country of origin to be Germany. Arcelor represented that the SSPC that it had imported during the fourth period of review was from Germany. Commerce determined that Arcelor's entries during that fourth period of review were not subject to the antidumping duty order on SSPC from Belgium. The question for purposes of country of origin is whether the process at issue constitutes substantial transformation. The country of origin of [Arcelor's] merchandise which is hot rolled in Germany. Is Germany. Even if those entries were in fact hot rolled in Germany and not further coldrolled in Belgium. Was granted. The court stated that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr96/95-2056.wpd.html">LUEKER V. MORRIS<BR></A><BR>
That Guernsey is entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees. Lueker could not sue Guernsey in New Mexico because it was not subject to personal jurisdiction in that state. Will require Lloyd's to present any claims for payment from Plaintiff under its Membership Agreement in a court of competent jurisdiction in the United States . . . .
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200412/03-5314a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Peter D. With him on the brief were G. The bulk of the funds in the accounts are the proceeds of various transactions in land allotted to individual Indians under the General Allotment Act of 1887. The IIM funds have quite a different legal status from the allotment land itself. It gave the Indian beneficiaries the right to possess and manage the lands except insofar as alienation was involved. The IIM funds are by statute under the full control of the United States. Duties related to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7B339C2D2A4FBB588825713A0080B9AA/$file/0516776.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Finding (1) that the methodology employed in the FEISs with respect to the tree mortality guidelines was not arbitrary and capricious. (3) that the USFS had gathered sufficient population monitoring data for certain bird species that have been categorized as MIS. Riparian Conservation Areas (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2001/00-15927.opn.html">PITTMAN V. COLE (10/3/2001, NO. 00-15927)<BR></A><BR>
The court declined to address whether there was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1511.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
BMWED is an unincorporated labor association and the collective bargaining representative for those UP employees who maintain. Have. That
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2000/99-14141.man.html">MORRISON V. ALLSTATE INDEM. CO. (9/26/2000, NO. 99-14141)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-1027_032.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Challenges a range of practices by Illinois' child welfare agency claimed to infringe parental rights that are protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The present appeal is from a preliminary injunction that the plaintiffs. Who are the appellants. The plaintiffs are also attempting to 2 No. 06 1027 appeal from the judge's class certification order. The purpose is to minimize disputes over what has been enjoined. The Ninth Circuit allows incorporation by reference if the material thus incorporated is physically attached. There is no reason to complicate the administration of the rule by such an interpretation. There are times when literal interpretation is best. This is one of them. The Ninth Circuit's approach would encourage just the kind of mistake that the rule aims to prevent the thoughtless attachment of separately composed documents when if the judge had integrated their contents into the injunction order he might have realized that they would not cohere with the rest of the order without changes.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1238.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
When functional the plant was powered by water from a canal. The requirement had no practical significance when the plant was not being used. That is. Decided to put the plant back into service and so it became concerned about the state of the canal and in particular feared that the canal's wall was about to collapse. Rent that the power company refused to pay until the canal was repaired. The judgment seems (the reason for this hedge will appear momentarily) to include an order injunctive in character that entitles the power company to enter upon the canal company's property for the purpose of repairing the canal wall and to obtain a lien on the property for the cost of the repair. We must satisfy ourselves that we have jurisdiction. The purpose is to provide a solid foundation for any subsequent efforts to enforce the injunction by contempt proceedings or otherwise. It is also to spare the courts and the litigants a struggle over the injunction's scope and meaning. That No. 01 1238 3 prohibiting vague injunctions is also necessary to protect
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0075A714947A9E4888256C3E0058A053/$file/0135033.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292 and we affirm. Which have sculpted spectacular and wild canyonlands out of the Owyhee's volcanic rock formations. Ranching families are an important part of the local community with many family members participating actively in civic life as local elected officials. Water is life. Riparian areas lands adjacent to streams that support a thicker growth of vegetation are crucial to the wildlife and fish of the ORA [Owyhee Resource Area]. When riparian vegetation is overgrazed. In 1981 the BLM identified livestock overgrazing as a significant problem in the Owyhee and concluded that approximately ninety percent of the Owyhee rangeland was in poor or fair ecological condition. The BLM again examined the health of the streams in the Owyhee and found that ninety one percent of the stream miles inventoried were in unsatisfactory condition. B. The BLM's Management Of The Owyhee The BLM is statutorily charged with managing the Owyhee and is required to consider many interests.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1256.html">NATIONAL STEEL CAR, LTD. V. CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY, LTD, ET AL.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>David P. Illinois.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel was <u>Alexandra DeNeve</u>. Argued for defendants appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Marc S. Addresses a particular type of railway car used to haul lumber: a depressed center beam flat car.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Figure 1 of the '575 patent shows a longitudinal section through one side of the car and is reproduced below.</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text indent:.5in. Line height:200%'>The car described in the '575 patent is a ". Car because the primary structure of the car is a truss like beam element that runs the length of the center of the car between the wheel assemblies. In the front and back of the car.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Center beam cars are an industry standard for hauling lumber. Which is piled onto a floor that extends laterally to each side of the car from the bottom of the center beam and then secured to the center beam.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Canadian Pacific currently operates a fleet of center beam flat cars.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text indent:.5in.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/10/042474P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. The facts leading up to this lawsuit are set forth in great detail in the District Court's Memorandum and Order. Although Waddle had obtained ex parte probable cause state court orders to remove some of the boarding students (and also to remove some students who were no longer at HCA and others who were not even within the jurisdiction of juvenile authorities because of their ages). There were no The Honorable E. United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 2 1 orders of any kind to remove many of the students who were taken from the school that day. The removal action was without notice to Heartland. Or their parents and was taken because of several allegations of mistreatment and abuse of students at HCA. The District Court entered a final preliminary injunction enjoining Waddle and others from
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1997/97a1579p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude that we have jurisdiction to review that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1308.html">INTERGRAPH CORP V. INTEL CORP<BR></A><BR>
Of counsel on the brief were <U>David Vance Lucas</U>. With him on the brief was <U>Joel M. Of counsel on the brief were <U>Peter . Intel is a manufacturer of high performance computer microprocessors. The microprocessors are sold to producers of various computer based devices. Who adapt and integrate the microprocessors into products that are designed and sold for particular uses. These producers are called original equipment manufacturers. Intergraph Corporation is an OEM. Sells computer workstations that are used in producing computer aided graphics. From 1987 to 1993 Intergraph's workstations were based on a high performance microprocessor developed by the Fairchild division of National Semiconductor. Embodying what is called the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2001/002387.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Court also found that the defendant was not entitled to invoke the arbitration clause in the underlying contract signed by its subsidiary. We will affirm these rulings. We will reverse the grant of that injunction principally on the grounds of comity. The joint venture was encountering difficulties. Were unable to resolve their differences. The complaint sought damages as a result of lost sales and diversion of resources toward tasks that were the contractual responsibility of Moteren Werke. While these matters were proceeding in the District Court. The issue was submitted to a jury. Which found that Deutz was not entitled to arbitration. At the time the contract was signed. Deutz was known as Klockner Humboldt Deutz. It was the latter entity. We will refer to the company throughout this Opinion as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1962.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LLC</SPAN> were on brief for appellant. P.A.</SPAN> were on brief for cross appellant. It ruled that because the Advest IRA was in Cox's name when Cox petitioned for bankruptcy. Hence was not subject to the later judgment of the divorce court. We reverse the court's decision as to the Advest IRA and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. </P> <UL> <LI><STRONG>BACKGROUND</STRONG></LI> </UL> <P> Laurie Davis and Thomas Cox were married on August 17. They have two minor children. Davis was a homemaker and. Cox was a successful commercial attorney. The court was required by Maine law to issue. The preliminary injunction was meant to keep intact. Is equitably divided by the court between the divorcing pair irrespective of in whose name it was held. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2001/00-15927.opn.html">PITTMAN V. COLE (10/3/2001, NO. 00-15927)<BR></A><BR>
The court declined to address whether there was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199914141.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This putative diversity class action suit arises out of a dispute over insurance coverage for the diminished value of a vehicle after it sustains physical damage and is repaired. We remand the case to the district court to allow the plaintiffs an opportunity to prove that jurisdiction is present. Listed below are the named plaintiffs and their respective insurers: Plaintiff Rex T. Who are all citizens of Florida. The policy for Allstate Indemnity Company involved in this case provides that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199914141.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This putative diversity class action suit arises out of a dispute over insurance coverage for the diminished value of a vehicle after it sustains physical damage and is repaired. We remand the case to the district court to allow the plaintiffs an opportunity to prove that jurisdiction is present. Listed below are the named plaintiffs and their respective insurers: Plaintiff Defendant Rex T. Who are all citizens of Florida. The policy for Allstate Indemnity Company involved in this case provides that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2000/99-14141.man.html">MORRISON V. ALLSTATE INDEM. CO. (9/26/2000, NO. 99-14141)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1557.html">VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGIES V. TITAN WHEEL<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4153.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Canyon Fuel sought to modify this arrangement to permit mining (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. We
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200412420op2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have before us the issue of whether Appellants' appeal from the district court's May 13. 2004 order denying their motions for a preliminary injunction is now moot. We conclude that it is. The Parties' Loan Programs The four Appellant banks are BankWest. The Appellant banks are state chartered institutions located in South Dakota and Delaware. Who are 2 Advance America. The four Appellant banks are paired with their in state agents as follows: · · BankWest and Advance America CSB and First American. Contended that the banks were making loans to Georgians using the non bank agents in Georgia. The type of loans at issue in this case are short term loans that are single advance. So that the loans are termed
</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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1251.html">JACK GUTTMAN, INC V. KOPYKAKE<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/May2004/May10/03-50795.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
While Par 3's appeal was pending. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. The objections it has to the preliminary injunction are the same objections it would have to the permanent injunction. The district court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin it (either by preliminary injunction or by permanent injunction) because Par 3 is not a party to the suit. Disputes that it is the alter ego of the defendant in the underlying suit. Because all the issues raised by Par 3 are common to the preliminary injunction and the permanent injunction. 527 U.S. at 317 18 (holding that an appeal from a preliminary injunction was not rendered moot by an order granting a permanent injunction. Where the issue appealed
</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/1819954AA8E290CA8825701A004C6819/$file/0356135.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The banners are located so that they are visible to customers of businesses that deal with certain contractors who do not have union contracts. While the banners are displayed. Local Union Number 1506 (
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0179n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Roofers' Advantage policies were underwritten by a
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/06/951604P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND This case arose out of an automobile accident in which Gerald Shoemaker and Beverly Garner were killed. compartment of their vehicle. Brought this products liability action alleging that the engine fire was caused by a faulty fuel pump in the Chevrolet S 10 Blazer in which their mother was riding and that this defect caused her death. GM asserted that the fuel pump was neither faulty nor the cause of the fire and that instead. The cornerstone of the plaintiffs' case is the product's defect. asked complaints accidents. from customers To help prove that defect. The plaintiffs GM products) involving similar GM to produce its 1241 reports (1241 reports are essentially regarding GM represented that all 1241 reports were indexed in summary GM stated that its customary response form in its central computer file. actual 1241 reports. to discovery requests was to produce these 1241 summaries instead of the From these summaries. Plaintiffs could request the Both the 1241 specific 1241 reports in which they were interested. summaries and the reports proved difficult to obtain from GM and were the source of several discovery disputes during the months before trial.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1440.html">GENENTECH, INC. V. NOVO NORDISK<BR></A><BR>
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199912049.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Five district court judges have presided over the case since its inception. Two different circuit courts of appeals have been asked to review one of their decisions.1 In this fifth appeal. We agree with the district court that the answer is
</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/CE3CE0894F9B1A5288256E7500771FD0/$file/0257013.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Robin Fortyune is a C 5 quadriplegic who requires both a wheelchair and an aide to attend movie theaters. Were prevented from doing so when a man and his son refused to vacate the wheelchair
</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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1420.html">LERMER V. LERMER CORP.<BR></A><BR>
</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.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1043.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Brian F. With him on the brief were Robert A. The permanent injunction was issued following the grant of Cross Medical's motions for partial summary judgment of validity and infringement. That we have jurisdiction over this appeal. We also reverse the grant of Cross Medical's motion for partial summary judgment that claim 5 is not obvious but affirm the grant of that motion as to indefiniteness and anticipation. A common problem with spinal fixation is determining how to secure the fixation device to the spine without damaging the spinal cord. Methods of fixation have developed which utilize wires that extend through the spinal canal and hold a rod against the lamina. 1 or that utilize pedicular screws which extend into the pedicle2 The
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200306/02-7163a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2063.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellant Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Claiming that these Massachusetts state officers were violating the federal Endangered Species Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Mar2002/012584mo.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Because the facts of this case are well known to the parties. We will not recite them in detail. The procedural history of this case is convoluted. While appeals of the Pennsylvania arbitration by Helen Sosso and Ronald Croushore were pending. The motion was granted. While the appeals were pending. The underlying case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (the
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/06/041465P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND HMOP is a health maintenance organization (
</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/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=07-2378_012.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who is scheduled to be executed by the State of Indiana before sunrise on June 15. Is here for the fourth time. We OE This decision was originally released as an unpublished order. While challenges to his conviction and sentence have been going on for over 16 years. Was also an intervenor in the Timberlake civil suit. Those motions were denied. This protocol is the same one used by Indiana to execute Mr. Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1:06 cv 1859 RLY WTL Entry Discussing Michael Lambert's Motion for Preliminary Injunction Michael Lambert (
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0279p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At issue are two sets of apartment complexes. These buildings are at various stages of construction. All have the same basic design. The ground floor apartments at issue have two exterior entrances a front door and rear patio door.2 The front door is closer to the parking lot. Is handicapped inaccessible because it can only be reached by descending stairs. At the bottom of the stairs is a landing shared by two front doors leading into two different apartments. The rear patio entrance is accessible. 3 but is located farther from the parking lot. Adopting the government's position that the front door was the
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0019p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
WILL & EMERY. WILL & EMERY. The plaintiffs in these four consolidated appeals are retirees or surviving spouses of the J.I. The underlying issue is whether the retirement health care benefits vested for life. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that their health care benefits are fully vested for life. The defendants are El Paso Tennessee Pipeline Company and CNH America. Was established in 1842 and became a wholly owned subsidiary of Tenneco (now El Paso) in 1970. Included was all of the JI Case business (defined as the farm and construction equipment business of Tenneco) except for Tenneco's JI Case stock. Case Equipment was then spun off on July 1. Is now known as CNH America.2 In 1996. Tenneco merged with a subsidiary of El Paso Natural Gas Company and is now known as El Paso Tennessee Pipeline Company. At times the opinion will refer to CNH America by its previous names. Page 3 forward contain the following language in Section 4A with respect to the Group Insurance Plans:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-4295.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Although the decision to enforce a non final tribal court judgment is a matter of discretion. Federal courts will ordinarily err on the side of enforcement of such judgments in the name of comity. We will not enforce a tribal court judgment. The regulatory authority of the tribe is often the issue which looms largest. This case is no exception. These appeals require us to examine the regulatory authority of the Navajo Nation over the activities of a nonmember of the tribe when the regulated entity is another independent sovereign acting in its governmental capacity. Although the district court's judgment was ultimately in their favor. The preliminary injunction is interlocutory in nature. Much of the preliminary injunction is now moot. Defendants are nearly all entitled to sovereign immunity. The specific defendants in that case relevant to these appeals were as follows: San Juan County. SJHSD is a special service district organized pursuant to Utah Code § 17A 2 1304 (1999). Is tasked with providing health care services to the citizens of San Juan County.
</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/BB28464663AF22DD88256CBD00578D92/$file/0156370.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs are developmentally disabled adults and residents of Fairview Developmental Center. Plaintiffs asked the district court to determine that they were the
</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/3198B432343538B988256A5C0075D690/$file/9955187.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who is now deceased. Does not yet have a personal representative. We conclude the injunction was too broad. I. Background Plaintiff and Appellee Ronnie Hawkins was a convicted criminal defendant scheduled to appear for sentencing. The bailiffs informed the presiding judge that Hawkins was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/01-6066.htm">01-6066 -- EVANS V. FOGARTY -- 08/21/2002<BR></A><BR>
Irreparable injury to the movant if the preliminary injunction is denied. (4) the injunction is not adverse to the public interest. <p> <u>Kikumura v. A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that should not be granted unless the right to relief is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug06/03-30627-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case demonstrates the progress we have made. Yet the distance we have to go to eliminate the vestiges of past racial discrimination. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This lawsuit was first filed in 1965. Bowling Green School was organized as a private racially segregated school. After a hearing the trial court found
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/537622EAC09A011D88256E5A00707B64/$file/9955187.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who is now deceased. Does not yet have a personal representative. We conclude the injunction was too broad. I. Background Plaintiff and Appellee Ronnie Hawkins was a convicted criminal defendant scheduled to appear for sentencing. The bailiffs informed the presiding judge that Hawkins was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-50795.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
While Par 3's appeal was pending. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. The objections it has to the preliminary injunction are the same objections it would have to the permanent injunction. The district court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin it (either by preliminary injunction or by permanent injunction) because Par 3 is not a party to the suit. Disputes that it is the alter ego of the defendant in the underlying suit. Because all the issues raised by Par 3 are common to the preliminary injunction and the permanent injunction. 527 U.S. at 317 18 (holding that an appeal from a preliminary injunction was not rendered moot by an order granting a permanent injunction. Where the issue appealed
</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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052153np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Rizzo have appealed the entry of the preliminary injunction. We have jurisdiction to review the interlocutory order of the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Only they have appealed. 3 1 Byrne. The preliminary results of the audit detailed several unnecessary or overpaid positions at the Funds and an unnecessary satellite office.2 These preliminary results were not shared with any of appellants until November 12. The following specific problems had been identified: · Edward Dwyer was paid $119. · Isaac Boracus was paid $123. Inc. was paid $158. Dennis Jastrzebski was paid $123. · Jamie Dolan and Rhoda Vergalito were paid a combined salary of $126. An emergency trusteeship hearing was held. Which found that there were a number of the unnecessary or overpaid positions or positions of power within the Unions and that many of them were held by persons related to or associated with a Mr. The IHO concluded that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971296.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Finding that the Act's purported abrogation of a state's Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity was invalid under Seminole Tribe v. Relief was unavailable. We do not resolve the question whether the abrogation of sovereign immunity is valid or invalid. The Railroads' property was assessed on December 31. The tentative notices of the assessments were issued to the Railroads. Neither recodification was intended to make any substantive change to that section. Because both parties in their briefs and this Circuit in prior cases have done so. We will hereinafter refer to 49 U.S.C.§ 11501 as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1487.html">ANTON/BAUER, INC V. PAG, LTD<BR></A><BR>
Argued for defendant/counterclaimant/third party plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>J. ).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Integral to the combination claimed in the '204 patent
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ACC02B659B2E0A7F88256BBA005B8172/$file/0155966.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: 6974 BENNETT v. That reads:
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A8896E583616EC4688256E82007E9EE7/$file/0356028.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Rancho is a county hospital dedicated primarily to providing inpatient and outpatient rehabilitative care. Is an acute care facility that provides a full range of hospital services. Challenging the district court's decision that plaintiffs have standing to sue and the court's issuance of an injunction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a). County emergency rooms are overwhelmed. Creating what witnesses in this case have called an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199903/98-7120a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were John M. With him on the brief were Daniel J. The District argues that the victory won by the plaintiffs was de minimis. 000 in fees awarded was so disproportionate to the value of the victory. First Amendment freedoms are neither so amenable to financial measurement nor so easily discounted as the District would have us believe. I. BACKGROUND The history of this litigation is recounted in detail in our prior opinion in this case. We repeat here only so much as is needed to explain our decision. Council Member Jack Evans introduced a bill that would have reinstated the campaign limits in place prior to Initiative 41. The District is required to submit Council enacted laws to Congress for a thirty day period that excludes Saturdays. Days when Congress is in recess or not in session. A law will only take effect if Congress does not enact a joint resolution of disapproval during the thirty day period. We agreed and the judgment in the case was vacated as moot because the District of Columbia had passed the new ordinance.
</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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1009.html">TEGAL CORPORATION V. TOKYO ELECTRON AMERICA, INC<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/72CE026C1B6B0DBE88256C3E0057E8AD/$file/9935472.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
CV 88 00379 BJR OPINION *James Ziglar is substituted for his predecessor Doris Meissner. P. 43(c)(2). **John Ashcroft is substituted for his predecessor Janet Reno. Powell is substituted for his predecessor Madeline Albright. Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs Appellees are illegal immigrants and organizations assisting such immigrants who seek to legalize their status under a legalization program in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200607/05-5388a.pdf">O:\SCHNABEL\2006-04 CASES\COBELL V. NORTON\COBEL OPINION DRAFT 7 FORMATTED (WITH MIKE MCGRAIL'S CHANGES).WPD<BR></A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Peter D. With him on the brief were Elliott H. Because we conclude the court's broad grant of equitable relief was an abuse of discretion. The Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of the Interior are currently the designated trustee delegates for the Individual Indian Money (IIM) trust. Interior is responsible for executing most of the government's trust duties. Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is responsible for managing the lands held by the trust. That some of Interior's employees were thwarting efforts to test the security of Interior's IT systems. The district court had erroneously shifted the burden of persuasion to Interior to show why disconnection was unnecessary. As material facts were in dispute and almost nine months had passed since a previous hearing. The class members argue that Interior's arguments are foreclosed by Cobell XII. We are not bound by the later opinions. The alleged conflict is illusory. Though some degree of confusion is understandable.
</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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/03/03-6067.htm">03-6067 -- STAR FUEL MARTS V. SAM'S EAST INC. -- 03/19/2004<BR></A><BR>
(2) Sam's sales to its members were not made with the intent and purpose of inducing the purchase of other merchandise or of unfairly diverting trade from a competitor. The member price is five cents per gallon lower than the price for nonmembers. Ninety percent of the gas sold at the Memorial Store is to members. Sam's sells only unleaded and premium gasoline. <p> The district court found that Sam's gasoline operations were
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/612890D3944707D088257299004F7654/$file/0516132.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended by inserting the following after
</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.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-7.gif" ALT="704"></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-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2000/991324.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Enough is Enough. At issue is COPA's constitutionality. A statute designed to protect minors from
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr96/96-2056.wpd.html">MCCLENDON V. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE<BR></A><BR>
) WILL BELL. I find that the application for the stay is well taken and should be granted. Although I have jurisdiction to consider the petition for an extraordinary writ. I will exercise my discretion to refer it to a panel of this court. Background Defendants Appellants and Petitioners are local governmental entities. Plaintiffs Appellees and Real Parties In Interest are a class of inmates who have been or will be confined at BCDC. Plaintiffs Intervenors Appellees and Real Parties In Interest are a class of inmates with mental or developmental disabilities who have been or will be confined at BCDC. Which was followed by a one day evidentiary hearing. Inmate counts were required at 4:00 a.m. each day and. The Director of the facility was
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1AE54E48BC885C33882570DC005DC633/$file/0455096.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. (
</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.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1169.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the brief was W. With him on the brief were Jennifer M. I. BACKGROUND PHG and its predecessors have been in the business of selling certain medical patient identification labels as well as identification labeling software in the United States since 1995. The first nine rows are depicted to contain three labels of equal size. The difference between the two patents is that the border is part of the design claimed in the '405 patent but not part of 06 1169 2 the design claimed in the '197 patent. Which is still pending at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. John argued that the patented medical label sheets are primarily functional and presented evidence from the prosecution history of the '425 utility application and from an affidavit submitted by Adam Press. Performing a
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0EA70B347B8D1DE888257203005677C7/$file/0417295.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which is part of the FEHA and provides. That
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0B8A1C95D4198B1488256E4A00815902/$file/9950041.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That naturalization ceremony was the culmination of a 16 year struggle between Appellees and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0A893E056B32B153882571EE00794928/$file/0516132.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are called upon to navigate between two equally important interests: the church's right to access a government building that is open to other groups. We conclude that the district court erred when it found that the church was likely to succeed on the merits of its First Amendment claim and therefore abused its discretion in granting preliminary injunctive relief. We have FAITH CENTER CHURCH v. I. The relevant facts are not disputed. The County's goal in making these meeting rooms available is
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/11/972119P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude that IFFA is not entitled to retain funds that reflect union dues paid by the flight attendants beyond those necessary to conclude representation. Individual appellants are entitled to a preliminary injunction. IFFA was the official collective bargaining representative of the TWA flight attendants. These attendants were the only group IFFA represented and. IFFA's only collective bargaining agreement was with TWA. Sherry Cooper resigned the IFFA presidency while charges of dual unionism were pending against her for her support of IAM. Was not a signatory to the February 21. IFFA would not have sufficient information to process individual appellants' request for an accounting.
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/06/951185P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND The facts in this case are not in dispute. married since 1988. The O'Hagans have been The IRS appeals. Which is their principal place of residence. The O'Hagans have owned the homestead property at all times In during their marriage as joint tenants with a right of survivorship. 1988. O'Hagan has not been assessed any income tax liability and is not obligated to pay any part of her husband's taxes. Which sale was to occur on November Mrs. DISCUSSION The question before us is whether the district court has subject matter jurisdiction to enjoin the government from selling Mr. The primary purpose of the Act is to See The § facilitate the expeditious collection of taxes by the government. The Supreme Court held that federal courts have jurisdiction to hear cases brought by an allegedly delinquent taxpayer in which the collection or assessment of taxes would be enjoined because: (1) the government cannot prevail on the merits even if the facts and law are examined in the light most favorable to the government.
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/11/042674P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Provided that no physician may perform an abortion unless the woman patient has signed an
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/02/032825P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which they allege was to be taken for a private use. I. The property which is the subject of the condemnation proceeding is located at the intersection of Hampton and Chippewa Avenues in St. Is a resident of Florida and trustee of the Sylvia H. The trust is a tenant in common with ADTAR. Each owns an undivided fifty percent interest in both the building in which the Target store is located and the ground on which the building is situated. Hampton Village Associates is a New York limited liability company and the successor in interest to the Estate of Louis Feil. Their appeal was docketed as No. 03 2825. Target's appeal from the injunction was filed the same day and was docketed as No. 03 2827. We have jurisdiction over the appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). 2 2 1 Appellees own the building which houses a Target store and the property on which it and the adjoining parking lots are located. The lease covers a store building which was previously leased to Arlans Department Stores. In May 2002 appellees responded that they were not opposed to demolition of the existing store.
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0068n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Alleging that her termination was effectuated in violation of her right to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Defendants provided Plaintiff with what no party disputes is adequate due process of law. Again concluded that Plaintiff's termination was justified and terminated her. Because these actions have rendered this controversy moot insofar as it pertains to the preliminary injunction. Which is the only issue presently before us. She was working in the domestic violence unit at the time of her termination. This case stems from a case that Plaintiff was prosecuting. The trial for which was scheduled to commence in the Macomb Circuit Court in September 2005. Baumer was a prosecution for child abuse against the child's aunt. The child's mother was a key witness. Her attendance at the trial was uncertain due to the fact that the mother was an alleged drug addict.
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0006p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
BACKGROUND Colonial is a corporation
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0710n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Several benefit funds that are subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) joined by other organizations a local union. Was a party to a pre hire collective bargaining agreement which imposed an obligation to pay contributions to the appellee funds on behalf of covered employees. The suit alleged that appellant was delinquent in its contributions to appellees and sought an injunction against appellant. Appellant did not respond to the complaint and appellees moved for and were granted an entry of default as well as a temporary injunction. Appellant thereafter attempted to end its association with the union but was informed that its effort was an improper contract termination and that Bedrock Services was still bound to the collective bargaining agreement. A show cause hearing was scheduled and postponed until December 20. Appellant also filed a separate action in the Western District of North Carolina against the union to have the collective bargaining agreement declared null and void.
</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.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1209.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the brief were Neil R. With her on the brief were Stuart E. Of counsel on the brief were Jason Kearns. Of counsel was Arnold I. This case was submitted after oral argument on May 5. That CITA's acceptance for consideration of certain petitions was arbitrary and capricious in that it conflicted with its published procedures. Data describing current market disruption is required. Previously existing quotas on the importation of textiles and apparel products made in WTO member 05 1209 2 countries were to be gradually phased out by January 1. A specific textile safeguard provision was included in paragraph 242 of the Accession Report to provide temporary relief against market disruption caused or threatened by influxes of Chinese imports of textiles and apparel. The mechanics of the procedures are described in more detail in the trial court's opinion. This case relates to twelve petitions filed after October 2004 that have been accepted for consideration by CITA. Because the ATC had not yet expired when the petitions were filed.
</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/200511880.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The key issue in this appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion when it entered a preliminary injunction that barred enforcement of an order of the Georgia Public Service Commission. Had ruled that unlimited access was no longer permitted. Loops are copper wires that connect a home or business to the local phone company switch. A switch is a device. Transport facilities are devices such as copper wires or fiberoptic cables that transport calls between switches. An agreement was provided either by the FCC or by state commerce commissions. States were given the authority to oversee voluntary agreements and arbitrate disputes arising from those agreements. 47 U.S.C. § 252(a). Included in those agreements was a standard
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0070p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jr. is the General Vice President of the Eastern Regional Office of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. Is temporarily secured to the ground with stakes to ensure that it does not tip over. Also includes anything constructed which is not enclosed within another structure and is placed in a stationary location.
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0026p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We believe that any damage that may be done to plaintiff's professional reputation is substantially outweighed by the harm that defendants and the public would suffer if plaintiff continues to practice medicine without additional training. Because plaintiff is not likely to prevail on the merits. We have interlocutory appellate jurisdiction in this case only to review the propriety of the injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The preliminary injunction is dissolved. I. Plaintiff is an African American physician with a private practice in Tecumseh. He was recruited by Herrick Memorial to be its staff OB/GYN because Tecumseh did not have one in the community. See Order Granting Preliminary Injunction at 7 (
</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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTAwNDcgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/03-0047%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This litigation was brought as a class action by inmates in New York City jails challenging the defendants' asserted failure to provide them with educational services to which they are entitled under New York State and federal law. The instant lawsuit arises out of a complex of allegations that the New York City Department of Education (
</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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/06/03-2016.htm">03-2016 -- VALLEY COMMUNITY PRESERVATION COMMISSION V. MINETA -- 06/23/2004<BR></A><BR>
By failing to conduct the necessary reviews and investigations to determine whether the project will entail a
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1321.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Isaacson</SPAN> were on brief. Was on brief. Matrix is required to
</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/992389OR.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The petition for initial hearing en banc is hereby denied. Concurring in the denial of an initial hearing en banc: Before us is a preliminary procedural motion. I think it is important to respond briefly to my brother's dissenting statement. The question is simply whether this case should be heard initially by the Fourth Circuit en banc or by a threejudge panel. Congress has decided that the basic unit for hearing an appeal from the judgment of the district court is a panel of three. Panel decisions are the end of the matter. We have rejected the request of litigants for an initial hearing en banc. That potential is magnified when there has been no prior panel consideration of a case. No one can say at this point whether or not en banc review will occur. He states his opinion that the appellants and the public 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://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012337.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Plaintiff Jane Holmes Dixon is the Bishop Pro Tempore of the Diocese of Washington. Edwards is an ordained Priest of the Church who claims entitlement to the office of Rector of St. A declaration that Father Edwards is not the Rector of St. The
</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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/09/98-1273.htm">98-1273 -- U.S. V. POWER ENGINEERING CO. -- 09/08/1999<BR></A><BR>
Colorado's regulations are substantially identical to the EPA's regulations. Among the state's regulations are the so called financial assurance requirements. Which require owners and operators of all hazardous waste facilities to document that they have secured the financial resources required for closure and. Supp.2d at 1146.<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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200311235.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were selling
</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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043848p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are asked who owns the founder's surname. We are also asked whether defendants the founder's grandson and his business have engaged in trademark infringement. Because we conclude that plaintiff has not met its burden of showing that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We will reverse and remand for further proceedings. Although the personal aspects of this dispute are not material to our resolution of this appeal. The history of the Doebler family businesses is critical to this matter. A case that is now before us for a second time. 4 A. Other family members were involved in the business as well. All three families were represented on Hybrids' board of directors as well. Jones and Camerer are officers. The Partnership's original functions were ultimately split between Partnership. Doebler III had ties to all three entities: he was partnered with his father in the Partnership and remains an owner of the successor LLC. He is co owner of Farmland. He was but no longer is a shareholder.
</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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTAwNDdfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-0047_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This litigation was brought as a class action by inmates in New York City jails challenging the defendants' asserted failure to provide them with educational services to which they are entitled under New York State and federal law. The instant lawsuit arises out of a complex of allegations that the New York City Department of Education (
</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/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-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/05/023622P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
An employer that withdraws from a multiemployer pension plan will be liable to the plan for
</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/sept2002/01-16189.opn.html">CUMULUS MEDIA, INC. V. CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (9/6/2002, NO. 01-16189)<BR></A><BR>
At issue is whether Clear Channel has infringed the rights of Cumulus Media. We can find no error in the entry of the preliminary injunction and accordingly affirm.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</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/982446.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. I. Pamela Dickson is a shareholder of Schmidt Baking Company (Schmidt or the Company). The stockholders of Schmidt were composed of three groups: the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/96-6278.htm">96-6278 -- KIOWA INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA V. HOOVER -- 07/13/1998<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <strong><hr align=
</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/36D3991E0771F37D88256CE1005F60E7/$file/0235530.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which is charged with evaluating and treating mentally incapacitated defendants. OSH argues that it is the county jails' responsibility to maintain and treat incapacitated defendants until OSH has an open bed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A mentally incapacitated criminal defendant who was detained in a county jail while awaiting transfer to OSH. Plaintiff Oregon Advocacy Center (
</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//apr99/97-9199.man.html">UNITED STATES V. GEORGIA (4/8/1999, NO. 97-9199)<BR></A><BR>
Ruling that continued federal court supervision of the Troup County School District was inappropriate.
</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//sept98/97-6773.man.html">PARRISH V. ALABAMA DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS (9/28/1998, NO. 97-6773)<BR></A><BR>
The Governor of Alabama and the Alabama Department of Corrections Commissioner were held in contempt for violating the injunction. The Alabama Department of Corrections appeals.</P> <P><CENTER><EM>DISCUSSION</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> An injunction directed to jail conditions must be terminated if the injunction was issued in the absence of a finding by the district court that the injunction (a) is narrowly drawn. (c) is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of a federal right. <EM>See id.</EM> § 3626(b)(2). We conclude the evidence is insufficient to prove that a current and ongoing violation of a federal right exists in the County's jail. Alabama's interpretation might be an incorrect interpretation of
</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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/00-3051.htm">00-3051 -- SIZEWISE RENTALS, INC. V. MEDIQ/PRN LIFE SUPPORT SERVICES, INC. -- 05/26/2000<BR></A><BR>
Or until arbitration between the parties is complete. We affirm. <p align=
</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/apr99/97-9199.man.html">UNITED STATES V. GEORGIA (4/8/1999, NO. 97-9199)<BR></A><BR>
Ruling that continued federal court supervision of the Troup County School District was inappropriate.
</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.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1188_020.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jason Goodman is a chiropractor who currently practices in St. He is 2 No. 05 1188 licensed in Illinois. He wishes to telemarket his services to people in the Springfield area who have recently been in car accidents. Is prevented from doing so by the Illinois Medical Practice Act (
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0364p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
WILL & EMERY. WILL & EMERY. Was enacted in 1998 and proscribes the sale of products that may be used to
</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/Oct1995/95a1192p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Maia Caplan and Vigilant Insurance Company (Vigilant) have brought this expedited appeal from the District Court's Order of May 25. Were parties to the settlement. Have moved to dismiss the appeal on the grounds both that the May 25 Order is not an injunction appealable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) and that the order is interlocutory and does not fall within the
</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/Aug2000/005056.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At issue in this appeal is whether. Are sellers of perishable agricultural commodities and beneficiaries of a statutory trust provided for by PACA. 1 are buyers of these perishable agricultural commodities and became statutory trustees under PACA upon purchase of such goods. Who allegedly was converting. Menadier is the sole shareholder and President of Packed Fresh Produce. That injunctive relief was futile when the PACA trust assets were already being depleted. The District Court should have granted the injunction sought. We will reverse and remand. Appellants' evidence includes the following: copies of Appellees' checks to Appellants that were returned for insufficient funds. Copies of Appellees' checks that were post dated as late as March 2000 for already overdue balances. 2 that Appellees often promised partial payment or assured Appellants that payment was
</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//sept2002/01-16189.opn.html">CUMULUS MEDIA, INC. V. CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (9/6/2002, NO. 01-16189)<BR></A><BR>
At issue is whether Clear Channel has infringed the rights of Cumulus Media. We can find no error in the entry of the preliminary injunction and accordingly affirm.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</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.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1203.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. This is an appeal from the grant of a preliminary injunction in a patent case. Although the scope of our review of orders granting or denying motions for preliminary injunctions is narrow. The district court should have provided an explicit claim construction before entering its injunctive order. Which is entitled
</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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/03-1002.htm">03-1002 -- BIODIVERSITY ASSOCIATES V. CABLES -- 02/04/2004<BR></A><BR>
Explicitly supersedes a settlement agreement between the Forest Service and various environmental groups regarding management of these lands. <p> The question presented is whether the extraordinary specificity of this legislation. Congress is permitted to be as specific as it deems appropriate. Settlement agreements between private litigants and the executive branch cannot divest Congress of its constitutionally vested authority to legislate. <p align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2003/012220pc.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
PA 19107 Attorney for Appellee OPINION PER CURIAM: This is an appeal from a District Court order denying a request for a preliminary injunction against the Pennsylvania Liquor Code's ban on
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-2348.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plumb & Murray were on brief. Although we disagree with the district court's determination that the Verhoevens' motion was moot. The
</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.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-1600.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Jennifer A. Also on the brief were Gregory N. On the brief were Timothy S. Also on the brief was Allan M. Is the assignee of three patents. At issue in this case is the fixed price purchasing feature of eBay's website. Which allows customers to purchase items that are listed on eBay's website for a fixed. At the time this action was brought. ReturnBuy owned and operated an Internet website that was hosted by the eBay website. Where items available for sale by ReturnBuy were displayed in an eBay listing. The district court ruled that claims 1 35 and 51 52 of the '051 patent were invalid for lack of enablement. That neither the '265 patent nor the '176 patent was invalid. EBay and Half.com moved for judgment as a matter of law (
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19976773.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Governor of Alabama and the Alabama Department of Corrections Commissioner were held in contempt for violating the injunction. DISCUSSION An injunction directed to jail conditions must be terminated if the injunction was issued in the absence of a finding by the district court that the injunction (a) is narrowly drawn. (c) is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of a federal right. We conclude the evidence is insufficient to prove that a current and ongoing violation of a federal right exists in the County's jail. This interpretation may be a correct view of what The district court made written findings under Section 3626(b)(3) that the 1982 injunction was narrowly drawn. Was the least intrusive means to correct and to prevent overcrowding (and related problems) at the Lauderdale County Jail. That overcrowding is not necessarily a violation of a federal right. The only issue truly before us is whether the district court's other written findings demonstrate a current and ongoing violation. 1 Congress intended.2 But.
</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//mar2000/98-2709.ma3.html">ADLER V. DUVAL COUNTY SCH. BD. (3/15/2000, NO. 98-2709)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> At issue today is whether the Duval County. The total absence of state involvement in deciding whether there will be a graduation message. Who will speak. Is not state sponsored. Nor how autonomous the speaker may be in crafting her message.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The facts of this case are straightforward. Other religious prayers or messages were traditionally offered. Student led prayer during the graduation ceremony so long as the administration and faculty were not involved in the decision making process. The memorandum was entitled
</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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/072088p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge This is a classic case of jumping the gun. All parties admit that the employee is violating the covenant. The question is whether it is unreasonable. Because reasonableness is a fact intensive inquiry. We hold that it should not have been determined on the pleadings. After resolving that we have jurisdiction over the interlocutory dismissal of claims related to the covenant because it effectively denied a request for a preliminary injunction. One of which is fire protection. Or (2) in any area in which Victaulic products are sold on behalf of nine named competitors (of which Tyco is one). I will not. I will not. Within any geographic region in which Victaulic products are sold (which includes all of the continental United States. Tieman and Tyco filed a declaratory judgment action against Victaulic in December 2006 in the Southern District of Ohio seeking a declaration that the covenant not to compete was invalid under Pennsylvania law. The two cases were consolidated. Two motions were pending: (1) Victaulic's request for a preliminary injunction.
</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/sept98/97-6773.man.html">PARRISH V. ALABAMA DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS (9/28/1998, NO. 97-6773)<BR></A><BR>
The Governor of Alabama and the Alabama Department of Corrections Commissioner were held in contempt for violating the injunction. The Alabama Department of Corrections appeals.</P> <P><CENTER><EM>DISCUSSION</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> An injunction directed to jail conditions must be terminated if the injunction was issued in the absence of a finding by the district court that the injunction (a) is narrowly drawn. (c) is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of a federal right. <EM>See id.</EM> § 3626(b)(2). We conclude the evidence is insufficient to prove that a current and ongoing violation of a federal right exists in the County's jail. Alabama's interpretation might be an incorrect interpretation of
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200414126.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
In connection with their use of non union labor for an ongoing construction project at Brandon Regional Medical Center (
</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/1F3157E8395570F988256C1B005A58B9/$file/0156214.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Watson wielded his police baton during the arrest and was suspected of using excessive force. He was ordered to prepare a report of the incident. Watson alleged that he was denied the opportunity to consult with a lawyer prior to writing his report. Watson was placed on administrative leave and eventually terminated. IT IS ORDERED THAT defendants are prohibited from introducing in any manner in plaintiff's administrative appeal hearing concerning his discharge from employment with the County of Riverside. The court ruled that Watson was a
</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.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2004/032007np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will dispense with a full recitation of the facts and limit our discussion only to those facts necessary to reach our decision. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) only over the denial of the preliminary injunction. Will affirm that denial. 2 I. Is subject to limited exceptions. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) provides that a party may appeal from an interlocutory order
</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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTAwNDdfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-0047_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This litigation was brought as a class action by inmates in New York City jails challenging the defendants' asserted failure to provide them with educational services to which they are entitled under New York State and federal law. The instant lawsuit arises out of a complex of allegations that the New York City Department of Education (
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19976773.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Governor of Alabama and the Alabama Department of Corrections 3 Commissioner were held in contempt for violating the injunction. DISCUSSION An injunction directed to jail conditions must be terminated if the injunction was issued in the absence of a finding by the district court that the injunction (a) is narrowly drawn. (c) is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of a federal right. See id. § The parties dispute whether a
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2001.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LLP</SPAN> were on supplemental brief for appellant.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</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/mar2000/98-2709.ma3.html">ADLER V. DUVAL COUNTY SCH. BD. (3/15/2000, NO. 98-2709)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> At issue today is whether the Duval County. The total absence of state involvement in deciding whether there will be a graduation message. Who will speak. Is not state sponsored. Nor how autonomous the speaker may be in crafting her message.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The facts of this case are straightforward. Other religious prayers or messages were traditionally offered. Student led prayer during the graduation ceremony so long as the administration and faculty were not involved in the decision making process. The memorandum was entitled
</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.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2301.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Security Union Title Insurance Company is out $245. Reliable and Security Union have jointly challenged the ruling in favor of TIG. Where it became apparent that the district court may have lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Security Union's intervening counterclaim against TIG. The record now reveals that the part of TIG that is involved in this case is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Texas. That Security Union is also a California corporation (with its principal place of business in California). Because the only basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction was diversity. Diversity is plainly lacking. As to which federal jurisdiction is secure. Nos. 02 2301 & 02 2334 I 3 Reliable is a title insurance and escrow issuing agent for Security Union. In response to this question number 24 on the application Reliable disclosed only one claim filed nine years earlier that was resolved without any loss to Reliable or its E&O carrier at the time. In a renewal application Reliable revealed that this suit was filed against it by Trans America Finance.
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/03/963277P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jurisdiction Jurisdiction in the district court was proper based upon 33 U.S.C. § 1365. Jurisdiction on appeal is proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Background ASARCO's lead refinery (hereinafter
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1198.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C.</U> were on brief for appellants. <P> <U>Amy Copperman</U>. Inc.</U> were on brief for appellees.</P> <P> <U>Michael L. It is a federally funded and supervised rent subsidy program for low income tenants. It is administered primarily through local units called public housing authorities or
</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/op/04/04-2255.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have concluded that the issue of whether a preliminary injunction ought to have been issued is moot. The event is organized and sponsored by 500 Festival. The parade is designated as a special event by city ordinance. 500 Festival applies each year for a permit to operate the festival. Vendors are No. 04 2255 3 not permitted to set up within fifty feet of the event boundaries without the permission of the permit holder (500 Festival). Some bleacher seats are available for sale. Although attendance at the parade is free to the public. It is undisputed that city police officers prevented SPF from displaying large banners. Some SPF members were arrested. II DISCUSSION This court's jurisdiction to review the grant or denial of a preliminary injunction is grounded in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Is limited by Article III of the Constitution. Is always a threshold jurisdictional question that we must address even when it is not raised by the parties. Nor did it challenge the process by which permits are issued for such events.
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2409.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Spellman</SPAN> were on brief. Glass</SPAN> was on brief. A magistrate judge found that a major dispute existed as that term is used in the jurisprudence of the RLA and further found that the defendants had engaged in prohibited conduct. One manifestation of this bias is that. While this pavane is in progress.
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2326B.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for the United States appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2326.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for the United States appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/07/952234P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Based on their
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0021p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The decision was made early on not to structure the business as a franchise because franchising would require too much on site monitoring of individual franchisees' operations. Tumblebus Inc. does not have a complete list of all persons who have purchased retrofitted buses. Informed Pate that two other persons were already operating in Lexington. Where Tumblebus Inc. was based. That she was confident in her customers' loyalty to Tumblebus Inc.1 In January 2002. Reminding Pate that she was not supposed to be operating in that area. Pate explained that she was having difficulty in obtaining customers in Elizabethtown and the surrounding areas. So the five [written agreements with geographic restrictions that were produced during discovery] were the five [she] had in writing.
</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/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="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DFE3942A721EED8A88256B8800830785/$file/0155966.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because none of the exceptions are applicable here. Such covenants are variously referred to as non compete or noncompetition agreements. Which is based in Memphis. One of Medtronic's direct competitors is San Diego based NuVasive. Medtronic advanced two causes of action: (1) a claim for declaratory judgment that NuVasive's hiring of the Employees was in violation of their contractual obligations to Medtronic under Tennessee law. Adding the Employees and alleging several new causes of action.2 On the same day that the Tennessee suit was filed. The Employees sought: (1) a declaration that the non compete clauses in their contracts are unlawful under California Business and Professions Code § 16600.
</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/DE8297F56287C0BC882572DC007DACC6/$file/0655405.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).1 Google argues that we lack jurisdiction over the preliminary injunction to the extent it enforces unregistered copyrights. Registration is generally a jurisdictional prerequisite to a suit for copyright infringement. As we will further explain below. Are connected to networks known collectively as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1272.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
We will affirm the decision of the District Court. The District Court referred the motion to dismiss to Magistrate Judge Ila The named Board members are Kevin McKeegin. It could halt the proper functioning of state government in a manner that was antithetical to principles of comity. The federal courts still have jurisdiction because Appellants lack a plain. And/or 3) the Tax Injunction Act is unconstitutional. A. Appellants' first argument is that the Tax Injunction Act does not apply because they have not asked the District Court to
|
|
TOUCHSTON V. MCDERMOTT (12/6/2000, NO. 00-15985)
Circuit Judges.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
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
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Jones is employed by the Salvation Army Harbor Light (
|
|
98-2199 -- AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION V. JOHNSON -- 11/02/1999
Which criminalizes the dissemination by computer of material that is harmful to minors. Had demonstrated that they were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that section . Which provides as follows: 30 37 3.2 Dissemination of material that is harmful to a minor by computer A. Dissemination of material that is harmful to a minor by computer consists of the use of a computer communications system that allows the input. Whoever commits dissemination of material that is harmful to a minor by computer is guilty of a misdemeanor. The statute provides the following defenses: In a prosecution for dissemination of material that is harmful to a minor by computer. It is a defense that the defendant has: - in good faith taken reasonable. Including any method that is feasible with available technology.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Ult Plus was created by Allerion. Is a derivative of the Pick Operating System (
|
|
96-2121 -- BUCHWALD V. UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO SCHOOL OF MEDICINE -- 10/20/1998
It will favor long term residents over short term residents in its admissions process. Were not entitled to qualified immunity. The questions before us on appeal are: (1) does Ms. Buchwald have standing to seek the injunction entered by the district court in its second order. (2) did the district court err in finding that no defendants are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. (3) did the district court err in finding that Klepper and Atencio are not entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacities? We reverse in part and affirm in part.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The court determined that Nissan Motor's dilution suit was not barred by laches. That Nissan Computer's first commercial use of
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
A representative of a class of persons who have sought to have their ballots counted in an action in the Circuit Court of Coosa County. The affidavit envelopes are held unopened until noon on election day. Review the affidavit to certify that such voter is entitled to vote and deposit the plain envelope containing the absentee ballot into a sealed ballot box.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Enough is Enough. In which the Court held that our decision affirming the District Court's grant of a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Line 1 the name
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The facts regarding the underlying fraud are set forth in the memorandum and order of the district court. Are not relevant to this appeal. There was no evidence that any physical commodities were ever stored on the customers' behalf. Approximately $2.41 million traceable to the fraudulent activity was deposited into accounts partially or wholly controlled by the Relief Defendants. About half of this money $1.22 million was deposited into accounts in the name of Kimberlynn Creek Ranch and 4 COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING v. 912 was paid directly to Samuel Kingsfield. 000 was deposited into Pamela Kingsfield's account. Although the cards were ostensibly for business purposes. They were in fact used for tens of thousands of dollars worth of personal expenses. That they were simply holding the money on behalf of the Claim Defendants and had no right to make use of the funds. Does not provide subject matter jurisdiction over claims against individuals who have not violated the CEA and that. Also assets in which the Relief Defendants have an ownership interest.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
1994 is corrected as follows: On page 2. Meyer & Solomon were on brief. Clarifying the source and extent of bankruptcy courts' powers to manage the estates of debtors whose fates are intertwined with the affairs of failed financial institutions. Background Background The facts essential to an understanding of this appeal are not disputed. The debt (much of which remains unpaid) is evidenced by three promissory notes. The notes are cross collateralized and secured by mortgages encumbering all three pieces of property. First Service was declared insolvent. The FDIC was appointed as liquidating agent (and thereby became the owner and holder of the notes). The appeal (which we shall term
|
|
WARREN PUBL'G CO. V. MICRODOS DATA CORP.
Circuit Judge:
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: This dispute between the Association of Flight Attendants (
|
|
HAROLDS STORES, INC. V. DILLARD DEPT. STORES, INC.
That it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law after trial. Dillard is a retail department store. Harold's is a retail clothing store with 22 stores in 7 states. Harold's represents to its customers that the original print fabric garments are available solely from Harold's. Harold's offers unique custom printed fabric designs in skirts and other sportswear that are not available from Harold's competitors. Oklahoma were offering for sale skirts with print fabric patterns identical to print skirts that Harold's had sold during the previous 1991 to 1992 sales season. The Dillard skirts were priced at $28.00 to $30.00. 223435. from Wadesboro were made from fabric similar or identical to fabric used by CMT to manufacture skirts for Harold's. That Dillard could sell the garments in markets where Harold's did not have stores. Ruling that the Copyright Act did not preempt Harold's claim under the Oklahoma Antitrust Act because the state law claim was qualitatively different from. 1994 order was fully 160 days out of time.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Dean of Students William Munson denied the permit after determining the event was
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Herff Jones requested that the injunction have
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. The suit was dismissed and Appellants were sanctioned by the court for filing a frivolous lawsuit and for their egregious conduct in the district court. order. Appellants appeal the district court's sanction Mortenson is the Permanent Receiver of AFI and was appointed by the 250th District Court of Travis County. Texas in 1998 after AFI was forced into involuntary bankruptcy due to Russell Erxleben's. Erxleben pled guilty to securities fraud and is serving seven years in a federal correctional facility in Beaumont. Shaunessy and Mortenson's Shaunessy's efforts in the receivership returned approximately 63 cents of each dollar invested to the persons who were defrauded by Erxleben's AFI scheme. Sheldon Baum met Erxleben while they were both serving 2 sentences for fraud in the federal penitentiary in Beaumont. Which is the subject of this appeal. That no accounting was due until the close of the receivership.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Other political parties moved and were granted leave to intervene. Other political In an order Green parties moved and were granted leave to intervene. dated September 18. Defendants Commissioners of the State Board of Elections are required to remove that political party's name from the voter registration form and convert voters in such party to non enrolled voters. That removal is challenged in this litigation as violating voters' constitutional right of association. The right of association guarantees individuals the right to join with likeminded individuals to accomplish a shared political objective that is protected by the First Amendment. B. New York State's Voter Enrollment Scheme New York law states that a political organization which supports candidates for public office shall be designated as either a
|
|
METZLER V. IBP, INC.
The history of this litigation is well documented in our earlier opinion. While the first phase of the litigation established that the activities in question were compensable. Determining whether it was de minimis. Were compensable work under the Portal to Portal Act of 1947. The trial court also found that the employees were entitled to compensation based on the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Which are endangered or threatened species. The project was a hurried response to the devastation wrought by Hurricane Marilyn. The gravamen of the complaint is that the project would cause harm to the turtles and the Tree Boa species in violation of the ESA. This is the plaintiffs' second lawsuit. Instrumentalities of the Virgin Islands Territorial Government had violated the ESA as well 4 as the National Environmental Policy Act (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: The plaintiffs in this class action are independent truck drivers. Defendants are federally regulated motor carriers that contract with owneroperators to transport cargo across the country. They contend that the district court should have granted the motion for injunctive relief upon a showing of
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Jessica Litman were on brief. LLC were on brief. They claim to have copied the proscribed code from the named defendants' web pages and assert that the injunction impermissibly interferes with their right to continue posting it on their
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. When those johns are arrested. We hope that the only visit people make to our jail is a virtual visit.
|
|
U.S. VALVES V. DRAY, ROBERT F.
Of counsel on the brief was Mark D. The application for the latter patent was also continued in part and resulted in Dray s U.S. Dray was the majority shareholder and Bobby Dray was in charge of operations. The agreement itself was not memorialized in writing. Dray was completely dissociated from U.S. Dray asserts that the sliding ring valve is ". Claims that the sliding ring valve is sufficiently similar to the Dray valve to be covered by the license agreement. See U.S. He was unsatisfied by the information he was able to obtain. Any claim he may have in connection with non conforming royalties for sales to Van Dorn Demag. Valves that he considered the company to have violated the license agreement. The suit was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on Dray s motion. Dray also appealed the district court s determination that he was liable for violating the license agreement. Asserting that it was insufficient to compensate for future harm. Jurisdiction is the first issue before this court. See.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Because we hold that the state statutes are preempted. Facts & Background Forest Park owns an apartment building that was financed with a federally subsidized mortgage and has operated it for 25 years providing low income housing. Forest Park then commenced this declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that the two Minnesota statutes are preempted by federal law. Hundreds of thousands of housing units were built under these programs in the 1960s and early 1970s. Was enacted for the purpose of preserving the nation's supply of low income housing. LIHPRHA contains an express preemption provision that prohibits state laws that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: We are asked to imply a private right of action for a debtor discharged from bankruptcy to enforce an alleged violation of 214 11 U.S.C. § 524. The district court concluded that the remedy Congress intended for violations of the discharge injunction is contempt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 105(a). Hold that a private cause of action is not available under § 524. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Before and after her debt was discharged on January 2. To debtors who are current on their loan payments on secured property and who continue to make payments. That her debts were discharged giving rise to the discharge injunction pursuant to § 524(a)(2) and (c). Was prohibited by § 524 and was an unfair and unconscionable means of collecting a debt under the FDCPA. Are before us on appeal. For violation of the FDCPA.1 1 A brief filed by amicus curiae American Financial Services Association supports the position taken by Wells Fargo. 216 II Although both parties agree that we have jurisdiction and a motions panel of this court ruled that we do pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
|
|
ATLANTA JOURNAL AND CONSTITUTION V. CITY OF ATLANTA DEP'T OF AVIATION (2/28/2003, NO. 00-14413)
Is permitted to assess profit conscious fees on expressive activities for use of distribution facilities in a non public forum. The district court found that the assessment of any fee in excess of administrative costs was contrary to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and precedent in this circuit under
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Were on the briefs. Tsien were on the briefs for appellant Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc. Peterson were on the brief. That was issued at the behest of the manufac turer of the competing brand name drug.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
While that appeal was pending. Who have since been entitled to hold or sell as they please. The bankruptcy judge's injunction lapsed it was not formally vacated. The Trustee concedes that the underlying dispute was resolved in July 2003 by the shares' distribution to individual investors. The dispute is live because the investors deserve compensation for the loss they suffered between the time of the bankruptcy court's order (when United's stock traded for $1.06 per share) and the dissolution of the ESOP (when the market price had fallen to 76¢ per share). Although the price has since risen (it was $2.02 the day before this appeal was argued). That gain is inde No. 04 4128 3 pendent of the litigation: anyone who thought United a good investment could have purchased its stock in the open market. The injury was suffered by those who thought it a bad investment and sold as quickly as they could in June 2003. They lost 30¢ per share (plus the return on investments available between December 2002 and July 2003) compared with the financial position they would have enjoyed had the bankruptcy judge allowed them to sell earlier.
|
|
MICHAEL H. HOLLAND V. NATIONAL MINING ASSN
Argued the cause for federal appellant.
|
|
96-3258 -- METZLER V. IBP INC. -- 10/15/1997
The history of this litigation is well documented in our earlier opinion. 38 F.3d 1123 (10th Cir. 1994) (
|
|
WARREN PUBL'G CO. V. MICRODOS DATA CORP.
Circuit Judge:
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We must determine to what extent a District Court is bound by a ruling by this Court on a prior appeal that had reversed the District Court's grant of a preliminary injunction. We determined that Southco had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits because Southco's product numbers were mechanically dictated by its numbering system. The District Court held that it was bound by the prior panel's decision. We will reverse the judgment 3 of the District Court and remand this case to it for consideration of the Bisbing declaration. The product numbers are used not only in the ordering process but also in the manufacturing process to insure the precisely correct identification of each product and its components. Captive screws are used to fasten panels together. The screw is mounted in one panel by means of the ferrule and the other panel contains an internally threaded insert that receives the screw. 149 and fn 1 (3d Cir. 2001) (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Kesten LLP were on brief for appellants.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Schwartz LLP was on brief. Were on brief. Fafel argues that the injunction is void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the district court misunderstood the scope of its ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the underlying Rule 68 judgment. Judgment in Fafel's favor was not entered until approximately six months later. While DiPaola's appeal from the state court judgment was pending in the Massachusetts Appeals Court.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The primary election is (as of the time of this opinion) scheduled to occur on June 5. We have. Will hereinafter. Named as Defendants are: (1) the Apportionment Commission. We will hereinafter refer to these parties collectively as
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The first mark was registered in 1986. Some are now incontestable under 15 U.S.C. § 1065. The BLOCKBUSTER marks are heavily advertised and promoted and are used on a wide variety of consumer products and services. Ingram owns a BLOCKBUSTER mark that was federally registered for fireworks sales in 1992. A BLOCKBUSTER FIREWORKS mark for which a federal registration application is pending. The district court denied Viacom summary judgment on its claims of trademark infringement because the evidence of likelihood of confusion was not conclusive. For reasons that will become apparent. It is essential to address first the FTDA's impact on a lawsuit commenced before enactment that seeks relief against on going conduct. If such use begins after the mark has become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark . . . .
|
|
02-2315 -- DERRINGER V. CHAPEL -- 04/12/2004
Have their genesis in a dispute between appellants and their downstream neighbors. Over water rights.
|
|
ATLANTA JOURNAL AND CONSTITUTION V. CITY OF ATLANTA DEP'T OF AVIATION (2/28/2003, NO. 00-14413)
Is permitted to assess profit conscious fees on expressive activities for use of distribution facilities in a non public forum. The district court found that the assessment of any fee in excess of administrative costs was contrary to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and precedent in this circuit under
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
As follows: On pages 1 and 2 the spelling of
|
|
LEVI STRAUSS V. SUNRISE INTL. TRADING
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Levi Strauss v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This is an appeal from the district court's entry of a preliminary injunction and asset freeze in a suit brought under the Lanham Act. Manufactures blue jeans which are sold in the United States and abroad.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2541.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gierbolini</SPAN> was on brief. Borges</SPAN> were on brief. With whom <SPAN STYLE=
</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/99/09/983166P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are preempted by section 36 of the National Bank Act (NBA). I. Bank One is a national bank organized under the NBA. Its main office is located in Salt Lake City. Seeking a declaration that provisions of the Iowa EFTA restricting out of state banks from operating ATMs within Iowa are preempted by the NBA and praying for the issuance of a preliminary and permanent injunction. Finding that the challenged provisions of Iowa law were not preempted and concluding that Bank One was unlikely to succeed on any of its constitutional claims. 649 (8th Cir. 1997) (reviewing a district court grant of a preliminary injunction and granting a permanent injunction because all issues were questions of law). We must determine whether a permanent injunction is appropriate. 3 In determining whether a preliminary injunction should be issued. The balance between this harm and the harm to the other party if the injunction is granted. The standard for granting a permanent injunction is essentially the same as for a preliminary injunction.
</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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/03/96-4201.htm">96-4201 -- U.S. V. THEMY-KOTRONAKIS -- 03/31/1998<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2001/01-12200.opn.html">SUNTRUST BANK V. HOUGHTON MIFFLIN CO. (10/10/2001, NO. 01-12200)<BR></A><BR>
BACKGROUND</STRONG></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2483.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ledbetter were on brief. Ltd. were on brief. Physical skills are a passport to college admissions and scholarships. Are invaluable in attaining career and life successes in and out of professional sports. The highway of opportunity runs in both directions. 1The individual defendants are. Each is sued in his official capacity. We discuss this appeal as if Brown was the sole defendant and appellant. Offering students the opportunity to partake of sports that are not financially self sustaining. Brown will never be confused with Notre Dame or the more muscular members of the Big Ten. Women are a relatively inconspicuous part of the storied athletic past. Respectively. 3 The absence of women's athletics at Brown was. Brown promptly upgraded Pembroke's rather primitive athletic offerings so that by 1977 there were fourteen women's varsity teams. Was in a financial bind. Many schools with varsity squads are reluctant to compete against club teams. 441 U.S. at 687 n.8 (holding that exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to a Title IX suit).
</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/05/05/042354P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court found that Coldwell Banker was not likely to succeed on these claims. They are not a subject of this appeal.). We hold that the district court correctly decided that Coldwell Banker is likely to prevail on the merits of the breach of contract claim. Erred as a matter of law when it concluded that Coldwell Banker is likely to prevail on the merits of the breach of implied covenant claim. Abused its discretion in ruling that Coldwell Banker will suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction. I. Iowa Realty is a real estate brokerage firm in Des Moines. MLXchange is a database management system used to store. Coldwell Banker decided that the MLXchange system was better than the system it was using. Passport Plus is an office exclusive program. Meaning that if a seller were to agree to sell his or her house pursuant to it. When two 2 brokerages are involved in the sale of a house in the Des Moines area. The primary breachof contract claim is that the program would violate the provisions of the contract that entitle Coldwell Banker to access data that Iowa Realty stores on the MLXsystem.
</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/04/12/046045P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Shall be deemed not to have assumed. The cases are being jointly administered. The court went on to hold that United is not entitled to an order directing the state courts as to how its tax liability should be determined. STANDARD OF REVIEW The question of subject matter jurisdiction is subject to de novo review.4 When subject matter jurisdiction is at issue. We are required to reach the jurisdictional question before turning to the merits.5 3 Appellant's Appendix. Upon the concentrate so produced.
</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/17939C96900620FB88256E5A00707BB6/$file/9936222.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is a
</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/04/01/022931P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Even though federal courts have long disfavored
</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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/11/97-4140.htm">97-4140 -- RELIANCE INSURANCE CO. V. MAST CONSTRUCTION CO. -- 11/05/1998<BR></A><BR>
</strong> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align=
</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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5035a.html">U.S. V. PATRICK MAHONEY<BR></A><BR>
00 5148 <span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1999/981424.TXT">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. was ordered to pay $60. The key issues raised in this case are whether General Instrument Corporation had standing to bring a suit under the Cable Act (Nu Tek's appeal) and whether statutory civil damages under the Act are limited to $60. The scope of the injunction and the calculation of the amount of attorney's fees are also at issue. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court on all issues. 2 I. The converted boxes were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/10/03-4252.htm">03-4252 -- ZOLLER LABORATORIES V. NBTY INC, -- 10/12/2004<BR></A><BR>
This case is therefore submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff Zoller Laboratories. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1629.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
L.L.P. were on brief for defendants Douglas L. There is considerable overlap between this decision and our companion decision today in No. 98 1764. The reader's familiarity with that decision is assumed. Additional background is required to understand the events and legal issues peculiar to Connecticut Valley. I. BACKGROUND Connecticut Valley is an electric utility that provides retail service to end user customers in certain New Hampshire communities. Its rates are set forth in a retail tariff subject to the authority of the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission (
</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.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-4001.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
BACKGROUND No. 02 4001 Foodcomm is an importer of chilled Australian beef. Patrick Barry and Christopher Leacy were senior sales representatives at Foodcomm and oversaw its dealings with Empire Beef. Leacy and Barry were not executives with Foodcomm. Were two of Foodcomm's four highest paid employees. Leacy con No. 02 4001 3 tinued to maintain to Foodcomm that he was
</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.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-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/07-1059.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Peter J. With him on the brief was Francis C. Of counsel on the brief were Jeffrey S. That the claims of the '712 patent are invalid and/or not infringed by the manufacture. Or sale of the products for which approval was sought. Cipla is the intended supplier of EO for Ivax and contributed information for the filing of the ANDA. Stereoisomers are compounds that contain the 1 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A) provides: It shall be an act of infringement to submit an application under section 505(j) of the Federal Food. Cosmetic Act or described in section 505(b)(2) of such Act for a drug claimed in a patent or the use of which is claimed in a patent if the purpose of such submission is to obtain approval under such Act to engage in the commercial manufacture. Or sale of a drug or veterinary biological product claimed in a patent or the use of which is claimed in a patent before the expiration of such patent. 2007 1059 2 same constituent atoms and the same bonding between those atoms but have different spatial arrangements.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200306/02-5169a.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://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200211/01-5069a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Roscoe C. With him on the briefs was Margaret S. With him on the briefs were John Townsend Rich. Including with respect to coal operators who were not parties in the Eleventh Circuit litigation. Appellant Commissioner contends that the agency's nation wide implementation of the revised interpretation of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200105/00-5035a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Frederick Herbert Nel son. Sr. was on the brief for appel lant Patrick J. With him on the brief were Bill Lann Lee. Other demonstra tions were also planned. Among those who took part in that protest were the seven individuals who bring this appeal. Code Ann. s 22 1107.1 Mahoney who until this time had been outside the cordoned area approached a police officer and asked whether anyone was allowed inside the tape line. Each was charged with incommoding. Was released after pleading guilty and paying a $50 fine. Clinic volunteers were able to escort patients into the facility. Because every contention is treated equally. We will not be drawn into providing a written response to every one of the defendants' contentions. They have displayed no judg ment about what is a good argument and what is a bad one. We hope this opinion will provide some guidance: those defense arguments not specifically addressed have been considered and found so untenable that they do not warrant comment. A. We have sustained the Access Act against a facial constitu tional challenge.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B512CC32FBF4784C88256A76007AAD3C/$file/9936222.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981604.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
OPINION PER CURIAM:1 The question before this Court is whether an oversubscribed public school may use a weighted lottery in admissions to promote racial and ethnic diversity in its student body. The current appeal is the latest chapter in the history of this Court's involvement in the Arlington County. Virginia public school system. 1 The opinion in this case was prepared by Judge Ervin. Who died before it was filed. The opinion is accordingly filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). 3 Our earlier involvement concerned the desegregation of the Arlington County school system.2 This preceding chapter was brought to a close in Hart v. Whose goal was not to remedy past discrimination. Since the Supreme Court has not resolved the question of whether diversity is a compelling governmental interest. We assume without deciding that diversity may be a compelling interest and find that the Policy was not sufficiently narrowly tailored to pass constitutional muster. Although we affirm the district court's holding that the Policy was unconstitutional.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981127.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Appellee NationsBank is a federal contractor and thus subject to Executive Order 11246. Alleging that the OFCCP's selection of the Tampa and Columbia offices for review (and thus for the searches incident to such a review) was unreasonable. Holding that we have jurisdiction to review both rulings on interlocutory appeal. To argue that a court of appeals should only exercise jurisdiction under section 1292(a)(1) when the injunction is
</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/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-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/06/97-1236.htm">97-1236 -- U.S. V. TELLURIDE CO. -- 06/25/1998<BR></A><BR>
The issues on appeal are whether the five year statute of limitations provided in 28 U.S.C.
</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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1471.html">BIO-TECHNOLOGY V. GENENTECH<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://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1115.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. The search did yield some records showing I and G may have purchased some cigarettes from an unknown source. Jurisdiction I and G contends that this court does not have jurisdiction because the district court never actually denied Lorillard a preliminary injunction. It generally does not have jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal of the dissolution of a TRO. Whether the district court's comments are construed as an express denial of Lorillard's motion for preliminary injunctive relief or as having the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3131.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Whether the other three defendants named in the complaint were served is not clear from the record before us. The other defendants named in the complaint are not parties to this proceeding. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Summarized the provisions of the Act with which we are here concerned. As follows: The Act provides in pertinent part that it is unlawful for a commodity trading advisor. A commodity trading advisor is defined as any person who. Web and Asaro argued that they were incapable of <hr> violating the Act because they did not meet the definition of a commodity trading advisor as set forth in the Act. On this basis the district court determined that the Commission was entitled to a preliminary injunction against Web. The district court concluded that he was not a part of the
</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.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-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-3322.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Tribal registrations and titles are required for all vehicles owned by Tribe members who reside on the reservation and for all tribal government vehicles. The tribal certificates of title are of banknote quality and resemble titles of other jurisdictions. Ann. 8 142.(2) Nonresidents (1) Section 17 10 1 of the PBMVC notes that
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0134p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Detroit and the State then sought and were granted an injunction in district court requiring the Corps to accept the Conner Creek dredged material at the Pointe Mouillee CDF. We held that: (1) there was no sovereign immunity barrier to the injunction as the waiver of sovereign immunity contained in § 702 of the Administrative Procedure Act (
</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//oct2001/01-12200.opn.html">SUNTRUST BANK V. HOUGHTON MIFFLIN CO. (10/10/2001, NO. 01-12200)<BR></A><BR>
BACKGROUND</STRONG></SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/09/00-1226.htm">00-1226 -- NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE CO. OF PITTSBURGH V. KOZENY -- 09/28/2001<BR></A><BR>
A first amended complaint was filed on May 4. A second amended complaint was filed on September 25. Plaintiffs appellees are National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh. The named defendants are Viktor Kozeny. Also named as defendants in the complaint were Landlocked Shipping Company (
</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//may95/93-4844.opa.html">LEVI STRAUSS V. SUNRISE INTL. TRADING<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Levi Strauss v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This is an appeal from the district court's entry of a preliminary injunction and asset freeze in a suit brought under the Lanham Act. Manufactures blue jeans which are sold in the United States and abroad.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033453np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
As the parties are all too familiar with the factual background. We include only such factual and procedural events as are necessary to our decision. Which is a particularly carcinogenic type of asbestos. The actions of these three groups of plaintiffs (
</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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkyODFfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9281_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because we agree with the district court that there is no evidence that defendants have intimidated plaintiff or other witnesses from participating in litigation. Though this opinion provides substantially more detail with respect to the reasoning underlying our original disposition of the case particularly with regard to our jurisdiction to hear the appeal we note that our holding on the merits is identical to that of the original order. 2 1 supervisor at Con Ed. The report referred to the discrimination claims as
</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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTY2MTAtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-6610-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A Bill of Lading for the shipment issued on that date indicated that the shipper was Chemlube International. Inc. (
</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/98/01/971566P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He was successful at using the float on the checks to appear to have a balanced account through the assistance of a Credit Union insider who processed Johnson's checks through the check clearinghouse system rather than as same day funds.1 As By sending the checks through the clearinghouse system. Johnson's accounts were given credit for the deposit of the checks on the day he deposited them. Johnson avoided detection that his account was overdrawn by appearing to have a positive balance at the end of each month. Although it was not filed in the office of the Minnesota Secretary of State. The retainer agreement provides: 5 We have discussed the retainer necessary for us to undertake your representation. We have requested and you have agreed to pay us a non refundable retainer of $72. Roach told Fabel he was interested in negotiating with Johnson to recover the assets because. At that meeting it was confirmed that the NCUAB was not aware of any written loan agreement or other formal security agreement covering the majority of Johnson's assets.
</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/97/12/971018P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Arguing that the district judge1 erred in denying their motion to increase the amount of the bond 3M was required to deposit with the District Court. United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 2 1 3M is a Delaware corporation based in St. Which is done primarily at a facility in Brownwood. The reflective material is manufactured in large rolls and then is subjected to an extensive quality control process. Surplus or inadequate reflective material is either sold or discarded in a landfill. James Rauh is an officer and 40% shareholder in Rauh Rubber. Rauh Rubber and GAIA began to sell them to 3M's customers at lower prices than 3M was offering for its own reflective material. When 3M learned that Rauh Rubber and GAIA were selling these materials. Were not successful. 3M filed a complaint with the District Court on March 3. The District Court held that 3M is unlikely to prevail in a trial on the merits on its claim that an express or an implied contract existed between 3M and the Rauh defendants obligating the Rauh defendants not to resell the reflective material bought from 3M.
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200016220.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That is closed to automobile traffic. Shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section. Is not limited to acting. Canvas or other similar medium when such art is applied to the medium through the use of brush. Horton's Complaint claimed that Section 22 9 was: (1)
</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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1275.html">TATE ACCESS FLOORS, INC V. INTERFACE ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiffs appellees.<span style=
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/04/041088P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This appeal is primarily governed by the standard of review. Because the artists were employed by Creative Card when the artists created the card designs. Creative Card is considered the author and the original copyright owner of the six designs.2 At the time Creative Card authored the six card designs. Creative Card was a wholly owned subsidiary of AP&P Manufacturing. An employer is the author when an item is considered a work made for hire. Brunettin created six card designs Taylor contends are similar to six card designs the artists and Granger previously created for Creative Card. Which concluded
</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/992318.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The cartoon was syndicated and the Skippy character was marketed in cartoon books. This mark was transferred to appellant Skippy. Appellant Joan Crosby Tibbetts is Percy Crosby's daughter and the current president of Skippy. CPC International and its predecessors have sold peanut butter in the United States under the trademark SKIPPY since 1933. 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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1196.html">HELIFIX LIMITED V. BLOK-LOK, LTD<BR></A><BR>
The district court held that the 801 patent was invalid by reason of anticipation and the on sale bar under 35 U.S.C. § . That application was a divisional of Application Serial No. 08/491. Which was a continuation in part of Application Serial No. 08/204. The patent is directed to a method of securing layers of masonry (". The typical tie is described as spiral shaped. Impactingly drives the tie and <I>(9) </I>rotatably permits the same to rotate as a helical bed is developed in the first wythe due to penetration by the tie. </P> <P ALIGN=
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2001/98-6102.man.html">REYNOLDS V. ROBERTS (5/23/2001, NO. 98-6102)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/08/001415P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Webber moved to dissolve the injunction on the grounds that the federal jurisdiction granted by 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1) is limited by 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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2001/97-4578.man.html">UNITED STATES V. GILBERT (3/16/2001, NO. 97-4578)<BR></A><BR>
The subsequent proceeding would be needless because the order of forfeiture upon which the Government relies is invalid. We affirm the district court's denial of the Government's motion to force the Gilberts to file third party petitions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1963(</SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr96/94-8402.opa.html">HUGHEY V. JMS DEVEL. CORP.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hughey v. INTRODUCTION<p> <p> Appellant JMS Development Corporation (
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200015856.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
From the district court's declaration that they have a duty to defend their insured. We reverse and remand for consideration of whether Frit is entitled to attorneys' fees based on the offshore insurers' failure to admit they had a duty to defend. Frit Industries is an Alabama corporation that manufactures micronutrients for fertilizers. Three product liability actions were filed against Frit in North Carolina state court. Those lawsuits were removed to federal court. Frit was ultimately granted summary judgment in all cases. Frit was insured by Agrichem. Agrichem and Insurco are Cayman Islands companies. Inter Industry is an Isle of Man company. 4 2 1 On March 5. First State and Wausau (who were defending Frit in the product liability lawsuits along with Mutual Service) filed cross claims against the offshore insurers. We will refer only to those relevant to this appeal. Mutual Service sought pro The complaint was originally filed under the name.
</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.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1310.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Because Medpointe has not shown Hi Tech's invalidity defense based on obviousness is without substantial merit. (3) phenylephrine tannate.1 Hi Tech is a generic drug company that manufactures the same claimed composition. Asserts in its defense that the patent is invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. It would have been obvious to substitute tannate for the counterions in Candettes. Hi Tech contends that it would have been obvious to modify the prior art. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). Medpointe is entitled to a preliminary injunction only if it can carry its burden of showing: (1) a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits. (2) irreparable harm if an injunction is not granted. A preliminary injunction cannot be granted if the movant is unable to show a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits. Hi Tech may defeat the motion for a preliminary injunction by showing that the patent is
</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.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200607/05-5269a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Peter D. With him on the brief were Dennis M. The district court concluded that the federal government and its officers have been derelict in their duties.
</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.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-2150_015.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Caused it to transfer shares to McNamee and other persons by sales that purportedly were exempt from registration under §4(2) of the 1933 Act. Because they were not part of a public distribution. Demonstrating that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-4252.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case is therefore submitted without oral argument. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1). This statement is printed in a starburst design on all bottles of ZN 3. Plainly obvious meaning: that the two products are identical. That ZN 3 is a cheaper equivalent to Zantrex 3. Zoller contends the two products are not the (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. 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://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1996/96a1430p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will hold that the Freeze Order properly enjoined Jayne Kiesewetter from transferring or otherwise disposing of the assets she owned with William B. We will reverse the district court's waiver of the Rule 65 bond requirement because it did not make any findings as to the Beneficiaries' financial ability (or inability) to post the bond. We will reject the Kiesewetters' arguments that the asset freeze order was too broad and that it violated their due process rights. A. The Parties and the Underlying Litigation The parties to this appeal and the underlying litigation are all members of the same family. The first action was a demand for an accounting of their family's assets and is premised on various claims against Mr. Jr. are the daughters and son of Dr. and Mrs. Charles and Jonathan Elliott are the sons of Appellee Constance Elliott and the only grandchildren of Dr. and Mrs. Properties and accounts were handled and managed. Was Dr. and Mrs. Kiesewetter was liable to them for the value of their collective interests in those assets.
</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/03a0446p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That Ohio's first attempt to restrict partial birth abortions violated the Fourteenth Amendment because it imposed an
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2001/00-16220.opn.html">HORTON V. CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE (11/15/2001, NO. 00-16220)<BR></A><BR>
That is closed to automobile traffic. Shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section. Is not limited to acting. Canvas or other similar medium when such art is applied to the medium through the use of brush. Horton's Complaint claimed that Section 22 9 was:</P> <P> (1)
</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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1349.html">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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1933.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Kaitz</SPAN> were on brief. Coleman</SPAN> were on brief. <SPAN STYLE=
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200512598.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. The undisputed facts of this case are these. (
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19938474.MA3.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from the district court's entry of a preliminary injunction1 enjoining a putative infringer from infringing the compilation copyright of a publisher of a cable television factbook. Finding that the copyright holder's system of selecting the names of communities under which to list the data in its factbook was sufficiently creative and original to warrant copyright protection. All have yet to be addressed by the district court. No final judgment was entered under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because the court has not yet disposed of all the claims in the case and did not make its injunction a final judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). The order before us is an interlocutory order for an injunction that is subject to review under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). 1 ** * Advertising & Publishing Corp. v. The focus of this case is 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.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4143.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> TYMKOVICH. Which was not
</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/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="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200416419.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is the second time this Court has considered the plaintiffs' challenge to this same statute. (2)
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19938474.OP.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from the district court's entry of a preliminary injunction1 enjoining a putative infringer from infringing the compilation copyright of a publisher of a cable television factbook. System finding of that the the copyright selecting names of communities under which to list the data in its factbook was sufficiently creative and original to warrant copyright protection. All have yet to be addressed by the district court. No final judgment was entered under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because the court has not yet disposed of all the claims in the case and did not make its injunction a final judgment pursuant to Fed. The order before us is an interlocutory order for an injunction that is subject to review under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). 2 Publishing Corp. v. Did not have the benefit of our en banc opinion in BellSouth. Ed. 2d 232 (1994). 3 this case is the
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/04/981285P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
PICA is a nonprofit corporation providing Head Start education and day care services to Hennepin County (Minneapolis). Was a leader in the Union's organizing campaign. The record is silent as to whether the Union resumed its organizing campaign in the 1997 98 school year or thereafter. § 10(j) is a limited exception to the federal policy against labor injunctions. It is reserved for
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2001/97-4578.man.html">UNITED STATES V. GILBERT (3/16/2001, NO. 97-4578)<BR></A><BR>
The subsequent proceeding would be needless because the order of forfeiture upon which the Government relies is invalid. We affirm the district court's denial of the Government's motion to force the Gilberts to file third party petitions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1963(</SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</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/46C5A41BE06F195888256C21005A0D4D/$file/0116685.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Appellants in this action are individuals who were denied entrance to a Carson City. Appellants' underlying suit claims that a court policy banning individuals who are wearing such clothing from two floors of the government building violates the First Amendment. Because Appellants have demonstrated both probable success on the merits and irreparable harm. I. Background The relevant facts are not in dispute. On the first floor of the Complex are the marriage license office. Visitors do not have to pass through security to gain access to this floor. On the second floor are two courtrooms for the Justice Court of Carson City Township. On the third floor are two courtrooms for the First Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada. Both men are members of The Branded Few motorcycle club. Both were wearing leather motorcycle clothing with patches identifying them as members of the club. They were arrested and charged with criminal trespassing. They were ordered to return to the court on March 26.
</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.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199903/98-5265a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Wilma A. Horan were on the briefs for appellee/cross appellant. Was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Held that the SBA's actions were arbi trary and capricious. Who had intervened in the litigation and was deemed the party at fault. Were left in place. Was arbitrary and capricious. We agree with the district court that the SBA's action was not arbitrary and capricious and that dissolution of the preliminary injunction properly followed. Decline to opine as to the effect this finding may have in some speculative action on the contract brought in the Court of Federal Claims. 1997 self certification as small was erroneous. A determination that AMTEC was a large business entity. DSE maintained that the SBA's First Size Determination was arbitrary and capricious for failing to count the personnel of various alleged affiliates in assessing the total number of AMTEC employees. When the Area Office became apprised that AMTEC may have had additional and undisclosed affiliates.
</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/56AC05798C8B473588256C39007AD378/$file/0135155.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm the district court's decision in all respects. Tchou is an electrical engineer. Tchou is also the sole founder. Tchou registered the domain name www.epix.com with Network Solutions.2 Tchou testified that he registered the domain name epix.com because the catchy name connoted electronic (
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1332.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C.</SPAN> were on brief. The second of which is wholly derivative of the first.<A HREF=
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2001/00-16220.opn.html">HORTON V. CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE (11/15/2001, NO. 00-16220)<BR></A><BR>
That is closed to automobile traffic. Shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section. Is not limited to acting. Canvas or other similar medium when such art is applied to the medium through the use of brush. Horton's Complaint claimed that Section 22 9 was:</P> <P> (1)
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200412758.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sitting by designation. * At issue in this case is the constitutionality of the City of Neptune Beach's sign code. I. Solantic is a business operating emergency medical care facilities in various locations. A videotape showing the sign was viewed by the district court and is part of the record. Solantic states that the EVMC sign
</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/F822E1DE5540855A8825708B0081F154/$file/0389037o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Dissent by Judge Winmill ORDER A misconduct complaint was filed against a district judge of this circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 372(c) (now 28 U.S.C. § 351(a)) in February 2003. The claim asserted in the complaint is that the judge
</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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1209.html">SOFAMOR V. DEPUY-MOTECH (REVISED)<BR></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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2001/98-6102.man.html">REYNOLDS V. ROBERTS (5/23/2001, NO. 98-6102)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</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.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="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2004/032343np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At the time these cross motions were filed. It noted that
</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/232C1110A538E12588256C4500807D46/$file/0116092.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Center for Biological Diversity was named the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity. It was subsequently re named the Center for Biological Diversity. 1 8 SOUTHWEST CENTER v. Are non profit corporations actively involved in species protection issues throughout the southwestern United States. Defendant/appellee United States Forest Service is a federal agency within the United States Department of Agriculture which has responsibility for administering and protecting public lands. In this matter it is the action agency. The Secretary has delegated primary responsibility to defendant/appellee United States Fish and Wildlife Service to assist the Forest Service in determining whether any proposed action by the Forest Service is likely to impact the loach minnow. 50 C.F.R. § 402.13. Intervenor appellee New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association and intervenor/cross appellant Arizona Cattle Growers' Association are non profit. The district court was required to issue an injunction halting grazing until the consultation process was completed.
</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/Feb2004/034108np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case is an expedited interlocutory appeal by Appellants T.A. We will affirm. I. Because the facts are known to the parties. Our factual summary is brief. All of which have similar names. Is a seed growing business. DPH is a business that markets seeds grown by T.A. The Doebler's trade name has been in use for 30 years and is considered by the public to be synonymous with DPH. A preliminary injunction is an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). 574 (3d Cir. 1991). 3 Appellants TAS and Doebler III argue on appeal that the preliminary injunction was in error because it: (1) imposed restrictions on competition despite the lack of a non compete agreement. (2) was overbroad. (4) mistakenly concluded DPH's trade secrets were misappropriated. Appellants' claims are meritless and require little discussion. The preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion nor an error of law. Appellants are incorrect that the District Court erred in its assessment of harms to the parties. Customer confusion to the detriment of DPH is inevitable.
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr96/94-8402.opa.html">HUGHEY V. JMS DEVEL. CORP.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hughey v. INTRODUCTION<p> <p> Appellant JMS Development Corporation (
</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/961371.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The main question in this case is whether a North Carolina tax on illegal drugs is in reality a criminal penalty.
</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/07a0138p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was a party defendant. When a Tennessee municipality that owns and operates its own electric system annexes territory in which an electric cooperative is providing electric services to customers. RUS was later added as a defendant. Cookeville and UCEMC disagreed on the cost of reintegration Cookeville argued that the cost was approximately $127. 000 whereas UCEMC argued that the cost was $5.825 million. While that appeal was pending. Now the propriety of both the damage award and the injunction are before this court. Cookeville also challenges the district court's jurisdiction over the entire case and the district court's jurisdiction to enter the injunction while the first appeal was pending. The district court properly exercised jurisdiction because a federal agency was a party. The district court order requiring Cookeville to pay reintegration costs of $5.825 million was legally proper and not clearly erroneous. RUS is a federal agency. Courts have also required as necessary for removal under this statute that the defendant assert a colorable federal defense.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTI1NDItY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2542-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
J.) denying their motion for a preliminary injunction requiring New York City and the State of New York to provide immediately to all members of the plaintiff class all services required by their Individualized Education Programs that have been put in place under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Plaintiffs argue that in evaluating whether they were entitled to a preliminary injunction. We also agree that the District Court erred in using the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5022a.html">WALTER J. THOMAS V. COLIN POWELL<BR></A><BR>
Arthur Robbins argued the cause for appellants.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200104/00-5022a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
On the briefs was David G. With him on the brief were S. The scope of this
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8CC65C83A65CF51E88256BB1006D0E60/$file/9956956.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Appellee Jason Rutz was a listed creditor in his stepfather's appellant Lon McGhan bankruptcy proceedings. The state court in which that action was filed ruled that Rutz's action could proceed because Rutz had inadequate notice of the earlier bankruptcy proceedings. Reasoning that McGhan's desire to relitigate an issue already heard in state court was insufficient cause to reopen the case. We conclude that it was an abuse of discretion for the bankruptcy court to decline to reopen McGhan's bankruptcy case. The bankruptcy court was required to reopen the proceedings to protect its exclusive jurisdiction over the enforcement of its own orders. McGhan was charged with five counts of sexual molestation of Rutz. At the time the charges were 6703 filed. Rutz was 12 years old. Any creditor wishing to have a debt characterized as nondischargeable must file a complaint alleging nondischargeability of the debt. His claim is automatically discharged pursuant to § 523(c)(1). Although debts for intentional torts such as Rutz's claim ordinarily are not dischargeable under § 523(a)(6) of the code.
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19968840.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Each parcel was subject to a separate. After it was determined that the proposed projects would have no significant environmental impact. All seven projects were approved and opened for bids. Filed an action challenging the Forest Service's decision to proceed with the timber projects.3 The Forest Service's administration of the National Forests is governed by the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). It also sought a declaratory judgment that the Forest Service was in violation of the CWA. Or is composed in whole or in part.
</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.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199902/97-7190a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the briefs was Arthur L. With him on the brief was Earl V. With him on the brief was John J. James and Marta Wagner were on the brief for appellee Teamsters Local 2000. Circuit Judge: The plaintiffs in this case are individual members of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. I The employment relationship between Northwest and its flight attendants is governed by a collective bargaining agree ment entered into on August 1. S 5.A.3.b prescribes what is known as the
</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/996732.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Is
</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/992609.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is protected by the Eleventh Amendment from suit in the underlying action an issue the Governor failed to raise in the district court prior to this appeal. The maximum penalty for violating the statute is a fine of two hundred dollars. Traffic infractions are treated as misdemeanors. Traffic infractions are
</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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTYyMDEgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/02-6201%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
M. Patricia Zimmerman were not entitled to the defense of judicial immunity in connection with the issuance of Vermont Notices Against Trespass broadly limiting the plaintiff's access to Vermont court property. Is a long time critic of the Vermont justice system who has sought to disseminate his message using a wide variety of means and media. Vermont officials therefore broadly prohibited Huminski's Huminski complains presence in and around certain state courthouses. that the restrictions are unconstitutional. One is abridgement of the rights that the First Amendment. Confers on members of the public and press to attend and report on judicial proceedings and to speak out on public issues. other is impairment of the ability of courts effectively and efficiently to protect their personnel. We conclude that Huminski had an individual First Amendment right of access to court proceedings even though he was not a party to and had no other official connection with them. The right created a We The presumption that he was entitled to access.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug02/02-40917-CR0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The appellant Luis Enrique Insaulgarat (Insaulgarat) was found guilty of one count of possession marihuana. with intent to distribute over 100 kilograms of The offense was alleged to have been committed on or On February 22. Insaulgarat was imprisonment. He then picked up another shipment in Michigan that was to be transported to Techno Trim. That he was to transport a load of air conditioning equipment from Laser Forwarding. This equipment was scheduled for delivery in Miami by 9:00 a.m. on August 22. Insaulgarat took his now empty 1 Insaulgarat is a Cuban citizen. The seal number was recorded on the bill of lading. Which the agent noticed did not have a seal on it. Two trailers were requested to haul the air conditioning equipment to Lennox of Miami. After Insaulgarat arrived it was discovered that the merchandise would fit into one trailer. It was advised that it would not be needed. A male voice on the other end asked who was speaking and then hung up. 3 3 2 At trial. That he was therefore late with the delivery of the cargo from Michigan because his tractor's engine kept overheating during the trip.
</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/991115.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Farms' claim opposing the preliminary injunction as invalid is moot. The MAG 4 is home to 4. Waste from the sows is released into a lagoon. The MAG 4 is operated under a North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/051441P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He is currently the president and sole shareholder of Guy Rogers Sales. He is presently 69 years old. Rogers was selling approximately one million dollars annually of its ceiling fan products. If the parties were to end their relationship. Any person or entity which is engaged in the manufacture. Supply or sale of ceiling fans and accessories . . . which are competitive with those products manufactured. For which Sales Representative was responsible. Or with respect to which Sales Representative was provided or had access to Confidential Information . . . . (b) In the fall of 2004. He believed Minka was going to hire a new representative to represent its lighting products unless he agreed to discontinue his relationship with Emerson and begin to sell Minka's ceiling fans. The letter was dated October 1. Springer did not warn Rogers that he was contractually bound to wait one year before he began working for Minka or remind Rogers of any other contractual obligations after he left Emerson. He told them that he was leaving Emerson and would be representing Minka's ceiling fan products and would like to continue doing business with them.
</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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/12/01-6145.htm">01-6145 -- ENGINEERING V. CITY OF UNION -- 12/17/2002<BR></A><BR>
Who are joined herein for purposes of relief by way of damages as may be appropriate. We AFFIRM. <ol> <li> Background</u></li> </ol> <p> Plaintiffs appellants in this action are: (1) Kenmen Engineering. Miles is the principal. Defendant appellee is the City of Union City. The order is found to not be necessary and if there are any costs [plaintiffs] may want to come back against the City of Union City for the payment of costs and moving and storage . . . . Menz were both present at the March 12. There is no indication that the Oklahoma state court conducted a hearing at this time. Miles<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov95/94-8924.opa.html">HOSPITAL RESOURCE PERSONNEL V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hospital Resource Personnel v. HRP moved for summary judgment on the ground that it was exempt from a duty to withhold and pay such taxes by the
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/01/044145P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bear Butte is a mountain formation seven miles northeast of Sturgis. It is a site of great spiritual significance for certain Native American tribes. Concluding the Tribes are not prevailing parties under the Supreme Court's decision in Buckhannon Board & Care Home. Once funds are allocated. HUD conducts periodic audits to ensure that the State is properly awarding grants and administering the program. The Tribes promptly moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent construction of the shooting range until the litigation was resolved. The practical effect of the preliminary injunction was to compel HUD to bar the State a non party to the lawsuit from accessing additional CDBG funds for the shooting range project. We have held that a judicially approved class action settlement. The only relief the Tribes obtained in the lawsuit was a preliminary injunction that barred HUD from providing funds for construction of the shooting range from the time the injunction was entered until South Dakota canceled its block grant to the City.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul19/02-40917-CR0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The appellant Luis Enrique Insaulgarat (Insaulgarat) was found guilty of one count of possession marihuana. with intent to distribute over 100 kilograms of The offense was alleged to have been committed on or On February 22. Insaulgarat was imprisonment. He then picked up another shipment in Michigan that was to be transported to Techno Trim. That he was to transport a load of air conditioning equipment from Laser Forwarding. This equipment was scheduled for delivery in Miami by 9:00 a.m. on August 22. Insaulgarat took his now empty Insaulgarat is a Cuban citizen. The seal number was recorded on the bill of lading. Which the agent noticed did not have a seal on it. Two trailers were requested to haul the air conditioning equipment to Lennox of Miami. After Insaulgarat arrived it was discovered that the merchandise would fit into one trailer. It was advised that it would not be needed. A male voice on the other end asked who was speaking and then hung up. 3 3 2 At trial. That he was therefore late with the delivery of the cargo from Michigan because his tractor's engine kept overheating during the trip.
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/03/061922P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which is carried out by city police on behalf of Salute. Arguing that it is not liable as a state actor for its speech restrictions and that the injunction violates its own First Amendment right to be free from compelled speech. Although the airport is owned by the city. The two day event is free and open to the public. During the noontime hour each day there is a ceremony to honor fallen veterans at which the national anthem is played. The names of fallen Boone County service members are read aloud. The air show's honored guests are introduced to the crowd. The stated purpose of the air show is
</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/05a0666n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Cates and Cates Construction were in contempt of an injunction that the court had previously entered and that Mr. Was liable for payments owed by K.T.E. to the plaintiffs. Cates's arguments on appeal are unconvincing and/or waived due to failure to raise the argument below. I A The facts leading to the present dispute are less complex than the litigation that resulted. Plaintiffs are several employee welfare benefit and pension plans that dispense benefits to unionized workers. K.T.E. is a Tennessee Corporation that specializes The Honorable Peter H. Its primary employees are a married couple: Donna Kelley. K.T.E. was one of the employers that contributed to the relevant funds. Which is owned and operated by Mr. Is a Kentucky corporation that performs general contractor work. It was awarded the contract to construct dormitories at Pope Air Force Base in North Carolina. KTE is responsible for submittals and submit [sic] them in a timely fashion.
</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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTYyMDFfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-6201_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
M. Patricia Zimmerman were not entitled to the defense of judicial immunity in connection with the issuance of Vermont Notices Against Trespass broadly limiting the plaintiff's access to Vermont court property. Is a long time critic of the Vermont justice system who has sought to disseminate his message using a wide variety of means and media. Huminski complains that the restrictions are unconstitutional. One is abridgement of the rights that the First Amendment. The other is impairment of the ability of courts 1 Branzburg v. We conclude that Huminski had an individual First Amendment right of access to court proceedings even though he was not a party to and had no other official connection with them. The right created a presumption that he was entitled to access. Or proceedings and if the restrictions on his access were reasonably tailored to meet the legitimate goals of the exclusion. That this individual right was not wellsettled at the time of the events at issue here and that the defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity with respect thereto.
</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.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-5023.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judges. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. The provisions pertaining to the maintenance of a system of community services and supports were to remain in effect permanently. We reverse and remand with instructions for the district court to consider whether the modification is warranted by changed circumstances. A state owned and operated institution for persons with severe mental disabilities.(1) The suit alleged class members residing at Hissom were being abused. While the case was on appeal to this court. The purpose of the Decree was to transition class members from the institutional setting at Hissom into community placements where they could live with state provided supports and services. The Individual Habilitation Plan was to evaluate a range of residential placement options and identify needed community services and supports based on each class member's individual needs. Disputes involving placement and services for a single class member were to be resolved. The dispute would be resolved by a (1) The class was certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
</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.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6165.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bailey brought a claim on behalf of herself and
</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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTYyMDFfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-6201_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
M. Patricia Zimmerman were not entitled to the defense of judicial immunity in connection with the issuance of Vermont Notices Against Trespass broadly limiting the plaintiff's access to Vermont court property. Is a long time critic of the Vermont justice system who has sought to disseminate his message using a wide variety of means and media. Huminski complains that the restrictions are unconstitutional. One is abridgement of the rights that the First Amendment. The other is impairment of the ability of courts 1 Branzburg v. We conclude that Huminski had an individual First Amendment right of access to court proceedings even though he was not a party to and had no other official connection with them. The right created a presumption that he was entitled to access. Or proceedings and if the restrictions on his access were reasonably tailored to meet the legitimate goals of the exclusion. That this individual right was not wellsettled at the time of the events at issue here and that the defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity with respect thereto.
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2721.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Were on brief. All public elementary schools are run by the Commonwealth's Department of Education. 2002 is described below.</P> <P> On August 14. He was twelve years old at the time and did not know how to read.</P> <P> In the summer before Joshua started second grade. Requested a certified sign language interpreter to assist Joshua in the classroom.<STRONG> </STRONG>Joshua's mother is a special education teacher. The administrative judge found that Joshua's need for a certified sign language interpreter was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1640OPN.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C.</SPAN> were on brief. Eric Summergrad</SPAN> were on brief. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292. Are: (1) William Britt. Fife testified that his duties were to
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1731.01A">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="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-2249.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Snyder LLP</U> were on brief for appellants.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE=
</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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTU4NzZfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5876_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Winners have yet to be declared in an election for two seats in the Albany County. Along with two candidates who have since dropped out of the case. The district court should have dismissed the voters' suit for lack of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 subject matter jurisdiction in light of earlier state court litigation over the absentee ballots. This court should vacate the district court's preliminary injunction because the voters have not sufficiently established that their constitutional claim is likely to succeed. Although we are unpersuaded by the Board's arguments. I. BACKGROUND This appeal is the latest installment in litigation that began in 2003 over elections for the Albany County Legislature. By then it was too late to hold the November 2003 election in accordance with the substitute plan. Which would have required voters to file a new request for such ballots. The election was close: according to the complaint. All four candidates petitioned the New York Supreme Court in Albany County to have various absentee ballots invalidated.
</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/04a0098p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The City's Director of Public Service had advised him that the City was granting permits on a
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov95/94-8924.opa.html">HOSPITAL RESOURCE PERSONNEL V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Hospital Resource Personnel v. HRP moved for summary judgment on the ground that it was exempt from a duty to withhold and pay such taxes by the
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1199.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Covington & Burling were on brief. L.L.P. were on brief. The Statute Regulation is not a stranger to the tobacco industry. Existing state law is not much more intrusive. Only Minnesota and Texas have required any reporting of tobacco ingredients. When Section 307B was enacted as a means of regulating the tobacco industry. Pro consumer bill that will give people all the information they need to make educated decisions about what they put in their bodies
</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/04a0056n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The stated purpose of the policy was to address concerns over a perceived conflict between private interests and public duties of officers and employees of the LFUCG and to promote
</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.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-3018.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because the local jail is crowded. Nothing was found. Campbell supposes that money never is an adequate remedy for a constitutional wrong. That belief is incorrect. Damages are a normal. Which as a constitutional tort often is analogized to (other) personal injury litigation. Erroneous grants of injunctive relief that hamper enforcement of the criminal law have the potential to cause havoc. While erroneous awards (or denials) of damages to a single person have more limited ability to injure the general public. Judges are fallible. When the costs of false negatives are low and this is what it means to say that the remedy at law is adequate there is correspondingly slight reason to incur the risk of premature or overbroad injunctive relief. Campbell's suit is just getting under way. The decision will have precedential effect even if the only remedy is monetary. If this court decides that the City's practice is unconstitutional then it must cease whether or not a formal injunction issues (for the prospect of damages paid to thousands of suspects would bring the City into line).
</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/May1998/98a1860p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. (
</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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-5001a.html">TAYLOR JACQUELINE P V. RTC<BR></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="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jun2004/Jun29/03-60214-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The court also held that the terms of the easements prevented MPC from subleasing space on its fiber optic cables
</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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032760p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction over Honeywell's consolidated appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and will affirm. 3 I. The piling of the waste created a land mass (the
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0409p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs allege in their complaint and amended complaint that they were transferred from Atkinson to another elementary school in the same district in retaliation for exercising their First Amendment rights and that the last minute hearing violated their right to due process. We now REVERSE the district court's grant of summary judgment to Defendant on Plaintiffs' First Amendment claims because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Plaintiffs' transfers were in retaliation for their protected speech. Factual History Plaintiffs were school teachers at Atkinson. Stating that they were neither dedicated leaders nor supportive of the administration. That they resisted positive change.1 Exacerbating Atkinson's academic woes were its divisive faculty and its glaring student discipline problem. Because the Atkinson faculty was not cohesive. Too many academic decisions were made individually rather than collectively as an institution. Were vocal in their complaints about discipline2 and took action by compiling signatures on a petition that proposed changes to Atkinson's discipline policies.3 Under Principal LaDita Howard's (
</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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5362a.html">FTC V. H.J. HEINZ CO.<BR></A><BR>
Were on brief. <br clear=all style='page break before:always'> <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="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul22/03-60214-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The court also held that the terms of the easements prevented MPC from subleasing space on its fiber optic cables
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0428p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That there was reasonable cause to believe that the Hospital had undertaken various actions that violated § 8(a)(1). In which it denied that it had engaged in unfair labor practices and denied that the Board was entitled to a temporary injunction. Conducting surveillance of its employees while they are lawfully striking. Judgment to this effect was entered on January 22. AFL CIO CLC (the
</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=04-1221.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That the district court should have dismissed ISR's breach of (1)This order and judgment is not binding precedent. I. As the parties are well aware of the facts of the case. We will not repeat them here in any detail.(3) In April 2000. Id. (2) Heumann and Geerdes are represented by the same attorneys on appeal as represented them before the district court. Shidler was also represented by said attorneys until January 4. The record indicates that since that time no other attorney has entered an appearance or filed a brief on her behalf. (3) Anyone wanting additional factual background is referred to Harvey I. (4) Shidler and Heumann were each liable for $50. The district court should have dismissed ISR's breach of contract claim based on the confidentiality provision of the license agreement. A party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law only
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0854C811179B91CC88256F4A000156D0/$file/0335381.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The International Fuel Tax Agreement is 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=95-2205.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On page 9. Replace
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2001/98-4945.man.html">CBS V. PRIMETIME 24 JOINT VENTURE (3/26/2001, NO. 98-4945)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0397n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because a judgment of civil contempt is not a final order. We conclude that we do not have jurisdiction over the appeal at this time. Owns a logging company that is headquartered next to the two houses. It found that defendants were harassing plaintiffs by causing excessive noise through the use of jake brakes on Bray's logging company's trucks and by having installed a large pig pen and dog kennel close to Cousins and James's house. Defendants appeal both the district court's ruling that they were in contempt of the injunction and its award of attorney's fees to plaintiffs. As both parties are aware. The case is still ongoing in district court. We conclude that we do not have jurisdiction over these issues at this time. It is a long standing rule of appellate jurisdiction 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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/04/973492P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Clorox and United Industries are competing producers of roach bait insecticide products.2 Clorox manufactures and sells Combat. Which subsequently was amended. The lighting is dark. A generic
</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=01-2057.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Were on brief. We hold that notice was adequate for the purposes of the particular ESA claim on appeal here. The ESA directs federal agencies to insure that agency action
</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/630C41C84B670F308825729D007E5429/$file/0315481.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Beam *Karen Tandy is substituted for her predecessor. Circuit Judge: Plaintiff Appellant Angel McClary Raich (
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/07/001964P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an action under the Lanham Act and state law to determine which party has the superior right to use the service mark
</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=01-2705.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellants Hon. Navas D'Acosta</SPAN> were on brief for appellants David Noriega Rodrí. <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.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept97/96-2307.opa.html">KAIMOWITZ V. ORLANDO<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Kaimowitz v. Senior Circuit Judge.<p> <p> PER CURIAM:<p> <p> This is an interlocutory appeal from the district court's denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction. While the action was pending. Finding that the injunction was not related to the <i>qui tam</i> action. (2) the district court erred in denying his motion for a preliminary injunction because restraint is necessary to keep the defendants from intimidating him. (3) the district court erred in failing to hold a hearing on his motion for an injunction.<p> Any review of the district court's denial of Kaimowitz' motion to amend his complaint is premature. This case is before the court as an interlocutory appeal from the district court's order denying Kaimowitz' request for a preliminary injunction. That order is immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C.
</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=00-2446.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Were on brief. The district court issued a preliminary injunction preventing the implementation of the statute on the ground that it is preempted by the Supremacy Clause and violates the dormant Commerce Clause. Which establishes the
</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.fedcir.gov/opinions/07-1039.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/10/954078P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plaintiffs are the buyers of the property. The defendants are the sellers. Arguing that plaintiffs are receiving what amounts to a double recovery: an *The Hon. The defendants do not contest the finding made below that they were guilty of fraud in this respect. Their application was denied on the ground that the sellers. Defendants argue first that there was no sufficient evidence to support the damages verdicts. When the property was sold. Testimony was that the value of the property transferred without the boatdock permit was $43. 000 less than it would have been with the permit. by the jury. one record would have supported a much greater award than was actually given As to the swim dock. The evidence is less specific. Was one of a list of items in respect of which evidence tended to show that plaintiffs did not receive full value from the sale. the entire list was $40. The total amount of damages ascribed to No specific figure was given for the swim dock. It was of some substantial value. The major issue on appeal arises because damages were not the only relief secured by the plaintiffs.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1997/97a1746p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have determined that there is <p>no basis to disturb the preliminary injunction except in one <p>respect. An impending material <br wp=
</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.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041324np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Because we write only for the parties who are familiar with the facts. Jurisdiction was proper in District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. To the extent we have it. Is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We will dismiss the appeal from the District Court's order of May 24. We will reverse in part and affirm in part. (2) that it will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is denied. (3) that granting preliminary relief will not result in even greater harm to the nonmoving party. Is based on a correct understanding of the applicable law and is supported by the record. (b) the record supports the Court's conclusion that Appellees'
</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=99-1328.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellants.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE=
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00b0001p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Both parties argue that the bankruptcy court's judgment was internally inconsistent. The Panel concludes that all of the state court judgment arose from the same conduct which the state court found was willful and malicious. That the entire judgment is nondischargeable. The bankruptcy court's judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part. I. ISSUE ON APPEAL The issue on appeal is which parts of the state court judgment are nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6). An order is final if it
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1366.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for plaintiffs appellants George C. Plumb & Murray were on brief for intervenor appellant Ralph A. Were on brief for defendants/appellees/ cross appellants Rodney P. Hanson & DeTroy were on brief for defendants/appellees/cross appellants Richard E. Who were employees or former employees of Allied Capital Corporation (
</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=94-1067.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellee. Are Puerto Rico corporations. Complete diversity of citizenship between the parties was thus destroyed. Although this fact was not called to the district court's attention at the time. Arguing 2 that summary judgment was improper and that the district court erred in granting the permanent injunction. Mita is a California corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey. An amendment Codefendants John Doe and Richard Roe are fictitious names used to refer to defendants whose names are unknown at present. Said defendants are the natural persons and/or corporate and/or judicial entities who together with MITA have conspired. John Doe and Richard Roe are citizens and residents of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and are also liable to plaintiff pursuant to the allegations mentioned hereinafter. (emphasis added). 4 filed on March 9. Inc. are. Said defendants are the corporate and/or judicial entities who together with MITA have conspired.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept97/96-2307.opa.html">KAIMOWITZ V. ORLANDO<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Kaimowitz v. Senior Circuit Judge.<p> <p> PER CURIAM:<p> <p> This is an interlocutory appeal from the district court's denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction. While the action was pending. Finding that the injunction was not related to the <i>qui tam</i> action. (2) the district court erred in denying his motion for a preliminary injunction because restraint is necessary to keep the defendants from intimidating him. (3) the district court erred in failing to hold a hearing on his motion for an injunction.<p> Any review of the district court's denial of Kaimowitz' motion to amend his complaint is premature. This case is before the court as an interlocutory appeal from the district court's order denying Kaimowitz' request for a preliminary injunction. That order is immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></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="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-51024.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
T he Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Or mortgages that are in default or foreclosure. He claims that the fee was not for assistance in filing for bankruptcy. Petition preparers are also required to sign the debtor's petition. 2001.2 The bankruptcy court questioned Casey directly and determined that an injunction was warranted. Under which Casey was required to provide to the U.S. Trustee the names of any clients
</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/C4927C066768174588256C050080FF25/$file/0156900.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiffs are leaders of IGP. Much of which is critical of the United States' financial and taxing policies.
</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/5493F7B3FE27BB9188256CDF0082E8D7/$file/0115901o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The request for rehearing en banc is denied. 3085 3086 WINN v. Dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc: The decision in this case sharply limits the traditional restraints on federal judicial interference with state tax systems and is in conflict with the position of the Sixth Circuit. The Arizona statute at issue grants a tax credit of up to $500 a year for taxpayer contributions to
</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.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031250.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That its advertisements
</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.law.emory.edu/10circuit/mar96/94-6025.html">COUNTRY KIDS 'N CITY SLICKS, INC. V. SHEEN<BR></A><BR>
Size and shape of the dolls are not copyrightable features. (2) misinterpreting the standard for copyright infringement by requiring Plaintiff to show that the Defendants' dolls were a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/05/00-3057.htm">00-3057 -- STATE OF KANSAS V. U.S. -- 05/04/2001<BR></A><BR>
Assuming other requisites of the Act are . We have jurisdiction to review the . The contract would have authorized the Tribe to establish Class . Class II Indian gaming is that . Lands title to which is . Is . The owners of the land into the Tribe is alone not sufficient evidence of tribal authority to bring the . From concluding the NIGC's decision was the product of
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0340p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Insurers are not parties to the underlying litigation. VES and CFL were both wholly owned by James A. A receiver was appointed in the Liberte case for the Liberte funds still held by VES and CFL. The two receiverships were joined under a single Receiver. The injunctions read: It is further ORDERED that all creditors. They hereby are. Said entities are further stayed from executing or issuing or causing the execution or issuance out of any Court of any writ. The Insurers have pursued numerous independent actions to rescind or cancel fraudulently obtained policies. Page 3 fraudulent policies were the subject of one of the Insurer's. Attempts to intervene in a related case (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021413.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
To enforce the principle that `no one is above the law'.
</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/ED5DFDC70DDFDEE5882571A3008005FB/$file/0416001.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
MCCORD tion of an ex parte temporary restraining order (
</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.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011726.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Footnote 1 the second sentence of the footnote is amended to read: Gen. (4) Any conduct or entertainment by any person whose private parts are exposed or who is wearing transparent clothing that reveals the private parts. Or any sexual acts that are prohibited by law. A court must consider
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/01/066051P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an interlocutory appeal of the bankruptcy court's order denying the Defendants' motion to modify a preliminary injunction. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(b). STANDARD OF REVIEW Determinations of the amount and sufficiency of a bond rest within a court's discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of an abuse of that discretion.2 An abuse of discretion will be found when the court fails to apply the proper legal standard or bases its order on findings of fact that are clearly erroneous.3 II. The Cherrick Lot was owned by the Cherrick family. When the Casino was moved to its current location across the street from the Cherrick Lot. Although the Debtors and the Defendants did not have a written agreement. Louis Parking and that they were raising the validation rate from $1.50 to $6 per car. The Defendants notified the Casino that they were raising the validation rate to $10 per car. The Defendants posted a notice at the lot notifying patrons that they were no longer accepting validations from the Casino and that all patrons had to pay the $10 parking fee up front.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8F8E605B87E1FD1E88256E7B00830DE0/$file/0315006.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Alleges in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action that his First Amendment rights were violated by Pelican Bay's enforcement of its policy prohibiting inmates from receiving mail containing material downloaded from the internet. After reviewing staffing levels and security issues internet mail will not be allowed. The policy prohibits only mail containing material that has been downloaded from the internet but is not violated if information from the internet is retyped or copied into a document generated in a word processor program. TERHUNE At least eight other California prisons have adopted similar policies. Prisoners are not allowed to access the internet directly. So Clement asserts that the policies effectively prevent inmates from accessing information that is available only on the internet. Or is prohibitively expensive and timeconsuming to obtain through other methods. There is record evidence that several non profit groups. That many legal materials are readily accessible only on the internet. Agents and those in privity with them are enjoined from enforcing any policy prohibiting California inmates from receiving mail because it contains Internet generated information.
</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.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/99-3141.htm">99-3141 -- NATIONAL ELECTRIC CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION INC. V. KANSAS CHAPTER OF THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION INC. -- 02/02/2000<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align=
</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/FDEFF3391DF41BA188256B8100009355/$file/9917572.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: 1. Is DENIED. Circuit Judge: Two issues are presented in this appeal: 1) Whether the Anti Injunction Act barred the district court from issuing a declaratory judgment precluding the California Superior Court from considering Randtron's res judicata defense. When Randtron was an operating business. Lucky Stores and Holz Rubber Company were permitted to intervene. The settlement agreement was memorialized by the federal district court in a final Consent Decree. This settlement is intended to effectuate settlement of only those Matters Covered for which the Corporate Defendants were protected from liability by the limits of liability coverage provided by the general liability provisions of the combined single limits endorsements of policy numbers 0624 03 033933 and 0626 00 037304 4402 issued by Employers Insurance of Wausau A Mutual Company. This settlement is intended to release them from all liability from which they are not actually protected by insurance (which release specifically includes all liability to respond with other than insurance assets or proceeds) for the Matters Covered by this Settlement.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5B2FF7E1C9E948F788256BA600805C7E/$file/0116274.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Therefore the district court's consideration of the traditional preliminary injunction factors was error. BACKGROUND Nicholas is an autistic child eligible for educational assistance under IDEA. Its main purpose is to provide disabled children with
</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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5104c.html">LEG ASST VIETNAMESE V. DOS<BR></A><BR>
</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.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0253p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plaintiffs are a collection of associations and individuals led by the American Civil Liberties Union. Because we cannot find that any of the plaintiffs have standing for any of their claims. Of telephone and email communications where one party to the communication is located outside the United States and the NSA has
</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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2001/98-4945.man.html">CBS V. PRIMETIME 24 JOINT VENTURE (3/26/2001, NO. 98-4945)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/10/021403P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court is affirmed. I Plaintiff/Appellant Caballo Coal Company (Caballo) is a coal producer with mines in Wyoming's Powder River Basin. Plaintiff/Appellant Peabody COALSALES Company is a sales agent for Caballo. Caballo and Peabody COALSALES Company are wholly owned subsidiaries of Peabody Holding Company. Which in turn is a wholly owned subsidiary of Peabody Energy Corporation. American Electric Power Service Corporation (AEP Service) are wholly owned subsidiaries of American Electric Power Company. AEP Energy is a coal trader that manages coal procurement for its parent companies' power plants. AEP Energy is not a coal producer and does not presently control any mining operations or coal reserves. Are the current parties to a fortyyear coal supply agreement signed in 1974 by IMPC and a predecessor of Caballo (Agreement). Are Caballo's and IMPC's agents for administration of the Agreement. The parties have the option to call for a price reopener every five years. Preceding the end of the then current contract period BUYER will accept SELLER's last offer or obtain and present SELLER with a firm.
</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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1239.html">TEGAL CORP. V. TOKYO ELECTRON<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellee.<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/FFF28E68F4D95C8C882572F300826DA5/$file/0655054.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We address whether this generic advertising is
</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=99-2223.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Cavanagh</U> were on brief. Hahn LLP</U> were on brief. Baccarat appointed Ross Simons as an authorized dealer
</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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5104d.html">LEG ASST VIETNAMESE V. DOS<BR></A><BR>
</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.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-4125.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which were consolidated and transferred to the Northern District of Illinois by the Multidistrict Litigation Panel. Against John Deep and corporations that are controlled by him and need not be discussed separately. Claim that Deep's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTE1MDktY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-1509-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is being decided by the remaining two members who are in agreement. 0.14(b). 1 * who was a and the appeal of the panel. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Disputes between and among the company and its shareholders are subject to arbitration. Disputes have arisen between LAIF X SPRL (
</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/july2002/02-10322.opn.html">JOHNSON & JOHNSON VISION CARE, INC. V. 1-800 CONTACTS, INC. (7/29/2002, NO. 02-10322)<BR></A><BR>
J and 1 800 are in the contact lens business. J or about ACUVUE that are literally false. The first advertisement at issue is a letter sent by 1 800 to its customers recommending CIBA Vision's Focus Dailies. Was sent by 1 800 to customers who requested J&. J lenses that were not in stock at the time of the customer's order. This letter (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-50118.0.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. Elaine searched for and was unable to At this point. Snow learned that the photographs were being used in
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1222.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Proctor & Hoar LLP were on brief. With whom Laura Steinberg and Sullivan & Worcester LLP were on brief. Ropes & Gray were on brief. P.C. were on brief. We determine that Cablevision is unlikely. We further conclude that Cablevision is unlikely to prevail on its Chapter 93A claim in this action. I. FACTS The facts are largely taken from the opinion of the district court. These are undisputed. The few points of disagreement are noted. Because key aspects of this case involve changes that have occurred over time and actions that are alleged to have been untimely. The electricity and cable television businesses were once entirely distinct enterprises. Cablevision is equally well established in Boston as a provider of cable television. Although its two franchise agreements with the City have been non exclusive. Both Boston Edison and Cablevision have needed to install conduit under the streets of Boston. Which is the division of the City's Department of Public Works responsible for construction projects involving City streets.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1999/991877.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
John Doe is a medical student who has multiple sclerosis. As it concedes it is required to do 2 under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (
</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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1424.html">NOVO NORDISK V. GENENTECH, INC.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2001/011377a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is an issue of first impression in this court. The bases for its action are that the UPMC ad contained false statements and deceptive advertising in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. UPMC later asserted that plaintiff 's Lanham Act claims also were proscribed by the McCarran Act and the Pennsylvania Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA). The CommunityBlue Direct plan is also marketed solely to employers and subscribers in Western Pennsylvania. Both UPMC plans and Highmark's CommunityBlue Direct plan are network based plans.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2001/011377.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is an issue of first impression in this court. The bases for its action are that the UPMC ad contained false statements and deceptive advertising in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. UPMC later asserted that plaintiff 's Lanham Act claims also were proscribed by the McCarran Act and the Pennsylvania Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA). The CommunityBlue Direct plan is also marketed solely to employers and subscribers in Western Pennsylvania. Both UPMC plans and Highmark's CommunityBlue Direct plan are network based plans.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></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-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc3OTIgdyBFcnJhdGFfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7792%20w%20Errata_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(4) correctly held that plaintiffs' statelaw claims were ripe for adjudication. We hold that the District Court's award of punitive damages was inconsistent with the Due Process Clause and with Illinois law. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal brought by individual and corporate defendants who. Defendants contend Plaintiffs have brought a motion to dismiss this appeal under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. W e have d enied this mo tion. 1 2 that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over this case and the parties to it on multiple grounds. Assuming the case was not arbitrable. They claim that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to conduct a trial while an appeal was pending in this Court from the District Court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration. That the District Court abused its discretion by deciding unsettled questions of Illinois law after all the federal claims were dismissed. That the Illinois claims brought by plaintiffs were not ripe for adjudication. Arguing that the District Court abused its discretion when it denied their motion to reinstate RICO claims that were previously dismissed at the behest of this Court.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-50812.0.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. Elaine searched for and was unable to At this point. Snow learned that the photographs were being used in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1994/94a0885p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a trade dress infringement action brought under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. That Travis is liable for manufacturing the molds for Joy's planter. Because Duraco's claim is predicated upon infringement of the trade dress of the product itself. Constitute inherently distinctive trade dress thus serving as a designator of origin that will protect the plaintiff's product design features against copying. Insofar as it is not a symbol according to which one can relate the signifier (the trademark. Along with the degree to which the mark describes the product is unsuited for application to the product itself. We also think that there is a proper set of circumstances for treating a product configuration as inherently distinctive. These circumstances are characterized by a high probability that a product configuration serves a virtually exclusively identifying function for consumers where the concerns over
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1981.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gelpi & Gotay and Ralph Diller were on brief for appellant. *Of the Second Circuit. Sanchez offered no defense in response to SMA's motion and was apparently unrepresented. He was actively pursuing an administrative remedy against SMA. While SMA's federal cause of action was pending. Asking that the complaint be dismissed on 3 3 the grounds that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction and that an action adjudicating the same issues was already pending in federal district court. The Commissioner held an administrative hearing at which evidence was presented. Concluding that the Commissioner did have jurisdiction and finding the doctrine of res judicata inapplicable. Res judicata Appellant SMA devotes a substantial portion of its brief to the argument that the federal court's original judgment constituted a final judgment with res judicata effect even though it was a default judgment. That proposition is correct. SMA argues that the Commissioner therefore erred in finding that res judicata did not apply and that the district court should not have deferred to the Commissioner's judgment. 5 5 The flaw in this argument is that the district court did not affirm the Commissioner's conclusion regarding res judicata as an appellate court might affirm a ruling of a lower court.
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/08/983268P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
BACKGROUND Some of the background of this litigation is set forth in Peter v. Relevant to this fee dispute is the following. To whom this matter was referred for submission by consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Because another matter is pending in the district court. The State indicated it would work with the state board of education to repeal the rule to the extent it was inconsistent with Agostini. The State will no longer enforce the rule as limited to neutral sites
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/60EA7BD9807F52C088256AD9000535DC/$file/9917572.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Two issues are presented in this appeal: 1) Whether the Anti Injunction Act barred the district court from issuing a declaratory judgment precluding the California Superior Court from considering Randtron's res judicata defense. When Randtron was an operating business. Lucky Stores and Holz Rubber Company were permitted to intervene. The settlement agreement was memorialized by the federal district court in a final Consent Decree. 1 Under California law. This settlement is intended to effectuate settlement of only those Matters Covered for which the Corporate Defendants were protected from liability by the limits of liability coverage provided by the general liability provisions of the combined single limits endorsements of policy numbers 0624 03 033933 and 0626 00 037304 issued by Employers Insurance of Wausau A Mutual Company. This settlement is intended to release them from all liability from which they are not actually protected by insurance (which release specifically includes all liability to respond with other than insurance assets or proceeds) for the Matters Covered by this Settlement.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-50273.0.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. Romero's suit was pending at the time On March 17. All of Border's assets were purchased by a third party. Substantially all of the proceeds from that sale have been distributed to the claim 2 holders who were the beneficiaries of the plan. He was not listed among the creditors with allowed claims to the debtor's proceeds. Stating that: Debtors are non subscribers to the Texas Workers Compensation laws. Debtors carry employer's indemnity insurance with deductible amounts that have ranged between $25. Debtors believe they are adequately insured against any liabilities that may result from the employee lawsuits. Included in this jurisdiction is the power to
</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.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1039.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appellant was arrested and charged with intimidating a witness (the bartender who had seen the fight). He was tried in a state district court and found guilty of this charge. The charge was dismissed. Appellant states that the district attorney did not appear at the trial and that he was acquitted of the charges. These actions are entitled Elbery v. Sklut and are pending in the federal district court. This case remains in state court and is entitled Elbery v. Louison was then representing the Town of Shrewsbury and its police officers. The other defendants were Shrewsbury police officers. The Law It is well established that
</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/05a0724n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Arguing that DaimlerChrysler had breached the agreement and was continuing to use the system despite the fact that Summit had terminated the license agreement. Arguing that: (1) Summit did not have the right to enforce the agreement. (2) there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether DaimlerChrysler breached the agreement. (3) the injunction was based on an erroneous legal conclusion. DaimlerChrysler is the successor in interest to Mercedes Benz Credit Corporation.1 ALAS provided the software platform used by DaimlerChrysler to track leasing contracts. Which was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200104/00-5362a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Kovner were on brief. Were on brief for The Thirty Six Amici Curiae in support of the appellant. Skiles and Jan Amundson were on brief for Grocery Manufacturers of America. Bork were on brief for Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation. The injunction was sought in aid of an FTC administrative proceeding which was subsequently instituted by complaint to challenge the merger as violative of. The baby food market is dominated by three firms. Gerber's products are found in over 90 per cent of all American supermarkets.2 By contrast. Heinz is sold in approximately 40 per cent of all supermarkets. Its sales are nationwide but concentrated in northern New England. Heinz is the largest producer of baby food in the world with $1 billion in sales worldwide. Its domestic baby food products with annual net sales of $103 million are manufactured at its Pittsburgh. Which was updated in 1991 at a cost of $120 million. That is. Of which 72 per cent is jarred baby food. Its jarred 1 The facts as set forth herein are based on the district court's factual findings and the record material submitted by the parties. 2 Product volume in retail stores throughout the country is mea sured by the product's All Commodity Volume (ACV).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/04/02-5174.htm">02-5174 -- TRANSEURO AMERTRANS V. CONOCO INC. -- 04/15/2004<BR></A><BR>
We conclude that Transeuro's appeal from the denial of the preliminary injunction is moot. Having learned that the FTC's approval of the merger was imminent. Which was ultimately held on September 17. We must determine whether we have subject matter jurisdiction.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/579922C6C0FAD74188256E5A00707CF5/$file/9917572.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Two issues are presented in this appeal: 1) Whether the Anti Injunction Act barred the district court from issuing a declaratory judgment precluding the California Superior Court from considering Randtron's res judicata defense. When Randtron was an operating business. Lucky Stores and Holz Rubber Company were permitted to intervene. The settlement agreement was memorialized by the federal district court in a final Consent Decree. 1 Under California law. This settlement is intended to effectuate settlement of only those Matters Covered for which the Corporate Defendants were protected from liability by the limits of liability coverage provided by the general liability provisions of the combined single limits endorsements of policy numbers 0624 03 033933 and 0626 00 037304 issued by Employers Insurance of Wausau A Mutual Company. This settlement is intended to release them from all liability from which they are not actually protected by insurance (which release specifically includes all liability to respond with other than insurance assets or proceeds) for the Matters Covered by this Settlement.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1995/95a1237p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The Parties NJHA is a non profit association representing seventy one of the eighty four hospitals in New Jersey that receive Medicaid reimbursement from the State of New Jersey. The defendants in this action are William Waldman. The defendants have been sued in their official capacities. DHS is the state agency responsible for New Jersey's Medicaid Program. The Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services is the office within DHS that administers the program. The defendants will be referred to as
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19984945.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sitting by designation. * This copyright infringement action was brought against PrimeTime 24 Joint Venture (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0F10F3F951DA38E288256C0F00567CC7/$file/0055993.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gospel Missions argues that the City is in contempt of an injunction against the City's enforcement of certain provisions of the pre amended version of that law and that the threatened enforcement of new provi GOSPEL MISSIONS v. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Professional fundraisers are those who solicit charitable contributions on behalf of others for gain. Gospel Missions is a non profit religious corporation that provides ministry and shelter to homeless individuals. Five of its properties were raided by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department because the Sheriff's Department believed Gospel Missions might be violating city and county charitable solicitation laws. (2) that numerous provisions applying to professional fundraisers in the Amended Ordinance are either in contempt of the GMA I injunction or unconstitutional. (4) that two of the non professional fundraiser provisions in the Amended Ordinance section 44.15(b) and section 44.02(b)(2) are either in contempt of the GMA I injunction or unconstitutional.
</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/042911np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm the judgment of the District Court. The software Voicenet/OTI use to provide that access is called
</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/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDAzLTUwNTZfc28ucGRm/03-5056_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/09/953764P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction. Have engaged in on going sex and age discrimination in violation of federal and Minnesota law. She was also a member of the company's Board of Directors and owned 2.7 percent of the In August 1995. Stat. § 302A.751 because the company's sex and age discrimination have prejudiced AdamMellang
</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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1120.html">METABOLITE LABORAORIES, INC., ET AL. V. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS (DBA LABCORP)<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiffs appellees.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>J. Tessar</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Also on the brief was <u>Mark A. Argued for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Catherine E. Stetson</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>John P. This court affirms.</p> <h1>I.</h1> <p class=MsoBodyText><span style='mso tab count:1'> </span>The 658 patent claims methods for detecting cobalamin or folate deficiency.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Cobalamin and folate are both B vitamins. Sci
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972218.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The courseware is written by training consultants in Hunter's Education Services Group. Who often have little or no experience with the PeopleSoft product. Susan Smith managed the Education Services Group and was the direct supervisor of the training consultants. The Agreements are identical. They have 3 been engaged in taking PeopleSoft classes. Several of the individual defendants are developing courseware on the same PeopleSoft products for which they wrote courseware at Hunter. Is developing a
</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/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA2LTA1MjZfc28ucGRm/06-0526_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</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/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc3OTJfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7792_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(4) correctly held that plaintiffs' statelaw claims were ripe for adjudication. We hold that the District Court's award of punitive damages was inconsistent with the Due Process Clause and with Illinois law. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal brought by individual and corporate defendants who. Defendants contend Plaintiffs have brought a motion to dismiss this appeal under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. Assuming the case was not arbitrable. They claim that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to conduct a trial while an appeal was pending in this Court from the District Court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration. That the District Court abused its discretion by deciding unsettled questions of Illinois law after all the federal claims were dismissed. That the Illinois claims brought by plaintiffs were not ripe for adjudication. Arguing that the District Court abused its discretion when it denied their motion to reinstate RICO claims that were previously dismissed at the behest of this Court.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2002/02-10322.opn.html">JOHNSON & JOHNSON VISION CARE, INC. V. 1-800 CONTACTS, INC. (7/29/2002, NO. 02-10322)<BR></A><BR>
J and 1 800 are in the contact lens business. J or about ACUVUE that are literally false. The first advertisement at issue is a letter sent by 1 800 to its customers recommending CIBA Vision's Focus Dailies. Was sent by 1 800 to customers who requested J&. J lenses that were not in stock at the time of the customer's order. This letter (the
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19984945.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This copyright infringement action was brought against PrimeTime 24 Joint Venture (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/10/003230P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
District Judge This case presents the issue of whether portions of the Minnesota Sprinkler Fitter statute and rules which require contractors to adopt approved apprenticeship programs is preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The district court held that the statute and rules were preempted and issued a permanent injunction preventing enforcement of the apprenticeship regulations. The statute was codified as Minn.Stat.Chap. 299M. One of the statutory provisions of the Sprinkler Fitter Licensing statute was the requirement that only licensed journeymen and registered apprentices could perform fire protection work. Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training
</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.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9C860204E533DE9488256F780000C5A7/$file/0316934.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Even though the Republic is not a party to this litigation. Because the Republic is neither a party to the settlement agreement nor a person or banking institution bound by the Order Directing Compliance. Several lawsuits were filed on behalf of individuals who had been arrested. The consolidated case was later certified as a class action. Collecting that judgment proved exceedingly difficult for the Hilao plaintiff class (who are Plaintiffs in this case) because of two developments. Which were held in Swiss banks. The request was somewhat unusual in that the Republic sought an
</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/04a0110p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I Chippewa is a corporation chartered under the laws of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (a federally recognized tribe) and located on an Indian reservation in Michigan. When the Michigan State Police stopped a truck containing tobacco products that were being shipped to Chippewa by UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT X No. 03 1445 > . The truck's driver was Andrew Arch. Which is a violation of TPTA. The TPTA statutory scheme requires police to give notice to
</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/cases/2002/06/01-4129.htm">01-4129 -- DAVIS V. MINETA -- 06/20/2002<BR></A><BR>
The widening and extension of existing 11400 South.<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://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/07/98-5122.htm">98-5122 -- B. WILLIS V. GOODPASTER -- 07/20/1999<BR></A><BR>
We affirm.<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="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-30419.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Neal's initial request was for a preliminary injunction ordering Defendants to transfer him to another prison. The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. The court ruled that Neal had not alleged any specific facts showing a substantial threat of irreparable injury if his requested injunction was not granted. Denial of a motion for a temporary restraining order is not appealable. Denial of a preliminary injunction is immediately appealable. If the injunction is related to the substantive issues of the litigation. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The 3 relief he requests is only available by a preliminary injunction because the relief sought would extend beyond the ten day limit of a temporary restraining order. Because the injunctive relief requested by Neal is related to the substantive issues of the litigation. The decision to deny a preliminary injunction will be reversed by this court
</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/94opinions/94-1034.html">FILMTEC V. HYDRANAUTICS<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://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021564.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: In this case we are called upon to interpret 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j). Daniel Wagner is an autistic child covered by the IDEA. Daniel was receiving at home Lovaas therapy pursuant to an Individualized Educational Program (IEP) prepared by the Board of Education of Montgomery County (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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1288.html">SHINYEI CORPORATION OF AMERICA V. US<BR></A><BR>
Argued for defendent appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Peter D. New York.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was. The court s ruling that after liquidation it could no longer grant relief was in error.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Accordingly. Were the subjects of several Commerce antidumping investigations.<span style='mso spacerun:
</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/972341.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Steakhouse brought suit in federal district court claiming that the permit procedure is an unconstitutional prior restraint. Because the likelihood that Steakhouse will ultimately succeed on the merits of its claim is slight. We are unable to conclude that the district court abused its discretion in denying preliminary injunctive relief. Site plan review involves only the generic plan for a proposed building and is conducted by the Planning Department. Special use permit review is conducted by the Raleigh Board of Adjustment (BOA). The BOA is a separate entity from the City. It is an independent. The prospective owners of such a bar must demonstrate that it will not adversely affect public services and facilities such as parking. Pedestrian circulation will not adversely affect adjacent properties. The BOA is not. Limited to those thirteen conditions and may attach others as is appropriate. Judicial review of all BOA determinations is
</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/972359.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Since Mom N Pops have not challenged any of the lower court's specific findings of fact. We will adopt the court's findings of fact in full. A preliminary injunction is appropriate to preserve the status quo until the court has an opportunity to fully review the merits of a case at trial. (2) the likelihood of harm to the defendant if an injunction is granted. (4) whether the injunction is in the public interest. The plaintiff bears the burden of showing that each of the four factors are met to support the issuance of a preliminary injunction. The court should first address the balance of the harms by determining whether the plaintiff is likely to suffer some irreparable harm absent an injunction. In this case the irreparable harm Mom N Pops alleges is inseparably linked to its claim of a violation to its First Amendment freedom of speech. Is referred to the Zoning Administrator's Office for verification that the operation of the proposed business is in compliance with the local zoning ordinances.
</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.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200307/02-5374a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</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://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1994/94a0910p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will vacate the Order of the district court and we will remand the matter for further proceedings. I. Introduction and Factual Background[fn1] AT&T is a long distance telecommunications carrier that. Its rates and practices are governed by tariffs it files with the Federal Communications Commission. Only the reseller is a customer of AT&T. The end users are customers of the reseller and not of AT&T. Appellee Winback is a reseller of 800 inbound telecommunications services and appellee Inga is its president. Hereafter we usually will refer to both simply as Winback. As are other resellers. Winback is both a customer and a competitor of AT&T. Was infringing on AT&T's trademarks and service marks. Falsely representing that it was affiliated with AT&T and passing itself off as AT&T.[fn3] The parties resolved the case by entering into a Consent Final Order and Injunction. Were responsible for any infringing acts.[fn5] Consequently. The Final Order and Injunction was amended to obligate One Stop to serve each of its sales agents with a copy of the Order.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1996/96a1253p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Hutchinson was a member of the panel which heard this appeal. Holding that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker Feldman doctrine and also that it should abstain under Younger v. We will accordingly reverse and remand for further proceedings. I. FOCUS is a Pittsburgh. Pennsylvania unincorporated association consisting of some fifty birth and foster parents whose goal is to make the Allegheny County Children and Youth Services (
</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/Jan1997/97a1502p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will reverse and remand. I. Appellants are trustees of the Anthracite Health and Welfare Fund and the fund itself (collectively. Is a general partnership consisting of George Huss. Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation. Huss Industries are all appellees. The court nonetheless held that the Fund had failed to demonstrate that it would suffer irreparable harm if temporary relief were not granted. The district court further indicated that Beaverbrook might not be obligated to make interim payments when the merits of the Fund's claim were considered if Beaverbrook showed that it would suffer irreparable harm as a result. The court declined to rule on whether all of the defendants were employers for purposes of MPPAA and. Employers are required to make interim payments. So the Fund need show only that payments were not made when demanded. The Fund contends that under Flying Tiger the court must decide whether all of the appellees are considered employers for purposes of MPPAA. The issues appellant raises are legal questions over which we exercise plenary review.
</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/Nov1997/97a1746p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have determined that there is no basis to disturb the preliminary injunction except in one respect. An impending material 2 change is one that would eviscerate the arbitration process. The court granting an injunction has the power and indeed is required to make all factual findings necessary to `set forth the reason for. . . issuance [of injunctive relief].'. If the existing `status quo' is currently causing one of the parties irreparable injury and thereby threatens to nullify the arbitration process. Then it is necessary to alter the situation to prevent the injury. The difficulty with the preliminary injunction in this case is that it permits the New Jersey plaintiffs to seek only an order barring the defendants there. Who are the plaintiffs here.
</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/Oct2000/985468.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is a trade secret case filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey by BP Chemicals Ltd. The undisputed facts are as follows. FCFC is a publicly traded Taiwanese corporation with its principal place of business in Taipei. FCFC is a subsidiary of a Taiwanese conglomerate known as the Formosa Plastics Group (FPG). Which is owned by Y.C. FCFC has a contract with JOC under which JOC will fabricate vessels in New Jersey for delivery to FCFC in Taiwan. It is performance of this contract that the instant action seeks to enjoin. The process for soliciting bids was that 4 FCFC's engineering team would prepare a bid package and send it to a purchasing group. That the purchasing group was actually the purchasing group of FPG. There is no evidence that any U.S. vendor received bid packages directly from FCFC. FCFC also has business contacts with the United States that are unrelated to its acetic acid plant project. Lummus is receiving daily faxes from FCFC in Taiwan. These sales were normally made in Taiwan through Taiwanese agents.
</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/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-7265a.html">NEVIN KATZ V. GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY<BR></A><BR>
Hoffman argued the cause for appellant.<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://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2001/012224.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lawrence to operate a facility that would have an adverse disparate racial impact upon them in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We hold that an administrative regulation cannot create an interest enforceable under section 1983 unless the interest already is i |
