Search the opinions of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal

use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"

This collection has many hidden limitations. To find out what you're really searching, see the disclaimer .

Your query jurisdiction returned 43881 results.

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

	THE CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC., V. SKYLINK TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Argued for plaintiff appellant.аа With him on the brief were John F. Argued for defendant appellee.а With him on the brief were Andra Barmash Greene. Communications Industry Association.а With him on the brief was Matthew Schruers.
	OPINION/ORDER Because we conclude that Appellees have sufficient contacts with New Jersey. We will reverse. Miller Yacht was required to present a prima facie case that jurisdiction existed. Miller Yacht is a New Jersey corporation with its principal offices in South Toms River. Are not New Jersey residents or corporations. Miller Yacht and Appellees began negotiating a deal that was intended to allow the Appellees to become exclusive marketing representatives and dealers for some of Miller Yacht's boats. Appellees stress their argument that they were each acting in their individual corporate or personal capacities and that their contacts with New Jersey should be analyzed separately. While they are correct that. Miller Yacht alleges that Steven Smith and Ivan Bogachoff were acting as partners while they negotiated with Miller Yacht.
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: The question presented in this case is whether a non Indian plaintiff consents to the civil jurisdiction of a tribal court by SMITH v. SALISH KOOTENAI COLLEGE 107 filing claims against an Indian defendant arising out of activities within the reservation where the defendant is located. Who is not a member of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (
	UNITED STATES V. TINOCO (9/4/2002, NO. 01-11012) They were convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine while on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Was on a counter narcotics patrol in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. The vessel was approximately 40 feet in length. It was approximately 300 miles from the nearest point of land. The Thetis crew launched a rigid hull inflatable boat (
	OPINION/ORDER Extends to vessels that have not been arrested within the district court's jurisdiction. Extends to vessels that have not been arrested within the court's jurisdiction. Millennium Seacarriers was formed to hold the capital stock of various vesselowning subsidiaries (collectively
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge This is an appeal by four codefendants. The threshold issue is our own appellate jurisdiction. We conclude that we have appellate jurisdiction over the Appellate Division's 2 determination of its own jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine. At issue in this case is a provision regarding interlocutory appeals by the Government of certain pretrial orders in criminal cases. Duvalier Basquin was lured to a lonely road in the Bolongo Bay area of St. He was robbed and murdered. Following The three judge panel is composed of the two Judges of the District Court of the Virgin Islands. See 48 U.S.C. з 1613a(b). 3 1 We have recently described the structure of the court system in the Virgin Islands in some detail. There are two trial courts: The Territorial Court is comparable to a state court of general jurisdiction. The statements would have to be redacted or even rewritten to preserve the defendants' Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights. If the United States Attorney or the Attorney General conducting the prosecution for such violation certifies to the Judge who granted The issue in cases raising a Bruton issue is that the prosecution would like to introduce confessions by nontestifying defendants in joint trials.
	OPINION/ORDER PRF alleged that it was entitled to payments relating to the development of an antiviral drug. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals in which the jurisdiction of the district court is based. Although the district court's docket therefore reflects that its jurisdiction is based on the existence of a federal question. We note that the proper jurisdictional basis is diversity of citizenship. There is complete diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and the defendants. In that patent law is a necessary element of one of the well pleaded claims.'
	OPINION/ORDER We are asked to decide whether an American Indian Tribal Court has subject matter jurisdiction over a tort case which arose out of an automobile accident which occurred between two non Indian parties on an Indian reservation. We now hold that the tribal court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute. Fredericks suffered serious injuries and was hospitalized for 24 days. A 1 is a non tribal company located in Dickinson. Stockert is not a member of the tribe and resides in Dickinson. Fredericks is not a member of the tribe. She was married to a tribal member (now deceased). Her adult children are enrolled members of the tribe. A 1 was working on the reservation under a subcontract agreement with LCM Corporation. The record is not clear whether Stockert was engaged in work under the contract at the time of the accident.1 There is no proof (as opposed to allegations) that we can find in the record to support the district court's finding of fact that A 1 was in performance of the contract at the time of the accident.
	OPINION/ORDER On the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Francesca Alvaro. With her on the brief were Neil A.G. Garcia had not proven that her actions were involuntary and therefore dismissed Ms. I An adverse action is an official action taken by a federal agency and imposed on an employee. Such official action is by statute clearly within the jurisdiction of the Board. An aggrieved employee can appeal such an action to the Board for a determination as to whether the action was proper. 5 U.S.C. з 7513(d) (2000). It deals with what is known as a constructive adverse action. Although a resignation is ostensibly a voluntary separation from employment. It is possible that an employee can be coerced into resigning by actions of the employing agency. Such an involuntary adverse action is known as a constructive adverse action. Garcia alleges that the constructive adverse action was prompted by a violation of her rights to be free from discrimination in the workplace. It is a
	OPINION/ORDER The issues we are required to confront are new. 1 scores of individuals who were captured by the American military during its operations in Afghanistan. The captured individuals were labeled
	A I TRD FIN INC V. PETRA INTL BNKG CORP
	OPINION/ORDER The district court held that the action was not time barred and that
	OPINION/ORDER The primary issue involves whether the relevant provision of FTAIA is jurisdictional or whether it states an additional element of a Sherman Act claim. What the outcome will be. Plaintiffs United Phosphorus and Shroff's United Chemicals are chemical manufacturers based in India. Miller & Associates is an American firm. Which was involved in a joint venture with the Indian plaintiffs. The defendants are Angus Chemical and its officers. Which we will refer to collectively as Angus. The issue of the court's subject matter jurisdiction was first raised soon after the case was filed in 1994. Angus' Rule 12(b)(1) motion was denied. That allegation is consistent with a report from the Centers for Disease Control. The parties tell us that
	UNITED STATES V. TINOCO (9/4/2002, NO. 01-11012) They were convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine while on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Was on a counter narcotics patrol in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. The vessel was approximately 40 feet in length. It was approximately 300 miles from the nearest point of land. The Thetis crew launched a rigid hull inflatable boat (
	OPINION/ORDER The question before us in this appeal is a narrow procedural one: can this court review the district court's decision to remand the case to the state court in which it was originally filed? We conclude that the best way to interpret the district court's order is as one finding that it had no subject matter jurisdiction over the claims that were 2 Nos. 01 3081 & 01 3418 remanded. Even if we are wrong and the order was simply a decision to remand all supplemental state claims to the state court. We would exercise our jurisdiction to find that there was no abuse of discretion in that decision. Was filed in Illinois state court by injured passengers and the estates of those killed as a result of the collision. The additional defendants were the manufacturers. Two from that group are relevant to this appeal: Illinois Central. GE claimed that any lawsuit these plaintiffs were bringing was inevitably and necessarily based on a federal question. Thus removal was available under 28 U.S.C. з 1441(a) and (b).). Which is a federal instrumentality.
	OPINION/ORDER 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
	OPINION/ORDER This appeal requires us to consider the unique and apparently unprecedented question of whether federal district courts have jurisdiction over consumer lawsuits brought under a federal statute that creates a private cause of action. Is silent as to whether such actions can be brought in federal courts. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. We will exercise plenary review. We will affirm. Federal law is needed to control residential telemarketing practices.
	OPINION/ORDER The issues we are required to confront are new. 1 scores of individuals who were captured by the American military during its operations in Afghanistan. The captured individuals were labeled
	OPINION/ORDER 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
	OPINION/ORDER Pollock & Sheehan were on brief. Dean & Wilder were on brief. This determination is tinged with more than the usual quotient of public interest. We set aside the district court's determination that the parties' dispute over the applicability of state jurisdiction is not yet ripe for adjudication and hold that Congress's grant of jurisdiction to the state in the Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1978. That the Narragansetts have concurrent jurisdiction over. Are entitled to invoke the Gaming Act. The former is impliedly repealed. We affirm both the district court's directive that Rhode Island enter into 2 good faith negotiations to draft a tribal state compact under which gaming operations can be mounted and its refusal to grant relief to various governmental figures and entities who have challenged the Tribe's entitlement to the extraordinary prophylaxis of the Gaming Act. THE SETTLEMENT LANDS We begin with a thumbnail sketch of how the land mass that is the breeding ground for this dispute came to be held in trust for the Tribe.
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: At issue today is whether the district court erred in dismissing. We conclude that the district court did indeed have subject matter jurisdiction. Have various usury laws that generally prohibit such high interest loans. No one doubts that when so called
	OPINION/ORDER We will affirm the District Court's confirmation of the arbitration award. I. Factual and Jurisdictional Background The parties to the arbitration are Safeguard International Partners. SIP is the general partner of SIF Management. The Agreement did not specify what 1 The partnership agreements are all governed by Delaware 3 law. court would have jurisdiction over the arbitration. Related parties who were also owed fees. SIP filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to determine who was eligible for arbitration under the Agreement. The District Court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because there was not complete diversity of citizenship between the multiple parties. Any lien from the arbitration award is released. We note that this motion might have been brought more properly under FED. Although there is not complete diversity between the parties. There is federal subject matter jurisdiction based on the Federal Arbitration Act.
	OPINION/ORDER The district court held that several of Chrysler's arguments were frivolous. We believe that removal was improper. Were not frivolous. That the exterior paint is prone to peel off. Chrysler sought a writ of mandamus from this court that would have required the district court to reconsider its remand order and its denial of limited discovery. Code з 1780(a). 2 The named plaintiffs are citizens of California. Defendant Chrysler was a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Michigan. The complete diversity requirement in class actions is based on the citizenship of the named plaintiffs at the time the action is filed. The citizenship of unnamed class members is disregarded. Also that several of its arguments were
	RICHARDSON V. RENO (12/22/1998, NO. 98-4230) Although the Ninth Circuit's order granting the rehearing en banc was dated December 2. CONCLUSION 976 This appeal arises from a district court's order granting a writ of habeas corpus to a thirty year permanent resident alien petitioner with a cocaine trafficking conviction who was detained as he attempted to enter the United States after a two day trip to Haiti. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Appellee petitioner Ralph Richardson (
	OPINION/ORDER We are confronted with the task of interpreting several provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (
	OPINION/ORDER Myers gave deposition testimony that was favorable to Jones Van Tassel concerning his knowledge of the behavior of Richland County Sheriff Harlan Muehler and Richland County Commissioner Dave Paulson toward female employees of Richland County. The defendant signatories of the Jones Van Tassel settlement agreement who are also defendants in the present action include Richland County and former Richland County Commissioners Ray Ward. Defendants agree that they will not retaliate with respect to any employment related matter against any former. Or individual whose compensation is paid. Who have provided any support to Plaintiff. The first was a breach of contract claim against Richland County.2 He asserted that Richland County breached the Jones Van Tassel settlement agreement by retaliating against him for his deposition testimony and that the retaliation resulted in his defeat in the November 2002 election for State's Attorney. Myers attempts to argue that the breach of contract claim was brought against the individual commissioners as well as Richland County.
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief. Hoag & Eliot LLP were on brief. Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP were on brief. The district court accepted the defendants' argument that they were not within its jurisdictional reach and thus were not amenable to suit. Are institutions organized under the law of Antigua and Barbuda (
	OPINION/ORDER The underlying dispute is a state law claim involving a mortgage foreclosure action. Or proceeding to which the [Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC)] is a party.
	OPINION/ORDER Are the Contacts Such That Application of American Law Would Be Reasonable? 41 a. Was seriously injured when she was sucked into the propellers of a scuba diving vessel. Plaintiff was a member of the crew of the vessel. Which was in St. We first find American maritime law potentially applicable in this case because the plaintiff is an American citizen. We consider whether applying American law is reasonable under the circumstances. Lucia might have in this case are undefined and. By this we do not mean that the vessel involved here was unlike those in traditional. The activity here was non traditional. Which as we explain is an important consideration in non shipping contexts. One of the defendants is a corporation organized under the laws of St. Was registered in St. Are so threatened or so strong that AmericaТs interests must be ignored. The significance of plaintiffТs American allegiance is an especially important factor. The relevance of the plaintiffТs having entered into her employment contract in the United States is also enhanced.
	OPINION/ORDER This is an appeal from the approval of the settlement of a nationwide class action lawsuit against Prudential Life Insurance Company alleging deceptive sales practices affecting over 8 million claimants throughout thefifty states and the District of Columbia. The class is comprised of Prudential policyholders who allegedly were the victims of fraudulent and misleading sales practices employed by Prudential's sales force. Each cause of action is based on fraud or deceptive conduct. There are no allegations of personal injury. There are no futures classes. The relief awarded includes full compensatory damages consisting of what plaintiffs thought they were purchasing from the insurance agent. There is no cap on the amount of compensatory damages for those who qualify. Although punitive damages are not included in the settlement. Federal subject matter jurisdiction is properly grounded on the alleged violations of the federal securities laws. 6 supplemental jurisdiction is proper because all of the claims arise out of a common nucleus of operative fact.
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief was Jonathan K. Of counsel was John A. With him on the brief were Kelsey I. With him on the brief were Christopher J. With him on the brief was Charles F. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were James A. With him on the brief were J. Of 2counsel was Herbert C. This is an interlocutory appeal by Cordis Corp. from a decision of the U.S. We agreed that the interlocutory appeal
	OPINION/ORDER With them on the briefs were William R. With them on the brief was Jay L. With him on the briefs were J. Open access is the essence of Orders 888 and 889. Open access transmission is expected to increase competition from alternative power suppliers. Are intended to create a market in which customers may purchase power from any of a number of suppliers. Will no longer have to purchase power from its local utility but instead may seek cheaper power anywhere in the country. All key players in the electricity market have challenged various provisions of Orders 888 and 889. Utili ties have been heavily regulated at both the federal and state levels. Economies of scale have justified the construction of large (greater than 500 MW) generation facilities. Techno logical advances in the 1970s and 1980s have permitted small plants to operate efficiently as well. These alternative suppliers have created a wholesale market for low cost power. They have and will continue to exercise that market power in order to maintain and increase market share.
	OPINION/ORDER Other United States Navy and Coast Guard ships were engaged in maritime surveillance of vessels suspected of drug trafficking in the Eastern waters of the Pacific off the coasts of Ecuador. The De Wert's helicopter was dispatched to the site of the suspicious activity. The five speedboat crew members and seven crew members of the Gran Tauro were prosecuted under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act. The remaining ten Defendants opted for a jury trial and were convicted on all charges. We have jurisdiction. Our reversal is without prejudice to re indictment and retrial because we find that the Government's evidence was sufficient to sustain these Defendants' convictions and that the Government's improper closing argument did not trigger the Double Jeopardy Clause's bar to retrial. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND1 The preferred method of smuggling cocaine from South America to the United States in the Eastern Pacific requires the use of speedboats to transfer and land drugs2 and larger logistical support vessels (
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: This interlocutory appeal involves two questions: 1) whether we have jurisdiction of it. 2) whether an individual is precluded from being a
	OPINION/ORDER I. The Internet is an
	OPINION/ORDER 1997 is governed by the transitional rules of IIRIRA. Whereas judicial review of those commenced thereafter are governed by the permanent judicial review amendments of IIRIRA (
	OPINION/ORDER These benefits were never realized. Similar life insurance policies were issued by the American National Life Insurance Company of Texas (
	OPINION/ORDER Adelson were on brief. Navares was on brief. At issue is whether a state. May be subjected to the ancillary enforcement jurisdiction of the federal courts on a theory that the judgment debtor in an action originally based on diversity is the alter ego of the state. We conclude that the state cannot be so subjected to federal court subject matter jurisdiction unless there is an independent basis for such jurisdiction.
	OPINION/ORDER LLP were on brief. P.A. were on brief. The ICCTA established the Surface Transportation Board (STB) within the Department of Transportation. See 49 U.S.C. з 701(a).
	OPINION/ORDER Bea) conclude that the case is ripe for adjudication. The judgment of the district court is REVERSED and the case REMANDED with directions to dismiss the action without prejudice. Brought suit in federal district court in diversity against La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme (
	OPINION/ORDER We will reverse the order of the District Court and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Overview of Affected Parties The underlying matter in this appeal is an accounting malpractice action. The Trustee's principal allegation is that Price Waterhouse erroneously reported in its audit that accrued interest on Litigation Trust accounts belonged to the debtor rather than to the Litigation Trust. Underlying this claim was a suit between the Litigation Trust and the debtor. Price Waterhouse's erroneous reports were relied on by the bankruptcy court to the Litigation Trust's detriment. Is not a party to the malpractice action. The Trustee alleges the debtor's estate would still be affected by the malpractice suit because the Litigation Trust is effectively a continuation of the bankruptcy estate. Who were former creditors of the debtor's estate. Is not a continuation of the bankruptcy estate for jurisdictional purposes. Price Waterhouse contends the debtor is only tangentially affected by this malpractice action after it assigned away its interests in the litigation claims.
	OPINION/ORDER 332 at 34
	OPINION/ORDER Because we believe the District Court should have determined whether it had personal jurisdiction before ruling on Sinochem's forum non conveniens motion. An American company that is not a party to this action. The coils were required to be loaded for shipment to China by April 30. Triorient was required to submit a valid bill of lading stating that the coils had been loaded on or before April 30. To transport the steel coils to China.1 1 The Vessel was chartered from MISC to Progress Bulk Carriers. Was issued. On the back of the bill of lading were
	OPINION/ORDER These benefits were never realized. Similar life insurance policies were issued by the American National Life Insurance Company of Texas (
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief. Eliot LLP were on brief. Lockhart LLP were on brief. SAB was the wholly owned subsidiary of Swiss American Holding Company. Which in turn was wholly owned by Bank of New York Inter Maritime Bank (IMB). He admitted that the funds deposited at SAB were drug proceeds that he had laundered through shell corporations organized with the help of Peter F. Notice of the impending forfeiture was published in the Antiguan Gazette and the Boston Globe. No competing claims were filed. The banks have been instructed by the Government of Antigua and Barbuda to freeze all of the assets . . . in issue in your Petition. Until the ultimate beneficial owners have been ascertained to the Government's satisfaction. This is a directive that the banks have to honor on pain of having their licences revoked and is a problem that you may well have to address on the successful conclusion of your litigation.
	OPINION/ORDER Because we conclude that Appellees have sufficient contacts with New Jersey. We will reverse. Miller Yacht was required to present a prima facie case that jurisdiction existed. Miller Yacht is a New Jersey corporation with its principal offices in South Toms River. Are not New Jersey residents or corporations. Miller Yacht and Appellees began negotiating a deal that was intended to allow the Appellees to become exclusive marketing representatives and dealers for some of Miller Yacht's boats. Appellees stress their argument that they were each acting in their individual corporate or personal capacities and that their contacts with New Jersey should be analyzed separately. While they are correct that. Miller Yacht alleges that Steven Smith and Ivan Bogachoff were acting as partners while they negotiated with Miller Yacht.
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: Mary Doe1 challenges the State of California's jurisdiction Pseudonyms are used to identify the mother. Who was domiciled on the Elem Indian Colony reservation at the time she was removed from Mary Doe's custody by the Lake County Department of Social Services. Which was passed in 1978 to ensure the tribes a role in adjudicating child custody proceedings involving Indian children. Codified at 25 U.S.C. зз 1901 1963.2 ICWA provides that tribes will have exclusive jurisdiction over child custody proceedings involving Indian children domiciled or residing on the reservation
	OPINION/ORDER I. Louise Rosmer filed an action in state court against Pfizer Inc. on behalf of herself and as class representative for
	LOPS V. LOPS (5/7/1998, NO. 97-9381) Petitioner Initiates Divorce And Custody Proceedings In Germany Petitioner and Respondent Lops were married in Germany in June 1991. Petitioner initiated divorce and custody proceedings in the German family court for the district that was the marital and habitual residence of the parties. Judge Giwitz's letter further states that Respondent Lops dispelled these concerns by arguing that he was firmly rooted in Germany and had no further connection with the United States.
	OPINION/ORDER P.S.C. were on brief. P.S.C. were on brief. That is not normally the stuff of lawsuits in federal court. Her injuries were more than trivial and led to surgery. The claims of Beatriz's family members were composed of emotional distress damages. Plaintiffs' choice of federal court was no doubt influenced by the fact that civil jury trials are unavailable in the local courts of Puerto Rico. The case raises two issues. First is the classic question whether each of the plaintiffs meets the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. з . Using an analytic approach that we have since rejected. Held that it was a legal certainty that none of the plaintiffs' claims was worth $75. We reverse and hold that it is not a legal certainty that she could not recover an award over $75. We uphold the district court's conclusion that none of Beatriz's family members satisfies the amount in controversy requirement. The second question is whether Beatriz's family members may nonetheless remain as plaintiffs under the supplemental jurisdiction statute.
	LOPS V. LOPS (5/7/1998, NO. 97-9381) Petitioner Initiates Divorce And Custody Proceedings In Germany Petitioner and Respondent Lops were married in Germany in June 1991. Petitioner initiated divorce and custody proceedings in the German family court for the district that was the marital and habitual residence of the parties. Judge Giwitz's letter further states that Respondent Lops dispelled these concerns by arguing that he was firmly rooted in Germany and had no further connection with the United States.
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: FACTS AND BACKGROUND The operative facts giving rise to this mandamus application are set forth in the civil complaint of respondents Alan D. In September 1991 Lindsey and Coughanour were involved in disputes with security guards at an indoor shopping mall on Route 51 in West Mifflin Borough. They were
	RICHARDSON V. RENO (12/22/1998, NO. 98-4230) Although the Ninth Circuit's order granting the rehearing en banc was dated December 2. CONCLUSION 976 This appeal arises from a district court's order granting a writ of habeas corpus to a thirty year permanent resident alien petitioner with a cocaine trafficking conviction who was detained as he attempted to enter the United States after a two day trip to Haiti. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Appellee petitioner Ralph Richardson (
	OPINION/ORDER We hold that federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over private causes of action brought under з 227. Circuit Judge: This case presents the question of whether federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over private causes of action brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (
	OPINION/ORDER We have jurisdiction over Glencore Grain's appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. з 1291. We hold that the Convention does not eliminate the due process requirement that a federal court have jurisdiction over a defendant's person or property in a suit to confirm a previously issued arbitration award. Among the rights and responsibilities set forth in each contract were the following arbitration and choice of law clauses: 11. The parties to the arbitration shall have the right of appealing against any Award (except on questions of law) within 30 days from the date of Award to the London Rice Brokers' Association. Any payments 4878 arising out of the Award are due to be made within 30 days of the date thereof. .... 14. The Contract shall be deemed to have been made in England and . . . shall be governed in all respects by English Law. A dispute arose between the parties concerning the delivery of rice and was submitted to arbitration before the London Rice Brokers' Association (
	OPINION/ORDER We hold that CAT claims are cognizable under з 2241. I. Facts and Procedural History Ogbudimkpa is a citizen of Nigeria who entered the United States in 1982 on a non immigrant student visa. In 1994 Ogbudimkpa was convicted and sentenced on state drug charges and. Return (`refouler') or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
	HUNTER DOUGLAS V. HARMONIC DESIGN
	01-2301 -- U.S. V. HAHN -- 03/04/2004 Hahn was convicted of marijuana and firearms violations and sentenced to forty years' imprisonment. We hold that we have subject matter jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Part III.C of the Per Curiam opinion is an opinion concurring in the result.
	PACRIM PIZZA COMPANY V. ROBERT PIRIE Argued for appellee.
	OPINION/ORDER At issue in this appeal is Congress's deceptively simple prohibition on our review of district court remand orders. Asking that the court require Purdue to notify people who have received OxyContin of its potential harm. DaWalt sought to ensure that the claims would be heard in state court by stipulating that
	OPINION/ORDER It is now before us for the second time after a remand by the Supreme Court. The main question today is this: whether a federal court has jurisdiction over a local carrier's claim that a state utility commission misinterpreted interconnection agreement provisions on reciprocal compensation that are based on federal law. We hold that there is federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. з 1331. That the action was not filed on a timely basis. The case will be remanded for further proceedings on the incumbent local carrier's contract misinterpretation claim. Telephone service in a local calling area was provided by a single local exchange carrier (local carrier). The duty to interconnect is coupled with other duties set forth in з 251. When the direction is reversed. The terms under which two competing local carriers interconnect their networks and provide for reciprocal compensation are set forth VERIZON MARYLAND v. Inc.) was providing local telephone service in Maryland. (We will refer to MFS Intelenet in the name of its successor.
	OPINION/ORDER Cross appeals by certain plaintiffs from so much of the district court's order as * The present caption in these consolidated appeals lists as
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: Roy Parrott is currently serving a life sentence for a 1976 murder conviction. He is appealing the dismissal by the District Court of the Virgin Islands of his petition for collateral relief under the Virgin Islands habeas statute. Parrott's claim poses a variation on issues we have been facing when we interpret the 1984 amendments to the Virgin Islands Revised Organic Act. That the correct answer is
	OPINION/ORDER Died when her Ford Expedition patrol vehicle rolled over while she was driving on a dirt road within the Navajo Nation. The road is a reservation road. There is no federal or state right of way. The road is not located on non Indian fee land. The cause of the rollover accident is disputed. Ford asserts that Todecheene was not wearing a seatbelt. Counter that the Ford Expedition was defective and the seatbelt was not working properly. Was defective and unreasonably dangerous in design or manufacture. Financed the purchase of the Expedition Because our resolution of the subject matter jurisdiction question is outcome determinative. The district court also held that Ford was not required to exhaust tribal court remedies before challenging the tribal court's jurisdiction in federal court. Because jurisdiction was plainly lacking and exhaustion would serve only to delay the proceedings. STANDARDS OF REVIEW Whether a tribal court properly exercised its jurisdiction is The Appellants did not argue this theory of subject matter jurisdiction in their Opening Briefs.
	OPINION/ORDER Inc. is a Delaware corporation located in Florence. The ESAB Group charged in its amended complaint that the misappropriation was effected
	OPINION/ORDER 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.
	A. LASHAWN V. BARRY JR. MARION S.
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: These three appeals are the latest round in a seemingly never ending bout of litigation between Mydrin. The first is from an order of the district court declining to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act. The second is from the district court's order declining jurisdiction and remanding a separate declaratory relief action subsequently brought in state court by Mydrin against Travelers and removed to the district court by Travelers (the
	SMITH V. GTE CORP. (1/4/2001, NO. 99-12833) GTE argued APSC has primary jurisdiction over the claims and that the district court should abstain until the plaintiffs' claims were presented to and reviewed by the APSC. The plaintiffs appealed.
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: These three appeals are the latest round in a seemingly never ending bout of litigation between Mydrin. The first is from an order of the district court declining to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act. The second is from the district court's order declining jurisdiction and remanding a separate declaratory relief action subsequently brought in state court by Mydrin against Travelers and removed to the district court by Travelers (the
	SMITH V. GTE CORP. (1/4/2001, NO. 99-12833) GTE argued APSC has primary jurisdiction over the claims and that the district court should abstain until the plaintiffs' claims were presented to and reviewed by the APSC. The plaintiffs appealed.
	OPINION/ORDER The facts giving rise to this dispute are undisputed and merit only a brief discussion before turning to the determinative legal issue of subject matter jurisdiction. The Cocker Spaniel was returned to Hudson and the Officers faced discipline by the Police Department. The indemnification agreement under which Hudson attempts to collect the consent judgment from the City provides: Whenever any claim is made or any civil action is commenced against an Employee for injuries to persons or property caused by negligence or other acts of the Employee while in the course of his employment. The Employer will pay for or engage in or furnish the services of an Attorney to advise the Employee as to the claim and to appear for and represent the Employee in the action. Is awarded against an Employee as the result of any civil action for personal injuries or property damage caused by the Employee while in the course of his employment. The Employer will indemnify the employee or will pay. The Chief Legal Officer will make the selection of the attorney or attorneys to represent the Employee in any particular case.
	01-5133 -- U.S. V. BOTEFUHR -- 10/31/2002 The Appellants are precluded from litigating the value of the Hondo stock in the present action. 184 F.3d at 1179. Less than two years after the sale and over four years before Davenport and Vestal were to commence paying their promissory notes. Her last will and testament were admitted to probate in Tulsa.
	96-2221 -- ARCHULETA V. LACUESTA -- 12/03/1997 Should be remanded because removal was not authorized by 28 U.S.C.
	OPINION/ORDER We are. Paragraph 52 of the complaint stated that
	OPINION/ORDER To avoid confusion on the part of readers of the various decisions we will continue to refer to him as
	OPINION/ORDER The facts underlying this dispute are as follows. At the center of this case is Rule 11(c)(1)(A). Or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected. The requirements of the rule are straightforward: The party seeking sanctions must serve the Rule 11 motion on the opposing party at least twenty one days before filing the motion with the district court. Sanctions may be sought only if the challenged pleading is not withdrawn or corrected within twenty one days after service of the motion. Motions have been disallowed as untimely when filed after a point in the litigation when the lawyer sought to be sanctioned lacked an opportunity to correct or withdraw the challenged submission.
	OPINION/ORDER King were disqualified from participation in the poll on rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc are hereby denied. Some of the dissent's objections are different from those expressed in the dissent from the panel majority opinion. There is a common denominator. Because I do not believe that the text of з 1367 is consistent with the dissent's policy concerns. Because I do not believe that the federal courts are empowered to employ policy arguments to trump the plain meaning of Congress' words. The first is that diversity is a disfavored form of federal jurisdiction. The second is that Rule 23 is a disfavored rule in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The result the majority opinion reaches is
	OPINION/ORDER Are afforded absolute immunity for their judicial acts. We hold that they are. As do all of the circuit courts which have decided the issue. We further hold that the Municipal Court Judge's actions which prompted this case were taken in a judicial capacity in a case over which she had jurisdiction. We will affirm. I. The facts underlying this appeal are brief. For what was to have been his arraignment on two counts of harassment. Petty disorderly persons offenses.1 Figueroa was charged with the offenses after having sent a harassing letter and documents to two New Jersey Superior Court judges who had previously handled his divorce and child custody dispute. 1. It is a petty disorderly persons offense if any person. Figueroa told Judge Blackburn that he was there not to enter a plea but to challenge the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court over the offenses with which he was charged. The proceeding was recorded: UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Robert Figueroa? FIGUEROA: There is a Robert David Figueroa. FIGUEROA: I have papers here.
	OPINION/ORDER Whose primary assets are voting and nonvoting stock in Ervin Industries. Who have interests in two of the three trusts. Are the other beneficiaries of the voting stock trust. The essence of her claim was that Bank One's lending relationship with Ervin Industries caused Bank One to have a conflict of interest and abdicate its responsibilities as trustee in the course of three business transactions. We conclude that dismissal was proper. The Trusts and the Parties There are three trusts involved in this litigation. Two of these trusts are testamentary. The first testamentary trust was created by John Ervin. Ervin Industries is a Michigan corporation with its principal place of business in Michigan. Is its current president. The primary asset of Ervin's testamentary trust was Ervin Industries' Class A voting stock. His daughter and four grandchildren are the income beneficiaries. Are parties to this suit. This substantial trust was divided into five separate trusts in 1987 so that each beneficiary had his or her own trust.
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: We granted en banc review in this case to resolve a question to which we have given inconsistent answers: Do we have jurisdiction to hear an appeal when the defendant entered a guilty plea in which he waived his right to appeal? Our cases offer two different views of the question whether we have jurisdiction under these circumstances. We have held that
	OPINION/ORDER Argued and was on the briefs for the appellants. Were also on the briefs for the appellants. Argued and was on the briefs for the appellees. Were also on the briefs for the appellees. (2) a
	MEIER V. SUN INT'L HOTELS, LTD. (4/19/2002, NO. 01-14431) Plaintiffs were vacationing on Paradise Island in the Bahamas. Victor was struck by a commercial motorboat and sustained massive injuries. Victor was airlifted to Miami. He survived but lost his arm and was permanently disfigured. The Meiers subsequently filed this diversity action
	MEIER V. SUN INT'L HOTELS, LTD. (4/19/2002, NO. 01-14431) Plaintiffs were vacationing on Paradise Island in the Bahamas. Victor was struck by a commercial motorboat and sustained massive injuries. Victor was airlifted to Miami. He survived but lost his arm and was permanently disfigured. The Meiers subsequently filed this diversity action
	OPINION/ORDER P.C. were on brief for appellant.
	OPINION/ORDER Concluding that these State parties were indispensable parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. Are subject to review by State public service commissions and thereafter. The parties found themselves in a dispute over whether Bell Atlantic had to pay reciprocal compensation for its subscribers' telephone calls made to Internet Service Providers (
	OPINION/ORDER United States Department of Justice were on brief. Now is subject to deportation because he has committed crimes of moral turpitude such as theft. While Goncalves' application was still pending. That at least those aliens whose applications were pending on the date of AEDPA's enactment. Goncalves' application was dismissed without being heard by the BIA and he was taken into custody by federal officials. This he was required to do by the precedent of this court. Was correct in the interpretation of the statute. He should have filed in the court of appeals. Her decision is entitled to deference. The first is which federal court. That Congress neither explicitly nor by implication repealed the grant of jurisdiction in 28 U.S.C. 2241 to issue writs of habeas corpus to persons in federal custody which the federal district courts have had since 1789 and which has always been available in immigration cases. If there is jurisdiction. Is of a type traditionally resolved by the courts. The second major set of issues addresses the merits: is the Attorney General correct in her interpretation that AEDPA 440(d).
	OPINION/ORDER Plaintiffs were vacationing on Paradise Island in the Bahamas. Victor was struck by a commercial motorboat and sustained massive injuries. Victor was airlifted to Miami. He survived but lost his arm and was permanently disfigured. Plaintiffs claimed that the Sun Defendants were partially responsible for the motorboat and. The motorboat was owned and operated by a It is undisputed that the district court had original subject matter jurisdiction through diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. з 1332. The Plaintiffs are citizens of Utah and the Defendants are foreign Bahamian corporations. The Plaintiffs requested that the court dismiss the Sheraton claims without prejudice in order to pursue this appeal. 3 2 1 Bahamian water sports vendor conducting business at the Atlantis Hotel and Casino (
	OPINION/ORDER Tribune is in violation of the FCC's newspaper/broadcast cross ownership rule. After the last temporary waiver had expired and while Tribune's application for the permanent waiver was pending. Although we are sympathetic to Ellis's frustration in the face of agency inaction. That the same entity may own or control two television stations in the same market so long as: (i) at the time the application is filed. At least one of the stations is not ranked among the top four stations in audience rankings in the DMA. (Transferor) & Tribune Television Co. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 November 16 application sought a waiver of the television duopoly rule.2 While Tribune's application was pending. Although WTXX is not ranked among the top four stations in the Hartford New Haven DMA. Eight independently owned and operated television stations would not have remained in this DMA after Tribune's proposed acquisition. Operates or controls a daily newspaper and the grant of such license will result in: . . . (3) The Grade A contour of a TV station.
	OPINION/ORDER Opinion issued 9/8/00 is vacated. The Morgans contend that Interstate's claim for money damages should not have been presented to the jury. We are of opinion that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Its judgment is vacated and the case remanded for dismissal for that reason. The Morgans asserted that the district court did not have jurisdiction because Interstate's complaint did not include a request for 1 The complaint alleged only state law questions on account of the business agreements between the parties. There is no such allegation in the complaint in this case. 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) provides that:
	POSNER V. ESSEX INS. CO. (6/25/1999, NO. 97-5760) We conclude that the district court generally was correct that it had personal jurisdiction over Salem with respect to the claims arising out of Essex's failure to pay Posner's insurance policy claims but not with respect to Posner's allegations against Salem regarding failure to resolve the bonus dispute or SMC's claims against Salem for mismanagement of Essex. The district court should have dismissed the count alleging civil conspiracy against Essex for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The district court should not have dismissed the remaining claims due to international abstention but should have stayed them instead. The complaint set out seven counts. Civil Conspiracy a. against Salem on the policies: dismissed on personal jurisdiction b. against Essex on the policies: dismissed for failure to state a claim c. against Salem on the bonus: dismissed on personal jurisdiction d. against Essex on the bonus: dismissed for failure to state a claim All dismissals are without prejudice.
	OPINION/ORDER We conclude that the district court generally was correct that it had personal jurisdiction over Salem with respect to the claims arising out of Essex's failure to pay Posner's insurance policy claims but not with respect to Posner's allegations against Salem regarding failure to resolve the bonus dispute or SMC's claims against Salem for mismanagement of Essex. That some claims were left unaddressed. The case was closed. The district court should have dismissed the count alleging civil conspiracy against Essex for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The district court should not have dismissed the remaining claims due to international abstention but should have stayed them instead. Civil Conspiracy a. against Salem on the policies: dismissed on personal jurisdiction b. against Essex on the policies: dismissed for failure to state a claim c. against Salem on the bonus: dismissed on personal jurisdiction d. against Essex on the bonus: dismissed for failure to state a claim All dismissals are without prejudice.
	POSNER V. ESSEX INS. CO. (6/25/1999, NO. 97-5760) We conclude that the district court generally was correct that it had personal jurisdiction over Salem with respect to the claims arising out of Essex's failure to pay Posner's insurance policy claims but not with respect to Posner's allegations against Salem regarding failure to resolve the bonus dispute or SMC's claims against Salem for mismanagement of Essex. The district court should have dismissed the count alleging civil conspiracy against Essex for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The district court should not have dismissed the remaining claims due to international abstention but should have stayed them instead. The complaint set out seven counts. Civil Conspiracy a. against Salem on the policies: dismissed on personal jurisdiction b. against Essex on the policies: dismissed for failure to state a claim c. against Salem on the bonus: dismissed on personal jurisdiction d. against Essex on the bonus: dismissed for failure to state a claim All dismissals are without prejudice.
	OPINION/ORDER We conclude that the district court generally was correct that it had personal jurisdiction over Salem with respect to the claims arising out of Essex's failure to pay Posner's insurance policy claims but not with respect to Posner's allegations against Salem regarding failure to resolve the bonus dispute or SMC's claims against Salem for mismanagement of Essex. The district court should have dismissed the count alleging civil conspiracy against Essex for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The district court should not have dismissed the remaining claims due to international abstention but should have stayed them instead. That some claims were left unaddressed. The case was closed. Civil Conspiracy a. against Salem on the policies: dismissed on personal jurisdiction b. against Essex on the policies: dismissed for failure to state a claim c. against Salem on the bonus: dismissed on personal jurisdiction d. against Essex on the bonus: dismissed for failure to state a claim All dismissals are without prejudice.
	KIDWELL BILLY RAY V. DEPT ARMY
	OPINION/ORDER The district court entered judgment for the defendant but in an amount that was substantially less than the amount of his counterclaim. We will affirm the judgment of the district court without further comment. As it is based upon that court's assessment of the evidence. We will discuss whether the amount in controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C.A. 421.04) was. 000 minimum required for diversity jurisdiction when the suit was filed. Also alleged that it was entitled to recoup an additional $3. Brown further argues that Spectacor conceded that even Spectacor's claim to recover benefits from Brown was a
	OPINION/ORDER The district court entered judgment for the defendant but in an amount that was substantially less than the amount of his counterclaim. The defendant appeals. We will affirm the judgment of the district court without further comment. As it is based upon that court's assessment of the evidence. We will discuss whether the amount in controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C.A. 421.04) was. 000 minimum required for diversity jurisdiction when the suit was filed. Also alleged that it was entitled to recoup an additional $3. Brown further argues that Spectacor conceded that even Spectacor's claim to recover benefits from Brown was a
	OPINION/ORDER The court determined that it did not have admiralty jurisdiction but nonetheless adjudicated both the federal admiralty claims and a supplemental state law claim in favor of Marlineer. The district court did not have supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. з 1367. The entire case should have been dismissed on purely jurisdictional grounds. Told Littell that the asking price for the Teddy Bear was $850. Littell told Tate that he was interested. That he could not complete the transaction right away because his financial situation was uncertain. Littell handed over a deposit of twenty dollars but no other terms were agreed upon at that time. The findings of fact and conclusions of law include two pages of legal analysis titled
	OPINION/ORDER The court determined that it did not have admiralty jurisdiction but nonetheless adjudicated both the federal admiralty claims and a supplemental state law claim in favor of Marlineer. The district court did not have supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. з 1367. The entire case should have been dismissed on purely jurisdictional grounds. Told Littell that the asking price for the Teddy Bear was $850. Littell told Tate that he was interested. That he could not complete the transaction right away because his financial situation was uncertain. Littell handed over a deposit of twenty dollars but no other terms were agreed upon at that time. The findings of fact and conclusions of law include two pages of legal analysis titled
	OPINION/ORDER That the case was not ripe. That the District Court should have abstained from hearing the case. We hold that there was no personal jurisdiction over Appellants and reverse the District Court. BACKGROUND Yahoo! is an Internet service provider which has its principal place of business in Santa Clara. Nazi discussions have occurred in Yahoo!'s chat rooms and Nazi related paraphernalia have appeared for sale on its auction website. Demanding that Yahoo! prohibit the display of the Nazi materials because the practice was illegal in France. The court found jurisdiction was proper under Section 46 of France's New Code of Civil Procedure. Which are accessible in France. The imposition of penalties is provisional in YAHOO! Are still available through www.yahoo.com. Modified its hate speech policy to preclude use of its services to promote groups that are known for taking violent positions against others because of race or similar factors. Yahoo! filed a complaint in the Northern District of California requesting a declaration that the French court's orders of May 22 and November 20 were not recognizable or enforceable in the United States.
	OPINION/ORDER As potentially liable defendants.3 Defendant AT&T is listed as
	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 Most of the casualties were Kenyan. The plaintiffs in this case are all Kenyan: victims. The latter provides that
	OPINION/ORDER Which Defendant AT&T is listed as
	OPINION/ORDER These eleven consolidated[fn1] actions were brought by concerned Pennsylvanians who believed that they were being charged excessive fees and interest on their credit cards and that these charges violated Pennsylvania consumer protection laws. None of the defendants are Pennsylvania lending institutions. The cases were all brought in Pennsylvania state courts and then removed by the defendants to the federal system.[fn2] These cases require that we resolve the conflict between state consumer protection law and federal banking law. We will first consider the district courts' holdings that removal jurisdiction was proper. We will reverse the district courts on this issue. The Supreme Court's conservative extension of the complete preemption doctrine and the application of the Third Circuit's two pronged test establish that federal jurisdiction is lacking in those cases in which the plaintiffs did not amend their complaints to allege federal claims. We will next consider claims particular to these actions. We will affirm the district court to the extent that the court held that plaintiffs' state law claims regarding late charges and over limit fees were substantively preempted.
	PACHECO DE PEREZ V. AT&T CO. (4/29/1998, NO. 96-8792) Dismissed the consolidated actions under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The threshold question on appeal is whether. The district court should have remanded the case back to the Georgia state court for lack of federal jurisdiction. Although there is complete diversity among the parties. Removal of a case on diversity grounds is not permitted if one or more of the defendants is a citizen of the state in which the suit was originally filed. 28 U.S.C. з 1441(b). Because the individual defendants in this case are Georgia citizens. That the presence of the Georgia defendants should not prevent removal of the plaintiffs' lawsuits because the Georgia defendants were fraudulently joined in order to defeat original diversity jurisdiction. The defendants further assert that federal question jurisdiction exists in this case under four alternative theories. They argue that the plaintiffs' complaint presents a substantial federal question because the plaintiffs must rely on a federal treaty to prove that they have standing to proceed in the Georgia state courts.
	OPINION/ORDER Three of the issues are of first impression to this Court. The first issue is whether worldwide service of process authorized under Section 12 of the Clayton Act. Upon foreign corporations is independent of the specific venue provision contained in that statute. The second issue is whether a federal court's personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation in antitrust litigation may be predicated on the foreign corporation's contacts with the United States as a whole (national contacts analysis). The final issue is whether jurisdictional discovery from foreign nationals may proceed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without first resorting to the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (Hague Convention or Convention). 23 U.S.T. 2555. Those actions were transferred to. Are: PPG Industries. Have stipulated to certification of a national class consisting of all direct purchasers of automotive refinishes from the defendants. The appellants submitted affidavits stating that they did not have presence in the state of Pennsylvania and never sold any automotive refinish paint to any customers in Pennsylvania.
	PACHECO DE PEREZ V. AT&T CO. (4/29/1998, NO. 96-8792) Dismissed the consolidated actions under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The threshold question on appeal is whether. The district court should have remanded the case back to the Georgia state court for lack of federal jurisdiction. Although there is complete diversity among the parties. Removal of a case on diversity grounds is not permitted if one or more of the defendants is a citizen of the state in which the suit was originally filed. 28 U.S.C. з 1441(b). Because the individual defendants in this case are Georgia citizens. That the presence of the Georgia defendants should not prevent removal of the plaintiffs' lawsuits because the Georgia defendants were fraudulently joined in order to defeat original diversity jurisdiction. The defendants further assert that federal question jurisdiction exists in this case under four alternative theories. They argue that the plaintiffs' complaint presents a substantial federal question because the plaintiffs must rely on a federal treaty to prove that they have standing to proceed in the Georgia state courts.
	OPINION/ORDER ORDER Rio Tinto's petition for rehearing and for rehearing en banc is granted in part. Are hereby withdrawn. A superseding opinion and dissent will be filed concurrently with this order. Plaintiffs are current or former residents of Bougainville. Who allege that they or their family members were the victims of numerous violations of international law as a result of defendant mining corporation Rio Tinto. Which provides that
	OPINION/ORDER The insurance companies are now insolvent and in receivership. Which are located in their respective statesнMissouri. Appellee Prudential Savings is a federally chartered savings bank. Its principal place of business and its home office are located in the State of Georgia. Allegedly that money was later transferred to another bank account in Tennessee and then to Frankel's Swiss bank account. After the alleged fraud was exposed and the insurance companies went insolvent. The suit alleged that Prudential Savings was negligent and breached its contractual and fiduciary duties to FAL when it allegedly permitted the $69 million to be released to Frankel without proper instruction from FAL's officers. After the suit was filed. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Prudential Savings did have sufficient contacts with the State of Missouri. Appellants noted that Prudential Savings maintained a Web siteнwww.prudential.com/banking2нon which Prudential Savings' services are offered to Missouri residents.
	02-8046 -- ESTATE OF ADAM HARSHMAN V. JACKSON HOLE MOUNTAIN RESORT CORP. -- 08/16/2004 Sixteen year old Adam Harshman was fatally injured while snowboarding over a
	OPINION/ORDER Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. з 1291.1 For the reasons set forth below. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs are Tennessee corporations engaged in the industry of textile development and promotion. Henderson and Englar are not residents of Tennessee. Nano Tex is not a Tennessee corporation. Burlington Industries' employees with access to Intera's technology were required to provide
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief were David M. Of counsel on the brief were Donald E. The appeal was submitted for our decision. We hold we have jurisdiction to review the order. Only insofar as its constitutionality is challenged.2 Because we also hold. To reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard were not violated during the proceedings leading to the order. The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and its Committee on Admission and Practice (the
	OPINION/ORDER Which was designed to reduce the accumulation of wax in the shafts of oil wells. One of which was Pennzoil's refinery in Pennsylvania. We will reverse and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. Pennzoil is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in Texas. The two Colelli entities are Ohio corporations with principal places of business in Ohio. Colelli is in the oil well maintenance business. Approximately sixty percent of the Penn grade and Corning grade crude oil produced by the Ohio producers was sold and shipped to Pennsylvania refineries. One of these was Pennzoil's Rouseville refinery. The other was a refinery owned by Witco in Bradford. The remaining oil was sold to a refinery in West Virginia. Once the issue was brought to his attention. The other defendants are Ohio corporations with principal places of business in Ohio. Which was granted. The two appeals have been consolidated. Although the propriety of personal jurisdiction is in dispute.
	SCHAFER V. DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR
	OPINION/ORDER That California order of dismissal was not appealed. Is now final. We conclude that we have jurisdiction. Was scheduled to fly from Bangkok to Los Angeles. Thai Airways employees refused to allow Gupta to board because they determined his United States Visa was invalid. Gupta was unable to fly to Los Angeles on this date and claims he missed a lucrative business meeting. Thai Airways successfully moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction1 asserting it was a
	OPINION/ORDER 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. з 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
	OPINION/ORDER For Appellee.
	OPINION/ORDER We have jurisdiction over its timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. з 1291. Which is now owned by Rose Lee LLC (collectively
	OPINION/ORDER Judge Gibson was unable to review this opinion prior to its filing. The opinion is consistent with Judge Gibson's vote at conference. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. з 1291. Alleging that their properties have been contaminated by pollutants from the Asarco site. Were emitted into the air from stacks and other sources at the Omaha plant. Defendant avers that a substantial volume of these air emissions were captured by emission control devices 3 the air from the site did not have adverse public health effects. Plaintiffs were required to show that they each individually satisfied the $75.
	KERR-MCGEE V. FARLEY Names of counsel appearing on the appellees' supplemental brief were omitted from the attorney designation list. A corrected version of that page of the opinion is attached for your convenience. Arguing that the Navajo Tribal Court is without jurisdiction to adjudicate nuclear tort claims against Kerr McGee. Who are members of the Navajo Tribe and residents of the reservation. Because there is no explicit mention of exclusive federal court jurisdiction over Price Anderson claims. It concluded that the proper practice was to stay the federal court proceedings until the tribal court had determined its jurisdiction. We are unaware of any appeal by Kerr McGee of the Navajo District Court order. DISCUSSION The scope of a tribal court's jurisdiction is a federal question over which federal district courts have jurisdiction. The district court's determination of the proper scope of the tribal exhaustion rule is reviewed de novo. A The tribal exhaustion rule was created in National Farmers. The Supreme Court concluded: [T]he existence and extent of a tribal court's jurisdiction will require a careful examination of tribal sovereignty.
	OPINION/ORDER Tuazon was diagnosed with a chronic lung disorder in 2003 in his native Philippines. Who was born and lived in the Philippines. A condition he suspected was smoking related. Tuazon was diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder in 2003. Reynolds' market share in Washington was 29 31%. While its national market share was 23 24%. Reynolds was conducting sophisticated market research. Reynolds organized local opposition to city and state legislation that would have banned or limited smoking and cigarette advertising. It is not necessary to summarize the history of tobacco litigation here. Information on tobacco related litigation and the master settlement agreement is made available by the National Association of Attorneys General. Tuazon claims that Reynolds was able to suppress information regarding tobacco's addictive and corrosive health effects. Tuazon bears the burden of showing that jurisdiction is appropriate. The decision was based on written submissions only. Exercise of in personam jurisdiction over an out of state defendant is limited by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
	OPINION/ORDER (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.
	OPINION/ORDER (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.
	OPINION/ORDER Where the defendants are located. As is relevant to this case. Section 1631 provides that
	97-1442 -- U.S. V. BURCH -- 03/04/1999 Which was construed as a motion to vacate. The government's evidence is insufficient to permit us to take judicial notice of where the offense was committed. We vacate the judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: Eric Noel and Sandra and Brian Hall are no strangers to the inside of a courtroom. This lawsuit is the fifth between Noel and Sandra Hall. On the ground that they should have been asserted as compulsory counterclaims in earlier statecourt litigation. Sell Red Hot Prospect a horse that was no such thing. Sandra Hall's last name was Johnson. A. State Court Litigation The unhappy collaboration between Sandra Hall and Noel resulted in four suits litigated in Washington State courts (a fifth suit was filed but never litigated): two actions concerning the mobile home in the small claims department of the Clark County District Court (eventually consolidated on appeal). Small Claims Suits Concerning the Mobile Home Two separate actions related to the mobile home were litigated in the small claims department of the district court in Clark County. Skamania County Superior Court Suit Concerning the Investment in Red While the mobile home suits were pending against him. (The Clark County suit is discussed below.).
	GENETIC IMPLANT V. CORE-VENT
	OPINION/ORDER The Morgans contend that Interstate's claim for money damages should not have been presented to the jury. The panel decision was vacated and rehearing en banc granted on November 9. Because the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to decide the case. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. з 1291 and do not address the Morgans' damages argument or Interstate's cross appeal for attorney's fees. This last chance was embodied in a letter contract. Alleged federal question subject matter jurisdiction under 28 The letter agreement is referred to in the Special Verdict as a Termination Agreement. 2 Interstate sought injunctive relief to enjoin the Morgans from displaying the BP logo and also sought damages. The Supreme Court has stated that it is the
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Louis R. Graham J. 3 Jenkins were on the brief for amicus curiae Global Rights in support of appellants in Nos. 05 5062. With him on the briefs were Barbara J. Land were on the brief of amicus curiae Omar Deghayes in support of the detainees. Morton Sklar was on the brief of amicus curiae The World Organization for Human Rights USA in support of the detainees. David Overlock Stewart was on the brief of amici curiae Legal and Historical Scholars in support of the detainees. Hafetz was on the brief of amici curiae British and American Habeas Scholars in support of the detainees. Were on 4 the brief for amicus curiae Federal Public Defender Habeas Corpus Counsel in support of the detainees. Meister were on the brief for amicus curiae the National Institute of Military Justice in support of the detainees. With him on the briefs were Paul D. Attorney at the time the briefs were filed. Samp were on the brief of amici curiae Washington Legal Foundation and Allied Educational Foundation in support of the United States of America.
	OPINION/ORDER Hausfeld was on brief. Cantor were on brief. The period is extended to three years if the employer's violation is
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge We are called upon to decide whether we have jurisdiction to review a district court's discretionary refusal to downward depart from the applicable Sentencing Guideline range when that refusal is based in whole or in part on an alleged mistake of fact. The answer is a ringing
	OPINION/ORDER The Tribe also argues that the Indian Gaming and Regulatory Act preempts any jurisdiction the State of California might have to apply and enforce California's laws against the Tribe. The Tribe asserts that Public 89 Law 280 is invalid because the Tenth Amendment precludes Congress from directing California to assume criminal jurisdiction over Indian lands. We find that neither the District Attorney nor the Sheriff is entitled to qualified immunity because they violated clearly established law by executing a warrant outside of their jurisdiction. A. The Bishop Paiute Tribe (
	02-1548 -- BENTON V. CAMECO CORPORATION -- 07/23/2004 The district court granted Cameco's motion to dismiss on the grounds that Cameco did not have sufficient contacts with Colorado to allow the court to exercise personal jurisdiction over Cameco. Because we agree with the district court that personal jurisdiction is inappropriate in this case. Benton is a Colorado resident who has been engaged in the business of mining. Cameco is a Saskatchewan company organized under the Canada Business Corporations Act with its principal offices in Saskatchewan. Between 1988 and 1996. The transactions were
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were David G. With them on the brief were Laura S. Owen moved in the district court to dismiss an indictment charging tax evasion and related crimes on the ground that the indictment was beyond the prosecutorial jurisdiction of Independent Counsel Kenneth W. It gave Indepen dent Counsel Starr jurisdiction to investigate whether any individuals or entities have committed a violation of any federal criminal law. Who are reasonably believed to have committed a violation of any federal criminal law arising out of such matters. Including persons or entities who have engaged in an unlawful conspiracy or who have aided or abetted any federal offense. The Special Division ordered that the Independent Counsel have prosecutorial jurisdiction to fully investigate and prose cute the subject matter with respect to which the Attor ney General requested the appointment of independent counsel. These grants of authority were under 28 U.S.C. s 593(b)(1). Secret Service records indicate that James Riady had made several visits to the White House in the days before the payment to Hubbell was made.
	OPINION/ORDER Luckerman was on brief. Russell was on brief. Were on brief. We reverse.
	OPINION/ORDER We agree that subject matter jurisdiction exists and that the malpractice claims were properly dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Both firms had served as class counsel in a 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 separate earlier securities class action and it is the firms' conduct in litigating the securities action that is now alleged by the plaintiffs to have constituted malpractice. The district court dismissed the malpractice complaint for failure to state a claim after determining that defendants' actions were reasonable as a matter of law. (2) diversity jurisdiction if non diverse plaintiffs are dismissed as unnecessary parties. While we are querulous as to the first two contentions. The first of several class action complaints were filed in federal courts against the Bennett Funding Group (
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: We must decide whether there is an independent basis for federal jurisdiction to hear a challenge to an arbitration award of zero dollars. The court dismissed the action as the award was less than the jurisdictional amount ($75. CIRCUIT CITY STORES 1347 because the presence of federal questions in the underlying arbitration is insufficient to confer jurisdiction under Garrett v. We agree that the amount in controversy for purposes of diversity jurisdiction over a petition to vacate an arbitral award is the amount awarded in the arbitration proceeding. We do not need to decide whether it is ever possible for federal question jurisdiction to lie if a petitioner complains about an arbitrator's manifest disregard of federal law. Luong's petition shows on its face that his complaint is not about manifest disregard. Is rather about the arbitrator's misinterpretation and misapplication of Toyota Motor Manufacturing. This we have no authority to consider. The dispute was arbitrated. The arbitrator found that Luong was neither disabled nor regarded as disabled under Toyota.
	OPINION/ORDER If the tribe was acting pursuant to its inherent power when it prosecuted Enas. Then the dual prosecutions were undertaken by separate sovereigns. Were therefore constitutionally permissible. The tribe was exercising power delegated by Congress. Then it was acting as an
	OPINION/ORDER ORDER The Petition for Rehearing in No. 00 35002 is denied and the Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc in No. 00 35002 is denied. 2002 is amended. The amendments to the opinion are as follows: 1. Replace the words
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Robert F. Brink mann were on the brief for amici curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America. On the brief were Peter D. The only circuit then to have considered
	OPINION/ORDER The appeal was not submitted as NRG Energy. Which was in bankruptcy proceedings. Argued the case for the appellant and was on the briefs. Were also on the briefs. Argued the case for the appellees and was on the joint briefs of the appellees. Hixson were also on the joint briefs as attorneys for the same parties. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the joint PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA v. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the brief of amici curiae State of Washington and State of Oregon in support of plaintiff. Circuit Judge: We must decide whether federal removal jurisdiction lies over California state court actions alleging that several power companies fraudulently failed to deliver reserve energy that might otherwise have helped to avert the state's energy crises of 2000 and 2001. Perhaps the culmination of this rethinking was California's decision in 1996 to initiate an aggressive market experiment to deregulate and to restructure its electricity markets.
	OPINION/ORDER Appointed Starr as Independent Counsel to investigate to the maximum extent authorized by the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994 whether any individuals or entities have committed a violation of any federal criminal law. Id. at The OIC also was empowered to investigate any Id. Who are reasonably believed to have committed a violation of any federal criminal law arising out of such matters.
	OPINION/ORDER The appeal was not submitted as NRG Energy. Which was in bankruptcy proceedings. Argued the case for the appellant and was on the briefs. Were also on the briefs. Argued the case for the appellees and was on the joint briefs of the appellees. Hixson were also on the joint briefs as attorneys for the same parties. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the brief of amici curiae State of Washington and State of Oregon in support of plaintiff. 2004 is hereby amended as follows: At page 8863 of the slip opinion. Delete the parenthetical quotation and add the following two sentences at the conclusion of footnote 17 as follows: At issue are not state regulatory schemes for employment discrimination. Which might indirectly and unintentionally have some possible effect on energy prices. The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Circuit Judge: We must decide whether federal removal jurisdiction lies over California state court actions alleging that several power companies fraudulently failed to deliver reserve energy that might otherwise have helped to avert the state's energy crises of 2000 and 2001.
	OPINION/ORDER If the tribe was acting pursuant to its inherent power when it prosecuted Enas. Then the dual prosecutions were undertaken by separate sovereigns. Were therefore constitutionally permissible. The tribe was exercising power delegated by Congress. Then it was acting as an
	OPINION/ORDER With her on the brief was Sallie W. With her on the brief were Eileen J. Of counsel was Marion E. 1 Section 6404(a) of the Internal Revenue Code provides as follows: (a) General rule The Secretary is authorized to abate the unpaid portion of the assessment of any tax or any liability in respect thereof. Which (1) is excessive in amount. Or (B) any payment of any tax described in section 6212(a) to the extent that any delay in such payment is attributable to such an officer or employee being dilatory in performing a ministerial act. Those changes to з 6404(e)(1) were effective for interest accruing with respect to deficiencies (2) is assessed after the expiration of the period of limitation properly applicable thereto. Or (3) is erroneously or illegally assessed. 05 5099 2 or payments for tax years beginning after July 30. 2 which provides for review of abatement determinations made by the IRS in the Tax Court as follows: The Tax Court shall have jurisdiction over any action brought by a taxpayer who meets the requirements referred to in section 7430(c)(4)(A)(ii) to determine whether the Secretary's failure to abate interest under this section was an abuse of discretion.
	OPINION/ORDER Inc. were convicted of a variety of federal offenses stemming from an affirmative action fraud scheme they perpetrated regarding federally funded road construction projects. I. Because the defendants are challenging their convictions. The FDOT was contractually obligated to ensure that at least 12% of the USDOT's funds ultimately went to 2
	MORRISON V. ALLSTATE INDEM. CO. (9/26/2000, NO. 99-14141) Circuit Judge:
	OPINION/ORDER Gray LLP was on brief. Were on brief. Or reasonably should have known. That the tests were not reasonable and necessary for diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury of Medicare beneficiaries. Are the exclusive avenue for recovery by the United States of Medicare overpayments. The question presented is whether the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the Medicare Act explicitly or implicitly repeals the grant of federal court jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. з 1345 or displaces the underlying common law causes of action over which з 1345 gives federal courts jurisdiction. Medicare is a federally subsidized health insurance program for the elderly and certain disabled individuals.
	KUENZLE V. HTM SPORT Was seriously injured in a skiing accident near Jackson. Kuenzle was using Model 285 S ski bindings that were manufactured in Austria by defendant Tyrolia and purchased by her in Switzerland in 1986. Kuenzle asserts that the bindings were defectively designed. Tyrolia points out that it is an Austrian company which sells its products in the United States only through an independent distributor and that it conducts no business in Wyoming. To determine whether jurisdiction is present. A plaintiff must show that jurisdiction is legitimate under the laws of the forum state and that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
	MORRISON V. ALLSTATE INDEM. CO. (9/26/2000, NO. 99-14141) Circuit Judge:
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: The issue for decision is whether the Hoopa Valley Indian Tribe (Tribe) has authority to regulate logging by a nonIndian on fee land that she owns. Congress determined that
	OPINION/ORDER Sherwin Williams stated that the coatings at issue were not
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: The issue for decision is whether the Hoopa Valley Indian Tribe (Tribe) has authority to regulate logging by a nonIndian on fee land that she owns. Congress determined that
	EMERY WORLDWIDE AIRLINES, INC., V. U.S. Argued for plaintiff appellant.
	EMPAGRAN S.A., ET AL V. F. HOFFMAN-LAROCHE Gallagher argued the cause for appellants.а With him on the briefs was Michael D. Duggan argued the cause for appellees.а With him on the brief were Arthur F. Circuit Judge:а The action in this case was filed under section 1 of the Sherman Act. Because the injuries plaintiffs sought to re dress were allegedly sustained in transactions that lack any direct connection to United States commerce.а The District Court granted the motion to dismiss and appellants now appeal. аааа This appeal requires us to interpret the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (". On domestic or foreign United States commerce.а And s 6a(2) of FTAIA provides that the antitrust laws are inapplicable unless the effect of extraterritorial conduct on United States commerce ".
	OPINION/ORDER The Baltins should have brought suit in Illinois. Only in courts whose situs is within the State of Illinois and Customer hereby submits to the jurisdiction of the courts of the state of Illinois and the jurisdiction of the United States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois. A trading order was entered in the Baltins' account. The Baltins moved to dismiss the court proceedings and to have the case transferred to arbitration. You will have agreed to submit all future disputes with Linnco. Is 9 U.S.C. з 9. The United States court in and for the district wherein the award was made may make an order vacating the award upon the application of any 2 1 United States Court in and for the district wherein an arbitration award was made may make an order
	OPINION/ORDER Benjamin Sanchez also were on the briefs. 8530 UNITED STATES v. Argued the case for the United States and was on the brief. Were on the brief. Bernardo Pandeles Valencia (
	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.
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief were Daniel J. With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were Karen P. This appeal was submitted for decision following oral argument on August 2. Heartland's sugar syrup was not subject to the significantly higher duty rates imposed under the Tariff Rate Quota (
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Michael D. With him on the brief were Arthur F. Circuit Judge: The action in this case was filed under section 1 of the Sherman Act. Because the injuries plaintiffs sought to re dress were allegedly sustained in transactions that lack any direct connection to United States commerce. S 6a(2) of FTAIA provides that the antitrust laws are inapplicable unless the effect of extraterritorial conduct on United States commerce
	OPINION/ORDER 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
	OPINION/ORDER With whom Robin Alexander was on brief. Dailey was on brief. Dana & Gould were on brief. As is often true at the preliminary injunction stage. The record is somewhat scanty. We credit the undisputed facts presented below and adopt the district court's findings as to controverted matters to the extent they are supported by the record and not clearly erroneous. PSC is a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business in New Bedford. Or were PSC retirees and Morse Tool retirees or to consider separately widows of former employees. 3 beneficiaries of. The chief defendant is International Twist Drill (Holdings). Morse Tool was mired in bankruptcy. ITD was the sole voting shareholder. During the period when purchase was under consideration. Became involved in negotiations regarding the company's collective bargaining agreement but ITD was not itself a signatory to that pact. PSC was unable to survive. Then ITD was to make the payments. 5 In granting the injunction. The district court found
	OPINION/ORDER 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
	OPINION/ORDER The court's jurisdictional determination is AFFIRMED in part. I. ISSUES ON APPEAL The issues on appeal are whether the bankruptcy court erred in holding: (1) that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether the Debtor's failure to object to a creditor's claim was entitled to preclusive effect in pending state court litigation. An order is final if it
	OPINION/ORDER Because there is no demonstrated conflict with state law that would require federal common law rule making in this case. Federal common law rule making is only appropriate if the operation of state law would
	OPINION/ORDER Defendants submit that the district court's ruling as to antitrust standing was correct and that dismissal was further warranted for lack of personal jurisdiction and venue. Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs appellants are licensed physicians who practice or had practiced emergency medicine throughout the United States although they did not complete formal residency training programs in that specialty. Defendants insist that the case was properly dismissed not only for lack of antitrust standing but also for lack of personal jurisdiction and venue in the Western District of New York. We conclude that such a transfer is not in the interests of justice in this case because the plaintiffs lack antitrust standing to pursue their claims. American Board of Emergency Medicine Defendant ABEM is a Michigan not for profit corporation that was established in 6 1976 to certify physicians in emergency medicine. Staff are located in East Lansing. ABEM is a member of the American Board of Medical Specialties (
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Cynthia L. With him on the brief were R. Stetson were on the brief for intervenor Motion Picture Association of America. Circuit Judge: It is axiomatic that administrative agencies may issue regulations only pursuant to authority delegated to them by Congress. The principal question presented by this case is whether Congress delegated authority to the Federal Communications Commission (
	01-1077 -- U.S. V. CONSUMER INSURANCE GROUP -- 02/10/2003 Modrejewski told Holmes
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Steven H. With him on the brief were 2 Kenneth L. That he was
	GARBERG & ASSOC. V. PACK-TECH INT'L CORP. This is an appeal from a default judgment for $2. The district court's jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship. We have jurisdiction of this appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1291. I Defendants are both Canadian corporations. Sunflower Technologies is described as a
	99-3329 -- GSCHWIND V. CESSNA AIRCRAFT CO. -- 11/29/2000 An Ohio citizen.
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: The question presented in this appeal is whether a Georgia based Internet Service Provider subjected itself to personal jurisdiction in Maryland by enabling a website owner to publish photographs on the Internet. ALS Scan thus alleges that all of the defendants have infringed and are infringing its copyrights within Maryland and elsewhere by selling. Digital provided affidavits demonstrating that Digital is a Georgia corporation with its only place of business in Atlanta. Digital asserts that it is an ISP which provided bandwidth service to Alternative Products as a customer but that it is not affiliated in any way with Alternative Products except through an arms length customer relationship. It did not have knowledge that they were posted on Alternative Products' website. ALS Scan asserts that copies of its copyrighted photographs have appeared on Alternative Products' two webBandwidth in this context has been explained by the following analogy:
	01-7132 -- U.S. V. BIGFORD -- 04/13/2004 Circuit Judge. Defendant was charged with violating the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act (
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: The California energy crisis of 2000 and 2001 is a subject that is well known to this court and to the public.1 Following 1 See California ex rel. Various non public utilities which somewhat confusingly are public. Are not classified by federal statute as public utilities challenge the refund orders. Are not
	JAMES V. CALDERA
	OPINION/ORDER Carefirst asks that we vacate the dismissal on the ground that Carefirst has made the requisite prima facie showing that CPC is subject to personal jurisdiction in Maryland. Is one of the nation's largest healthcare insurance companies. It is a non profit BlueCross BlueShield licensee. BlueCross BlueShield is an association of independent health plans. Have been chartered to operate in geographically distinct terri CAREFIRST OF MARYLAND v. Among the services covered by Carefirst's trademark and service mark in the CAREFIRST name are
	OPINION/ORDER Palazzolo was on brief for appellant. A fisherman who was injured when the boat sank. Claims that the arbitration clause is unenforceable for various reasons. Denied the claim and voided the policy on the ground that the insured had never obtained a condition survey that was a prerequisite for coverage. Concluding that the arbitration clause was enforceable and that the parties' dispute over coverage must be resolved pursuant to its procedures. Discussion DiMercurio's primary argument on appeal is that the arbitration provision is unenforceable because it effectively deprives the Massachusetts courts of jurisdiction in contravention of Massachusetts General Laws chapter 175. He alternatively asserts that the provision is invalid on grounds of unconscionability. We explain below why we find neither of these contentions to have merit. At issue is the validity of a contract provision the arbitration clause and our task is to ascertain the intentions of the parties. B. Enforceability of an International Arbitration Clause An arbitration provision in an international commercial agreement such as the London issued insurance policy in this case is governed by Chapter Two of the Federal Arbitration Act (
	OPINION/ORDER An accounting firm which is a Delaware corporation. As a matter of convenience we will refer to both defendants as Whisman. Thus the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over them supplemental to its federal question jurisdiction over the FLSA claim.[fn1] We set forth the facts and the aspects of the procedural history necessary for resolution of the jurisdictional issue.[fn2] Lyon began working as a bookkeeper for Whisman in January 1988 on an at will basis for hourly wages. She charges that the payment was late and was for less than the promised amount. We usually will call supplemental jurisdiction. Since the district court did not have diversity jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. з 1291. Consequently following oral argument we directed the parties to file briefs on this point and they have done so. Which states: in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction. The district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.
	OPINION/ORDER This is a long arm service of process case which requires us. The complaint alleges that Kiekert tortiously interfered with 2 Imo's attempt to sell its wholly owned Italian subsidiary to a French corporation that was one of Kiekert's competitors. The asserted mechanism by which the tort was accomplished was a series of letters sent by Kiekert to the Italian subsidiary and to the New York investmentfirm of C.S. The sale was never consummated because of these threats. Imo contends that personal jurisdiction over Kiekert was proper based upon its contacts with Imo in New Jersey and upon Kiekert's claimed commission of an intentional tort. The effects of which were allegedly felt by Imo in New Jersey. The defendant must have committed an intentional tort. The plaintiff must have felt the brunt of the harm caused by that tort in the forum. The defendant must have expressly aimed his tortious conduct at the forum. The order of the district court will therefore be affirmed. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that personal jurisdiction is proper.
	UNIV. OF S. ALABAMA V. AM. TOBACCO CO. (2/22/1999, NO. 97-6680) Circuit Judge: The central issue raised on appeal is a question of sequence or ordering: whether the district court should have first addressed Appellant University of South Alabama's (
	OPINION/ORDER Bean's contacts with California as a result of its sales and other activities in California are
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: At the heart of this tangled jurisdictional dispute is a simple but unfortunate accident. Was sailing from Papeete. We hold that the Western District of Washington was not the proper forum. The underlying dispute arising from the accident is not before us. I. THE PARTIES Holland America is a Washington corporation that operates passenger sail cruises. AMERICA 5069 Bureau Veritas is a French classification society which sets standards for the quality and integrity of ships and performs ship surveys to determine compliance with the classification society's rules and regulations. BV Canada is a Canadian corporation that performs similar services. Wфrtsilф is a Finnish holding company that indirectly owns both Wфrtsilф Finland and Wфrtsilф NA it does not manufacture or design products. Or sold a faulty engine part that may have contributed to the accident. Some but not all of the parts sold and used by Wфrtsilф NA are manufactured by other Wфrtsilф entities. Wфrtsilф Australia and Wфrtsilф New Zealand were dismissed voluntarily from the case and Wфrtsilф Finland was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.
	OPINION/ORDER With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Monte E. Roberto claimed that the Navy failed to afford him the rights to which he was entitled under the Department of Defense (
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: These two appeals were combined for this opinion because the issue in both is whether the District Court of the Virgin Islands. Because we conclude that a district court must dismiss the suit where there is no colorable basis for exercising subject matter jurisdiction. We will reverse and remand both cases with instructions to dismiss. Alleging that she was wrongfully discharged from her employment as a teacher with the Moravian School. Did not then and does not now argue that there is federal jurisdiction over the suit. Which treatment is alleged to have resulted in her death. Which is
	P:\DOCS\E-DOS\8-1\06-3562 AUTO-OWNERS INS. V. TATE TOPA TRIBAL ED. BD. OPN.WPD Contending that the action was barred by sovereign immunity. A Tate Topa Elementary School student was sexually assaulted by a student at the Fort Totten Public High School. Asserting that Tate Topa was immune from suit absent an express and unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity. Auto Owners's revised complaint alleged federal question jurisdiction and sought a declaration that the tribal court was without jurisdiction to hear the Lohnes action. As federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over claims implicating the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The district court also found that the tribal exhaustion doctrine was inapplicable because. Holding that
	OPINION/ORDER Challenges the district court's finding that it did not have original federal question jurisdiction over one of plaintiff appellee Benjamin Craig Long's claims and asks this court to reverse the district court's order remanding the case to state court. Long asserted in his amended complaint that the public policy that was violated by his discharge was embodied in several federal statutes. We AFFIRM the district court's decision to remand based on its determination that it did not have original federal question jurisdiction over Long's wrongful discharge claim. A federal question is not raised. There was no substantial question of federal law presented. There was no implied federal cause of action created by or necessarily springing from any federal statute cited. My conclusion is that plaintiff Long's claims of wrongful discharge simply did not sufficiently raise a federal question in order to provide jurisdiction in the district court. At the outset that the burden in this case is upon plaintiff and that removal statutes are strictly construed.
	OPINION/ORDER After the Santa Ana Pueblo Tribal Court ruled that the Pueblo and the named tribal officials were entitled to sovereign immunity. The district court ruled that the tribal court's decision was entitled to preclusive effect and dismissed the Burrells' case. We hold that the district should not have given preclusive effect or otherwise recognized the tribal court's ruling. They were (1) The following facts are taken from the Burrells' complaint. The Pueblo's consent to the lease was necessary. Was required to contact the United States Department of Interior to initiate such proceedings. informed that if they conducted a successful farming operation. Were
	UNIV. OF S. ALABAMA V. AM. TOBACCO CO. (2/22/1999, NO. 97-6680) Circuit Judge: The central issue raised on appeal is a question of sequence or ordering: whether the district court should have first addressed Appellant University of South Alabama's (
	OPINION/ORDER We hold that venue and personal jurisdiction are independent requirements under Section 12 of the Clayton Act. Inc. (
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief for appellee.
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief were Alex D. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel was Jane K. With him on the brief was Robert L. The Secretary [of Energy] is authorized to enter into contracts with any person who generates or holds title to high level radioactive waste. Will dispose of the high level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel involved as provided in this subchapter. The government asserts that sixty six such claims have been filed. The United States courts of appeals shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over any civil action (A) for review of any final decision or action of the Secretary. Is commonly known as Yucca Mountain. Courts of appeals have asserted jurisdiction under section 119 over claims brought challenging DOE actions under the NWPA. The first of these cases was General Electric Uranium v. Although section 302(a)(3) fell within Title III of the Act and section 119 was in Title I and only conferred the courts of appeals with jurisdiction over agency actions
	OPINION/ORDER Must prove individualized reliance where that proof is otherwise necessary to establish actual or proximate causation. Their challenges are based on Burford abstention. None of which is
	HOUSEHOLD BANK V. JFS GROUP (2/7/2003, NO. 02-11990) It will file a customer's tax return electronically with the Internal Revenue Service (
	HOUSEHOLD BANK V. JFS GROUP (2/7/2003, NO. 02-11990) It will file a customer's tax return electronically with the Internal Revenue Service (
	OPINION/ORDER Challenging the FDA's jurisdiction over tobacco products and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.1 Plaintiffs then filed a 1 When the complaint was filed on August 10. All references in this opinion are to the final version of the rule published in the Federal Register on August 28. They have been added for emphasis unless otherwise indicated. 13 motion for summary judgment in the district court. Jurisdiction over the consolidated appeals is proper in this court under 28 U.S.C. зз 1292(a)(1) and 1292(b). We are of opinion that the FDA lacks jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products. 1996 regulations of tobacco products are thus invalid. All 50 States have already banned the sale of tobacco to minors under state law. Tobacco products fit within these definitions because they are
	OPINION/ORDER Plaintiffs are current or former residents of Bougainville. Who allege that they or their family members were the victims of numerous violations of international law as a result of defendant mining corporation Rio Tinto. Which provides that
	OPINION/ORDER Held that the Illinois Wage Act claim was not preempted by the LMRA. I. Background Plaintiffs appellants were employees of Outboard Marine Corporation (
	OPINION/ORDER United States Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Were on the brief. Circuit Judge: This is an interlocutory appeal by a juvenile defendant from an order of the district court denying his motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Because we hold that a prose cutor's certification of a
	OPINION/ORDER On the brief were Marc R. Will & Emery. With him on the brief were Dennis J. Both parties are biotechnology companies that are engaged in gene silencing. A cell is exposed to a piece of foreign DNA that is specifically engineered to contain certain portions or copies of the target gene to be silenced. This technology is known as RNA interference (
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief were L.A. With him on the brief was Amanda Tessar. That the state law claims were preempted under Federal Circuit law. Because there are genuine disputes of material fact with respect to the state law claims. Is the holder of patents for a method of controlling hyperhomocysteinemia. Which is an emerging risk factor for heart and vascular disease. Three letters were sent to customers of Breckenridge in Florida: Publix Super Markets. The letters stated in relevant part: [O]ne or more small generic drug companies are offering generic equivalents to FOLTX. PamLab argues that the letters to Breckenridge's customers were sent by Metabolite alone. This argument is unavailing. Although it is true that the letters were
	OPINION/ORDER National Union and Gulf sought to rescind insurance policies which they had issued and under which City Savings and the RTC were seeking coverage. National Union and Gulf were jurisdictionally barred from raising certain affirmative defenses to the RTC's counterclaim. We will affirm the district court's holding that under FIRREA the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over National Union and Gulf's declaratory judgment action. We will reverse the district court's holding that under FIRREA National Union and Gulf are barred from raising affirmative defenses to the counterclaim. Sent a letter to National Union and Gulf providing notice that City Federal might have suffered a loss covered by the insurance policies as a result of dishonest or fraudulent acts of City Federal employees. City Federal was declared insolvent by the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision (
	OPINION/ORDER Defendant Lydia Cooper contends her criminal sentence was unreasonable under United States v. At 2 issue is the imposition of criminal sentences post Booker. We will affirm. Or a guidelines range of 151 to 181 months.1 Cooper was sentenced on January 31. Which held that the federal sentencing guidelines are advisory. 125 S. Pre guidelines sentences were based on the facts of the crime. Concurrent sentences for the prior offenses 6 to 23 months incarceration and two years probation and was paroled after serving the minimum sentence. personal characteristics. These are all found in 18 U.S.C. зз 3553(a)(1). Congress added sentencing guidelines (з 3553(a)(4)) that were specific. That the guidelines are now advisory provides some play in the joints of the sentencing scheme. District judges are still asked to resolve the tension between broad principles. The court found an additional departure was not warranted
	OPINION/ORDER Was David E. With him on the brief was Devon H. With him on the brief were Peter D. Because there was not a
	OPINION/ORDER Although we have previously held that the administrative review scheme provided in the Longshore Act supplants district court jurisdiction over claims for benefits. Kreschollek's claim presents a new twist on the question because his challenge to the Longshore Act is a constitutional one and he claims that the review process established by the Act is insufficient to address his injuries. Asserting that Kreschollek was now able to return to work. While the matter was pending before the ALJ. Kreschollek filed this action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey invoking jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. з 1331 and alleging that the review procedure under the Act is unconstitutional because it does not require a predeprivation hearing before employers who voluntarily compensated injured employees may terminate those benefits. Is unconstitutional. Named as defendants were Southern Stevedoring Co. The ALJ's final decision on Kreschollek's administrative claim for benefits and the district court's ruling on the motion to dismiss were handed down within days of each other in March 1995.
	OPINION/ORDER Marcaccio and Blish & Cavanagh were on brief for plaintiffs. These cross appeals are from orders of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island dismissing the respective claims of plaintiffs and defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs are two entities wholly controlled by Carl Acebes. Defendants are Richard N. Inc. (
	OPINION/ORDER 2002 is amended as follows: on slip opinion page 3832. The statutory language was intended to remove a jurisdictional obstacle to litigation over applications pursuant to both the IRCA and the newly amended LIFE Act. Was not intended to retroactively bestow jurisdiction on the district court for the purposes of awarding fees. The petition for panel rehearing and the suggestion for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Which deals with a challenge to regulations as applied and implemented by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (
	OPINION/ORDER The court held that Plaintiff was lawfully recalled to active duty and court martialed in accordance with constitutional standards. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. з 1291. Charges were preferred against Plaintiff for violations of various articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (
	OPINION/ORDER Partial Dissent by Judge Pregerson *John Ashcroft is substituted for his predecessor. Is the proper respondent in a petition for review of an order of removal. The BIA determined that Petitioners were statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal as non permanent residents under 8 U.S.C. з 1229b(b)(1) because neither had a qualifying relative for the purposes of з 1229b(b)(1)(D). Montero Hernandez and Montero Martinez are father and son. They are natives and citizens of Mexico who entered the United States in 1986. Alleging that Petitioners were removable under 8 U.S.C. з 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) because they had entered the United States without inspection. They both conceded that they did not have a qualifying relative under з 1229b(b)(1)(D). Although Montero Hernandez had an adult daughter who was a lawful permanent resident. He acknowledged that she was too old to qualify as a child under the INS regulations. Petitioners appealed to the BIA arguing that they were entitled to cancellation of removal. They argue in their petition that the BIA and IJ erred in concluding that Montero Hernandez's adult daughter is not a
	NORVAL J. ELKINS V. HERSHEL W. GOBER On the brief were David . S decision denying service connection for a back condition and remanded the back injury claim for adjudication in light of what it held was new and material evidence. Elkins v. Elkins was involved in an auto accident. He was treated for headaches on three occasions. When he was examined at the time of his separation from military service. [the veteran] does not have headaches. What he was interpreting as headaches was actually cervical pain or neck pain. Because there is no medical evidence in the record which establishes a medical nexus between his headaches and his military service.". Was never incorporated into the BVA
	OPINION/ORDER Partial Dissent by Judge Pregerson *John Ashcroft is substituted for his predecessor. Is the proper respondent in a petition for review of an order of removal. The BIA determined that Petitioners were statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal as non permanent residents under 8 U.S.C. з 1229b(b)(1) because neither had a qualifying relative for the purposes of з 1229b(b)(1)(D). Montero Hernandez and Montero Martinez are father and son. They are natives and citizens of Mexico who entered the United States in 1986. Alleging that Petitioners were removable under 8 U.S.C. з 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) because they had entered the United States without inspection. They both conceded that they did not have a qualifying relative under з 1229b(b)(1)(D). Although Montero Hernandez had an adult daughter who was a lawful permanent resident. He acknowledged that she was too old to qualify as a child under the INS regulations. Petitioners appealed to the BIA arguing that they were entitled to cancellation of removal. They argue in their petition that the BIA and IJ erred in concluding that Montero Hernandez's adult daughter is not a
	SILENT DRIVE, INC V. STRONG INDUSTRIES Argued for plaintiff appellant.а With her on the brief were Edmund J. Harty.аа Of counsel wasа Ronald M. Argued for defendents appellees.а With him on the brief was Margaret C
	OPINION/ORDER Trans Penn contends these claims are preempted because they relate to mandatory subjects of collective bargaining and require interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement. The employees then sought leave to delete their RICO claims and have the case remanded back to state court. We have jurisdiction to address this claim under the All Writs Act. 28 U.S.C. з 1651 (1988).[fn1] We hold that resolution of the employees' contract and tort claims is not substantially dependent upon an analysis of the collective bargaining agreement and therefore section 301 does not require preemption. We will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. Trans Penn is a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in the manufacture of industrial wax products in Titusville. The election was certified by the National Labor Relations Board on May 7. The document is entitled
	OPINION/ORDER Because the mere presence of seized property in Maryland provides no basis for asserting jurisdiction when there is no relationship between the property and the action. Base Metal was unable to collect the award at that time. The attachment motion was granted by the district court and the property was taken into custody by the U.S. A copy of the summons and complaint was sent to NKAZ. NKAZ moved to vacate it and to have the case dismissed for. The court noted that NKAZ's contacts with Maryland related exclusively to the fact that aluminum manufactured by NKAZ in Russia was unloaded in Baltimore Harbor. Base Metal filed a motion for reconsideration seeking to have the court exercise jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 4(k)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which provides that a district court may exercise jurisdiction over a defendant if: (1)the plaintiff's claim
	OPINION/ORDER Murphy and Menard Murphy & Walsh were on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. On the basis that the action was preempted by federal law. While Doulamis is not named as the aggrieved employee in these charges. Both parties agree that the employee referred to therein is. It is also alleged that these employees formed. That Chaulk's conduct was a deliberate attempt to discourage the employees from engaging in these activities. A full and comprehensive settlement agreement was reached between Chaulk and the NLRB in March 1995 regarding these claims. In that the
	OPINION/ORDER We hold that a motion to dismiss a federal statutory interpleader action during the pendency of a parallel state court proceeding is addressed to the sound discretion of the district court. The district court was of the belief that all federal claims had been eliminated and terminated the case. The court should have exercised its discretion to decide in which forum. We will. We begin by reviewing those aspects of its history that are relevant to the issues before us. NYLife is a New York corporation. TAG is organized under the laws of Delaware and has its principal place of business in New Jersey. Gerasolo is a citizen of New York. Bleach is a citizen of New Jersey. NYLife asserted that it was subject to conflicting demands from the defendants for monies it was holding in Mainstay Mutual Fund accounts opened for TAG employees in connection with TAG's executive compensation plan.[fn4] Claiming no interest in the money. Was deposited in the court's Registry. That TAG's claims were barred by certain settlement agreements.
	OPINION/ORDER Was convicted of federal crimes in the Northern District of Ohio and incarcerated in Kentucky. Roman was transferred from a federal prison in Kentucky to an INS detention facility in the Western District of Louisiana. Although Roman was being detained in the Western District of Louisiana at the time. He filed the habeas corpus petition in the district where he resided prior to his incarceration and where he was convicted of the crimes underlying his removal the Northern District of Ohio. We VACATE the district court's decision to grant Roman habeas corpus relief and REMAND to the district court with instructions to determine whether the Cleveland District Director and the INS Commissioner are proper respondents to Roman's petition. In the event that the district court concludes that these officials are not proper respondents. Roman is a 46 year old native and citizen of the Dominican Republic. Was last admitted to the United States on February 8. Roman is married and has six children who are United States citizens.
	SCARFO V. GINSBERG (5/14/1999, NO. 97-5244) Scarfo was a secretary and receptionist for DBG 95. Scarfo contends that Ginsberg and various part time personnel were employees pursuant to Title VII jurisdiction. 42 U.S.C. з 2000e(b). II. The appellees filed a motion to continue the trial on the ground that the determination of whether they were employers under Title VII was a subject matter jurisdiction issue that a court should decide rather than a jury. That Galaxy Frame should be excluded in the single employer framework because its
	97-9535 -- ARAMARK CORP. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD -- 05/28/1999 Argued that the Board was without jurisdiction in these matters because: (1) . The operations at issue are exempt from Board jurisdiction under the
	98-2040 -- U.S. V. PRENTISS -- 07/12/2001 (2) whether the failure of an indictment to allege these elements deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction or instead is subject to harmless error review. A majority of this court agrees with the panel opinion's conclusion that the Indian and non Indian statuses of the victim and the defendant are elements of the crime of arson in Indian country under 18 U.S.C.
	OPINION/ORDER Which deals with a challenge to regulations as applied and implemented by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (
	OPINION/ORDER We hold that a motion to dismiss a federal statutory interpleader action during the pendency of a parallel state court proceeding is addressed to the sound discretion of the district court. The district court was of the belief that all federal claims had been eliminated and terminated the case. The court should have exercised its discretion to decide in which forum. We will. We begin by reviewing those aspects of its history that are relevant to the issues before us. NYLife is a New York corporation. TAG is organized under the laws of Delaware and has its principal place of business in New Jersey. Gerasolo is a citizen of New York. Bleach is a citizen of New Jersey. NYLife asserted that it was subject to conflicting demands from the defendants for monies it was holding in Mainstay Mutual Fund accounts opened for TAG employees in connection with TAG's executive compensation plan.[fn4] Claiming no interest in the money. Was deposited in the court's Registry. That TAG's claims were barred by certain settlement agreements.
	SCARFO V. GINSBERG (5/14/1999, NO. 97-5244) Scarfo was a secretary and receptionist for DBG 95. Scarfo contends that Ginsberg and various part time personnel were employees pursuant to Title VII jurisdiction. 42 U.S.C. з 2000e(b). II. The appellees filed a motion to continue the trial on the ground that the determination of whether they were employers under Title VII was a subject matter jurisdiction issue that a court should decide rather than a jury. That Galaxy Frame should be excluded in the single employer framework because its
	97-9535 -- ARAMARK CORP. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD -- 09/22/1998 The Unions have intervened to support the Board's application for enforcement. Aramark argues the Board is without jurisdiction to order Aramark to engage in collective bargaining because Aramark's operations fall within the political subdivision exemption of the Act. Aramark also argues the Board is without jurisdiction because under its government contracts. This court rejects Aramark's claim the Board erred in concluding it was not an exempt political subdivision. BACKGROUND Aramark is a Delaware corporation providing food services nationwide. These employees accordingly retained civil service status and the employees were in a public sector collective bargaining unit represented by Council 79. 1990 were Aramark employees and were not represented in the public sector collective bargaining unit. The original contract was renewed yearly until June 30. Aramark was awarded a one year contract. This contract was renewable for additional one year periods. In December 1996.
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Sten A. Ballenger were on the brief of appellant The American University. With him on the brief were Peter D. Nugent were on the brief for appellee Camille Saum. Their local law actions claimed that AU was liable to the plaintiffs under District of Columbia law. If the actions resting on District of Columbia law are moot. Although the trial court's framework for discovery was misguided. Because it should not have reached the merits of the negligence claims under District of Columbia law. The District Court's views on local law are a nullity and must be vacated. When AUES was transferred from civilian control to the War Department's newly formed Gas Service. Gas weapons were tested in trenches. AUES was disbanded and the Army transferred personnel and equipment to other bases. It is undisputed. The Army signed an agreement pledging to restore the buildings and grounds to the condition they were in when the Government took control of the property. This agreement appears to have been superceded.
	OPINION/ORDER P.C. were on brief. Will & Emery were on brief. We suggested using a special intermediate standard when
	OPINION/ORDER Ohio is the milieu for this appeal. At issue is a significant question of whether federal courts have the ability to hear claims filed pursuant to з 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (
	OPINION/ORDER We will reverse and remand. I. Appellee Sandy Lane Hotel Company is a Barbados corporation. Its sole business is the operation of the Sandy Lane Hotel in St. The O'Connors also argued that Sandy Lane is subject to general jurisdiction in Pennsylvania. App. 304 (
	OPINION/ORDER Were on the briefs. Were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Were on the brief for cross appellees Jack Lawn. Were on the brief for amici curiae International Human Rights Organizations and International Law Scholars. That Alvarez
	02-6142 -- BARTLETT MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER V. THOMPSON -- 10/20/2003 This litigation was successful. The Plaintiff Hospitals in this case sought to have cost reports from the early 1990s reopened and adjusted to reflect the new interpretation. Their requests were denied because of Ruling 97 2's instruction that reports could not be reopened with respect to the DSH reimbursement. The Secretary argues there is no other jurisdictional basis to hear these claims. Primarily contending that the district court should also have found federal question jurisdiction. Because we find that the Secretary did not owe any clear. We REVERSE the district court's grant of summary judgment to Plaintiffs and its denial of summary judgment to the Secretary because we determine that Plaintiffs cannot prevail as a matter of law on any of their claims. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs are or operate Oklahoma for profit. Is the agency of HHS responsible for administering the Medicare program. Some of the hospital services provided by Plaintiffs are covered by Medicare.
	MAYERS V. UNITED STATES DEP'T OF IMMIGRATION (5/20/1999, NO. 97-5537) Sitting by designation. This decision is rendered by a quorum. We provide below a brief overview of the statutory schemes that are relevant to this action. Reform of Immigration Laws AEDPA On April 24. Eliminated the earlier INA з 106(a)(10) and under AEDPA з 440(a) substituted the following language:** [A]ny final order of deportation against an alien who is deportable by reason of having committed a criminal offense [as set forth in the INA] shall not be subject to review by any court. AEDPA з 440(a). Were entitled to apply for a waiver of deportation under INA з 212(c). The granting of a waiver was a discretionary act of the Attorney General. The judicial review process for deportation orders once again was restructured when Congress enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (
	OPINION/ORDER The District Court found that it did not have personal jurisdiction over Karsch and that. The District Court will be * The Honorable Karl S. Availed himself of the laws of the state of Tennessee and is subject to personal jurisdiction therein. Karsch replies that his contacts with the state were insufficient to satisfy the requirements of due process. ISSUES The issues presented by this appeal are (1) whether the District Court erred in finding that Karsch lacked sufficient contacts with the state of Tennessee so that the exercise of personal 2 jurisdiction within the state failed to satisfy the requirements of due process and (2) whether the District Court erred in denying Plaintiffs Appellants leave to amend the Complaint against Karsch solely on the ground that the court contemporaneously dismissed the existing Complaint. The shares were placed in escrow with Paine Webber in its Jackson. The stock in question was restricted stock and could not be sold until Merchantonline.com filed notice with the transfer agent certifying that the shares had been held for one year.
	OPINION/ORDER We hold that the FTCA claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and that the subsequent claims against the federal employees are not barred. The first is a federal civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (
	REZI P. FORSHEY V. ANTHONY PRINCIPI For respondent appellee.
	OPINION/ORDER At issue is whether the District Court should have exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state law class under 28 U.S.C. з 1367. Plaintiffs are hourly employees at defendant Tyson Foods' two chicken processing plants in New Holland. Fecal matter are present throughout both plants. Tyson employees are required to perform
	OPINION/ORDER Defendant Lydia Cooper contends her criminal sentence was unreasonable under United States v. At 2 issue is the imposition of criminal sentences post Booker. We will affirm. Or a guidelines range of 151 to 181 months.1 Cooper was sentenced on January 31. Which held that the federal sentencing guidelines are advisory. 125 S. Pre guidelines sentences were based on the facts of the crime. Concurrent sentences for the prior offenses 6 to 23 months incarceration and two years probation and was paroled after serving the minimum sentence. personal characteristics. These are all found in 18 U.S.C. зз 3553(a)(1). Congress added sentencing guidelines (з 3553(a)(4)) that were specific. That the guidelines are now advisory provides some play in the joints of the sentencing scheme. District judges are still asked to resolve the tension between broad principles. The court found an additional departure was not warranted
	MAYERS V. UNITED STATES DEP'T OF IMMIGRATION (5/20/1999, NO. 97-5537) Sitting by designation. This decision is rendered by a quorum. We provide below a brief overview of the statutory schemes that are relevant to this action. Reform of Immigration Laws AEDPA On April 24. Eliminated the earlier INA з 106(a)(10) and under AEDPA з 440(a) substituted the following language:** [A]ny final order of deportation against an alien who is deportable by reason of having committed a criminal offense [as set forth in the INA] shall not be subject to review by any court. AEDPA з 440(a). Were entitled to apply for a waiver of deportation under INA з 212(c). The granting of a waiver was a discretionary act of the Attorney General. The judicial review process for deportation orders once again was restructured when Congress enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief for appellee.
	OPINION/ORDER We hold today that because the discussion on appellate jurisdiction in Forney is founded upon specific language located within the Social Security Act. We will dismiss Kreider's appeal (No. 98 1982) for lack of jurisdiction. We find that we do have appellate jurisdiction over the timely appeal filed by the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture (
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER Vaughn Sr. is president of Gears and his children are corporate officers. He is president of Winters and Maverick. Madeline is the Secretary/Treasurer at Winters. Their products are distinct Gears produces transmissions and Winters produces automotive rear ends and each company has its own equipment and production lines. Gears is managed by Randy Lau. The only area in which Gears and Winters cooperate considerably is in hiring. A Winters employee will place a
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief for appellee.
	CYGNUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY, LLC V. TOTALAXCESS а The district court held that the original patent based ground of federal jurisdiction was not available against TotalAxcess and. Since there was no independent basis for federal jurisdiction. The complaint was dismissed.а The court denied Cygnus' request to amend its complaint to include a patent ba
	00-1507 -- KENNEDY V. LUBAR -- 12/17/2001 Kennedy was employed as a part time pharmacist in Store 100 of the King Soopers chain of grocery stores. Lubar was her pharmacy manager. Malicious and willful misconduct which allegedly caused her termination from Store 100 and her inability to obtain subsequent employment at other King Soopers stores. Lubar removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado based on her assertion that Kennedy's state law claims were pre empted by
	OPINION/ORDER As well as against the law firm D'Ancona & Pflaum with which Brown and Klaus are associated. This appeal raises a number of issues which we will consider seriatim. 1. He provides no legal argument to support his contention that the District Court erred and we have found none. 2 I. Remick was successful in negotiating for Manfr edy an Exclusive Promotional Agreement between Kushner and Manfredy. There was a disagr eement between Remick and Manfredy over negotiations for an HBO televised fight between Manfredy and Azumah Nelson. The agreement provided Remick was to receive 5% of up to $35. I have decided to terminate your engagement. Remick claimed that he was entitled to an 8% share of Manfredy's purse because he negotiated the overarching Exclusive Pr omotional Agreement between Manfredy and Kushner . Sent a letter to Remick stating: We are writing in response to your letter of September 2. He was left with no 4 alternative other than to sever his association with you. Because you are an attorney. We are not aware of any legal principle which allows you to
	98-2247 -- ATKINSON TRADING CO. INC. V. SHIRLEY -- 05/02/2000 Circuit Judge.
	OPINION/ORDER The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This appeal involves post judgment collection activities that have been pursued by plaintiff appellant Debra A. Shaw to recover attorneys' fees and costs that have been incurred in seeking to enforce a substantive judgment and related judgments awarding costs and attorneys' fees under the qui tam and wrongful termination provisions of the False Claims Act (FCA). The background facts pertaining to the underlying FCA claims and judgments are set forth in our prior decisions in Shaw v. Shaw is appealing the order and the related judgment that the district court (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Shaw is also appealing the following orders that were entered by the district court on August 19 and 20. (AAA) is cross appealing the portion of the order entered by the district court on August 20. Our jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. 1291. We affirm the orders and the judgment that Shaw is appealing. A judgment was entered in favor of Shaw and against AAA and the two individual defendants.
	GARCIA V. COPENHAVER, BELL & ASSOC. This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Garcia v. At the conclusion of a jury trial (but before the case was submitted to the jury). Made the factual determination that Copenhaver/Bell was not an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="846"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1501.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Brown & Dugan were on brief for appellants. P.A. were on brief for appellees George E. P.A. were on brief for appellees Michael S. Nor is any one of them licensed to practice law there. Review by this Court is de novo (nondeferential). Was killed when the aircraft he was flying. Was struck over the New Hampshire Vermont border by an aircraft from Florida. Which is not a party to this litigation. The affidavit is identical to an unsigned and undated draft affidavit of Mr. Sawtelle except that the draft states that plaintiffs were referred to the California firm by the New Hampshire attorney. They submitted an affidavit of an advertising assistant at AOPA who confirms that there were no advertisements for the law firm in the AOPA magazine for the years 1988 through 1991. The case was assigned to defendant. Farrell is not licensed to practice law in New Hampshire. Among the topics addressed in those communications was Farrell's recommendation that Florida was the most advantageous forum for the wrongful death claim. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="846"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb97/95-3006.opa.html">GARCIA V. COPENHAVER, BELL & ASSOC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Garcia v. At the conclusion of a jury trial (but before the case was submitted to the jury). Made the factual determination that Copenhaver/Bell was not an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="846"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2257.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> EBEL. The district court sua sponte ordered that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="846"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/july96/94-1514.wpd.html">TRIERWEILER V. CROXTON AND TRENCH HOLDING CORP.<BR></A><BR> C&T offered to have Dublin Osaka Group. When these opinions were provided. Following is a description of each appellee's alleged role. Watt owned equity in the firm and was to receive a share of its profits. That Watt was participating in and overseeing C&T. Or tell Trierweiler that it was necessary to confirm ownership. Brasher wrote that Dublin did in fact have the authority to fulfill its duties under the Unconditional Guaranty and Security Agreement. Other defendants ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="846"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-7063a.html">CREIGHTON LTD V. GOVT ST QATAR<BR></A><BR> Qatar was to pay Creighton in Qatar. <p> and in fact all payments were made there in Qatari riyals. <p> The contract provided that it was to be performed and <p> interpreted under Qatari law and that all disputes were to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="842"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/06/97-3022.htm">97-3022 -- OMI HOLDINGS INC. V. ROYAL INSURANCE CO. OF CANADA -- 06/30/1998<BR></A><BR> Will &. Will &. (OMI) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Canadian brewer. OMI is an Iowa corporation with its principal place of business in Minnesota. Although Labatt is a sophisticated. No one in the company had considered whether the cost of defending the suit was covered under any of the company's numerous insurance policies. <p> OMI notified Zurich Insurance Company. The companies first asserted that Manildra's claims were not covered under the policies issued to Labatt. The district court concluded that the companies were not obligated to defend the case. <p> On appeal. OMI argues that the district court erroneously concluded that the insurance companies<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="842"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-5018.html">EL-SHEIKH MOHAMMED V. US<BR></A><BR> On the brief were David M. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> The sole question in this appeal is whether the Court of Federal Claims correctly dismissed. Therefore reverse and remand.<p> I<p> Non appropriated fund instrumentalities (NAFIs) are federal government entities whose </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="842"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D91E3BA76D6BC01088256DA2005A4FD1/$file/0116558.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case was settled as to all defendants but one. Liability where the Warsaw Convention did not apply was limited to $20 per kilogram. The waybill says that this amount is designed to be the approximate value of the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="842"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/65A68FAA4FF9A3948825728A00579A9C/$file/0617366.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Thus joining our sister circuits that have considered the issue. Bear the burden of showing both that CAFA's jurisdictional elements are satisfied and that no exceptions to CAFA jurisdiction apply. All section references are to Title 28 of the United States Code. 1 2248 SERRANO v. 180 CONNECT. Although remand orders generally are not appealable. з 1453(c) confers discretionary appellate jurisdiction to review remand orders in actions that were removed under CAFA. We review de novo the district court's order The Employers' application for appeal was filed on the sixth court day after entry of the district court's second and final remand order and was therefore timely. CAFA applies to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="842"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/00A79345E9F2318188256EED0049B206/$file/0216472.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the challenged agreement does not have a direct. Tomatoes had a very short shelf life if they were picked from 11012 UNITED STATES v. Consumers are unable to access vineripened tomatoes for much of the year. Most United States consumers are relegated to eating foreign tomatoes that are picked before they are ripe. So they will still be fresh after shipping. Tomatoes picked in this fashion have a poor flavor compared to vine ripened tomatoes. The contract provided that LSL would have the exclusive rights to the North American market. Which is the UNITED STATES v. Hazera may engage in such activities only if all of the following conditions are met: (A) the subject tomatoes do not have or involve long shelf life qualities which are included in LSL's proprietary rights. The Restrictive Clause was amended to allow Hazera to sell other seeds (e.g. The government alleged that the Restrictive Clause is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="842"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199907/98-7063a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Qatar was to pay Creighton in Qatar. In fact all payments were made there in Qatari riyals. The contract provided that it was to be performed and interpreted under Qatari law and that all disputes were to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="842"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/September2004/031609np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. I. Plaintiff Sheriff Saudi was employed as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="842"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5188.html">CHRISTOPHER VILLAGE, L.P., ET AL. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>E. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>Of counsel were <u>David M. </o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoBodyText2>This case presents the question whether a federal district court has jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment as to the government s liability for breach of contract solely in order to create a predicate for suit to recover damages in the Court of Federal Claims.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>We hold that district courts do not have such jurisdiction because the Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction under the Tucker Act. The predicate judgment was void.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>It follows that the Court of Federal Claims was not bound by this earlier judgment.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span></p> <p class=MsoBodyText2>On the merits. We affirm the Court of Federal Claims grant of summary judgment.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>We agree that the contract between the government and the appellants was unenforceable against the government because of a material breach by the appellants predating the government s alleged breach. </p> <h2 style='line height:200%'><span style='text decoration:none. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="842"></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="842"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3C48384B12A4F727882570F500059764/$file/0355548.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2005 and appearing at 421 F.3d 835 (9th Cir. 2005) is hereby amended as follows: 1) 421 F.3d at 852. Reliance2 was placed in rehabilitation proceedings. Reliance's principal argument is that the district court erred in continuing to exercise jurisdiction over Hawthorne's suit once the rehaInsurance companies are expressly excluded from federal bankruptcy laws. Charging substantial fees and interest.4 After the period in which Bazyler could have rescinded the loan without penalty passed. Braly decided to have Hawthorne bid against Bazyler at the foreclosure sale. Even though there was no doubt that Bazyler had the necessary collateral for the extra funds. The facts giving rise to the original settlement between Bazyler and Hawthorne are undisputed and were stipulated at trial. 4 HAWTHORNE SAVINGS v. Hawthorne was insured by a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="842"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/031609np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. I. Plaintiff Sheriff Saudi was employed as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="842"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1631p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal by the United Automobile. Which seeks a declaration that the collective bargaining agreement between the parties is voidable because it was secured by fraud in the inducement. Was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="842"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1BBE99A82D53440288256C2B005015A5/$file/0155038.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LUI were consolidated. As the removed action was essentially a counterclaim to the claims initially brought in federal court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. з 1291. The two attractions contemplated were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="842"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/032064.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> They notified the property management office in Virginia and an inspection was ordered. Mold was found. Abatement was required. During the mold remediation process Plaintiffs were relocated and their personal belongings were left in the care of the property management firm and the mold treatment firm. Plaintiffs contended that there was not complete diversity because the property was managed by a Virginia subsidiary of the Texas parent. The judgment of the district court is therefore reversed as to jurisdiction. The remainder is vacated. This case is remanded with instructions to remand to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. з 1447(c). Which was granted with leave for Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs amended their complaint and a jury trial was scheduled for May 3. The motion was later expanded to include an additional claim of lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis that defendant SWIB was an arm of the State of Wisconsin and. The Plaintiffs filed a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from an order or judgment that is void for lack of jurisdiction. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="842"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1631p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> <p>This is an appeal by the United Automobile. Which seeks a <p>declaration that the collective bargaining agreement <p>between the parties is voidable because it was secured by <p>fraud in the inducement. Was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="840"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/02/973972P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have appellate jurisdiction over the district court's final order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. з 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 22 1 BACKGROUND FACTS Most of the facts are not disputed. The following statement of facts is taken in large part from the district court's memorandum opinion and order. Fried is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="840"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2000/99-11417.man.html">HAIRSTON V. TRAVELERS CAS. & SUR. CO. (11/13/2000, NO. 99-11417)<BR></A><BR> Appellants appeal the district court's determination that the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over claims brought pursuant to National Flood Insurance Program ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="840"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5486D6D186C33868882570EB005C2F9E/$file/0370472.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> His convictions were affirmed by the Guam Supreme Court. This appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. His petition was granted on June 18. The question now presented is whether the jurisdiction previously granted by з 1424 2. Existing at the time certiorari was granted. The briefs were filed. The case was argued and submitted. The Supreme Court was confronted with a similar question and held that when a jurisdictional statute under which an action had been properly filed was repealed. All such pending cases were to be dismissed. That holding was reinforced when cited with approval in a litigation setting that did not involve the jurisdiction of a court to decide a case. The court ruled on the effect of a statute upon an action that was pending in court on the date of enactment. The Landgraf case was dealing with a statute silent on the question of retroactivity. Ruled that unless retrospective effect is expressed by Congress. It will not be presumed. Because the question before us is the survival of jurisdiction to decide cases after that jurisdiction has been withdrawn. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="840"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2000/99-13824.man.html">FED. RESERVE BANK OF ATLANTA V. THOMAS (7/31/2000, NO. 99-13824)<BR></A><BR> Finding that section 632 was inapplicable because the Federal Reserve's cause of action was statutory and therefore was not a suit </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="840"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1997/97a1625p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Until EPA's remedial activities at the site are completed. We will now overrule that portion of Princeton Gamma Tech on which plaintiffs rely and affirm the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The incineration contract was awarded in September 1993. The first step in the implementation of the incineration remedy involves a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="840"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DA5F6F0EE937975F88256E4A008172CB/$file/0255788.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which ultimately determined that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction and remanded. The district court decided that there was no personal jurisdiction over Twin Commander and dismissed Twin Commander from the case. Special Investments entered into an agreement to have a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="840"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1533.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That a district court does not have the authority under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="840"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1536.html">ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING, INC V. JAN COYLE<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>With him on the brief was <u>Russell B. Argued for defendants appellees.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>With him on the brief was <u>F. ) was invalid and that EFI had not misappropriated defendants' alleged trade secrets or breached any contract entered into with defendants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>We conclude that the district court may exercise personal jurisdiction over defendants and such jurisdiction comports with due process.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>We therefore reverse and remand.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span></p> <h2 align=center style='margin left:0in. Is a world leader in the area of software and hardware imaging solutions for network printing.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>EFI develops. Which are devices that control printers and copiers.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>Defendant appellee Kolbet Labs is a Nevada corporation.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>EFI believes that defendant appellee Coyle. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="840"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/52E0DFB38F65F36F88256DF1000030F3/$file/0116558.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: At page 934. The case was settled. Held that because the chips were stolen in Schenker's off airport ware 16972 ALBINGIA VERSICHERUNGS v. The contractual limitation to $20 per kilogram was valid under federal common law. Judges Kleinfeld and Rawlinson have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. No further petitions for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc will be entertained. The petition for rehearing en banc is denied. The case was settled as to all defendants but one. Liability where the Warsaw Convention did not apply was limited to $20 per kilogram. The waybill says that this amount is designed to be the approximate value of the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="840"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1C5285F8C8D98ADE88257067004C3F34/$file/0355548.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Insurance companies are expressly excluded from federal bankruptcy laws. Reliance2 was placed in rehabilitation proceedings. Reliance's principal argument is that the district court erred in continuing to exercise jurisdiction over Hawthorne's suit once the rehabilitation proceedings began. Charging substantial fees and interest.4 After the period in which Bazyler could have rescinded the loan without penalty passed. Braly decided to have Hawthorne bid against Bazyler at the foreclosure sale. Even though there was no doubt that Bazyler had the necessary collateral for the extra funds. Hawthorne was insured by a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="840"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DA9F956B59483116882571B80056EB8F/$file/0456682.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the parties were completely diverse and the amount in controversy exceeded $75. Therefore removal was proper under 28 U.S.C. з 1441(a).1 Plaintiff Appellee Emma C. Was a citizen of the state of California. Although Wild Oats does not dispute that it is a citizen of California and therefore a forum defendant within the meaning of з 1441(b). 2 it argues that its violation of the forum defendant rule was a procedural defect in the removal process. We must decide whether the forum defendant rule contained in з 1441(b) is jurisdictional or procedural. This issue has been addressed by nine of Because Wild Oats' removal was based on diversity jurisdiction. We assume that Wild Oats meant to state that removal was proper under з 1441(a). Not з 1441(b). 2 Section 1441(b) provides: Any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the Constitution. Any other such action shall be removable only if none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought. 28 U.S.C. з 1441(b) (2006). 8430 LIVELY v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="840"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1996/96a1258p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> AS THEY ARE TRUSTEES OF THE LONG BAY TRUST v. AS HE IS THE COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. AS SHE IS THE COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY AND PROCUREMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS. AS HE IS THE COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. AS SHE IS THE COMMISSIONER OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS. We are faced with several interrelated jurisdictional issues arising out of appellant Long Bay Trust's inverse condemnation action filed in the District Court of the Virgin Islands and the Government of the Virgin Islands' ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="840"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F43A980D299ECAF988256FA8007A2836/$file/0215035.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the briefs. Were substituted as counsel for the appellant after oral argument. Was on the brief. Were on the brief for amicus curiae The Chamber of Commerce of the United States. INC. 1837 advertising program is rendered moot by a settlement under which the vendor permanently modified its software and the website owner relinquished all claims. I Gator.com Corporation1 is the proprietor of a software program that enables computer users to store personal information including addresses. One of the targets of Gator's pop up advertisements was the website operated by L. When a user of computer equipment on which the Gator software was installed visited L. L. Bean alleged that these pop up advertisements misappropriated the good will associated with its trademark and threatened to initiate legal action if Gator did not discontinue this advertising practice. A deceptive or unfair trade or Gator.com Corporation is now known as the Claria Corporation. It will be referred to as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="840"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2000/99-13824.man.html">FED. RESERVE BANK OF ATLANTA V. THOMAS (7/31/2000, NO. 99-13824)<BR></A><BR> Finding that section 632 was inapplicable because the Federal Reserve's cause of action was statutory and therefore was not a suit </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="840"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2000/99-11417.man.html">HAIRSTON V. TRAVELERS CAS. & SUR. CO. (11/13/2000, NO. 99-11417)<BR></A><BR> Appellants appeal the district court's determination that the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over claims brought pursuant to National Flood Insurance Program ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="840"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1692.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Wainwright & Wainwright were on brief. Smith & Cohen were on brief. Is this: Can a Massachusetts based court. Assert jurisdiction over a California resident who is alleged to have made a defamatory comment during an unsolicited telephone interview with a staff reporter for a Massachusetts newspaper? Alioto is an attorney practicing in California. Alioto is pressing a class action in the California courts against Ticketmaster Southern California. Is affiliated with Ticketmaster New York. Both Ticketmaster entities are engaged in the business of selling ducats to entertainment events. The record is equally barren of any showing that Alioto solicited the inquiry2 or that more than one call occurred. It is clear. Who was in California. At no point does the article refer by name to either T NY or T SC. 2Although there is a passing allusion in the record to a press release issued by Alioto regarding the lawsuit against T SC. There is no indication that he forwarded this release to Massachusetts or that it sparked the Globe's story. 3 gouging in New York and California. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="836"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042127p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That inquiry will inform our determination as to whether Bagot is correct that Respondents deported him to Guyana illegally. Having been in his father's legal custody at the time the father was naturalized. He is derivatively a United States citizen. Who was in Guyana at the time and had never been to the United States. The District Court was confronted. As we are here. With the difficult question of how to define </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="836"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199913824.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Finding that section 632 was inapplicable because the Federal Reserve's cause of action was statutory and therefore was not a suit </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="836"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0096p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Granting the motion of Defendant to dismiss for lack of Plaintiffs are independent contractors who transport the mail on highways for Defendant. Plaintiffs have fixed rate contracts: the rate that Defendant pays Plaintiffs is determined with reference to Plaintiffs' annual estimates of the cost and amount of fuel that will be needed in transporting the mail. Rendering inaccurate the estimates upon which the contract payments were determined. Then Plaintiffs have the contractual right to request an adjustment in the contract price. Because the fuel prices that Plaintiffs pay are passed on to Defendant in pre contract estimates and potentially in requests that are granted for adjustments during the life of the contracts. These contracts are referred to by Plaintiffs as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="836"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D41FC04292422D7288256F87008015E6/$file/0330171.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bruce asserts that the case against her was brought under the wrong statute. Bruce contends that she is an Indian. The government should have charged her under 18 U.S.C. з 1153. We further hold that the court's error was not harmless. Alleged that the victim was an Indian person. Bruce repeatedly argued that she was Indian. She moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that it should have been brought under 18 U.S.C. з 1153. Bruce's only defense was her claim of Indian status. Bruce introduced evidence that she is one eighth Chippewa. That her mother is an enrolled member of the Turtle Mountain Tribe of Oklahoma. That she was born on an Indian Reservation. That two of her children are enrolled members of an Indian tribe. That whenever she was arrested it </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="836"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199913824.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Finding that section 632 was inapplicable because the Federal Reserve's cause of action was statutory and therefore was not a suit </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="836"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982000.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Shearson was sued on the theory that it was a controlling person by virtue of its ownership stake in First Capital. The deputy receiver 1 Foster was succeeded as deputy receiver by Alfred W. The counterclaims in this action were severed. There was also a nine day insolvency and rehabilitation proceeding before the State Corporation Commission. Gubar were directors and shareholders of First Capital. For $75 million.2 After First Capital bought Fidelity Bank 2 The acquisition was brought about as follows: First Capital Insurance Group. For these services First Capital was paid a sum equal to 0.5 percent of Fidelity Bankers' invested assets each month. The purchaser had the option to either keep the annuity at whatever rate Fidelity Bankers was then offering or get his money back. That is. These annuities were extremely popular. Life Insurance was merged into Fidelity Bankers. Non investment grade (junk) bonds in Fidelity Bankers' portfolio until 38 percent of Fidelity Bankers' assets were junk bonds. These investment decisions were approved by Fidelity Bankers' investment committee (Weingarten. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="836"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/40E591FE947FF24488256F79006F684C/$file/0256002.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The U.S. bankruptcy court and the U.S. district court have rendered conflicting judgments that decide the claims of the surviving spouse and that affect the distribution of the net property of the decedent's trust and probate estate. While active probate proceedings were pending in the courts of the State of Texas. In a cross appeal the surviving spouse seeks to reverse the district court's determination that the bankruptcy proceeding was not a core proceeding. Which reduced the sum she was awarded by the bankruptcy court. Incidentally we are required to determine whether the probate exception applies in a bankruptcy case. We have appellate jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. з 1291. Are bound by the probate exception to federal court jurisdiction and that we are required to refrain from deciding state law probate matters. No matter how the issue is framed by the parties. Howard Marshall II were initially named as co trustees of the 1982 trust. They were married on June 27. Last will and testament or conveyance in which Vickie Lynn Marshall is identified as a legatee. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="836"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CD4599EF9CBD696488256C3000547E65/$file/0155002.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Background We review de novo a district court's determination that it does not have personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Plaintiffs bear the burden of demonstrating that jurisdiction is appropriate. The motion is based on written materials rather than an evidentiary hearing. Plaintiff appellant Dole U.S. is incorporated under the laws of Hawaii and has its headquarters and principal place of business in California. Defendant appellee Watts is a citizen of the United Kingdom and lives in France. WATTS 13667 Watts was an employee of Dole Europe. Which is based and registered in Belgium. Was an employee of Dole Packaged Foods ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="836"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov97/96-5123.opa.html">BALTIN V. ALARON TRADING CORP.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ><title>Baltin v. The Baltins should have brought suit in Illinois. Only in courts whose situs is within the State of Illinois and Customer hereby submits to the jurisdiction of the courts of the state of Illinois and the jurisdiction of the United States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois. A trading order was entered in the Baltins' account. The Baltins moved to dismiss the court proceedings and to have the case transferred to arbitration. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="836"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0510n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alph's principal place of business is Detroit. The surviving member could elect to purchase the deceased member's shares in the company as long as the option was exercised in writing within one year of the deceased member's death. The parties disagree as to the date on which Alph's value is to be determined. Is to use. The Surrogate's Court of the State of New York exercised its jurisdiction over Philip Uzielli's will. This matter is still pending in the Surrogate's Court. A district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over an action that is purely probate. Even when the traditional requirements of diversity jurisdiction have been met. The starting point in any probate exception analysis is Markham.1 In Markham. The Supreme Lower courts have struggled to apply this Markham test. 713 (7th Cir. 1982) </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="836"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/98-2040.htm">98-2040 -- U.S. V. PRENTISS -- 02/24/2000<BR></A><BR> (2) the indictment was insufficient because it failed to allege his Indian or non Indian status and the Indian or non Indian status of the victim. (3) there was insufficient evidence in this case to support his conviction because the government failed to prove the Indian or non Indian status of the defendant or victim. Prentiss's indictment was insufficient because it failed to allege the Indian or non Indian status of the defendant and victim. Because the conviction was based upon an indictment which failed to allege an essential element. Prentiss was home caring for his three young children and the two children of a family friend. The fire was extinguished. <p> Immediately upon extinguishing the fire. The outlet showed no sign of the sparking and arcing that one would have expected had the electrical socket itself failed. <u>See</u> <u>id.</u> at 274 75. <p> After the fire was extinguished. Prentiss told fire investigators that he was watching a boxing match on HBO immediately before the fire. <u>See</u> Rec. vol. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="836"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1994/94a0812p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Licata's suggestion was implemented at the local level and research indicated that if implemented nationwide. Although the modification was formally disapproved for national implementation in June 1991. Reasoning that section 409(a) was insufficient to maintain jurisdiction without a cause of action. That if the claim sounded in contract it was barred by the Tucker Act. The United States district courts shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction over all actions brought by or against the Postal Service. Any action brought in a State court to which the Postal Service is a party may be removed to the appropriate United States district court under the provisions of chapter 89 of title 28. 39 U.S.C. з 409(a) (1988). If the language is unambiguous no further inquiry is necessary. Since it is an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="836"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov97/96-5123.opa.html">BALTIN V. ALARON TRADING CORP.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ><title>Baltin v. The Baltins should have brought suit in Illinois. Only in courts whose situs is within the State of Illinois and Customer hereby submits to the jurisdiction of the courts of the state of Illinois and the jurisdiction of the United States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois. A trading order was entered in the Baltins' account. The Baltins moved to dismiss the court proceedings and to have the case transferred to arbitration. <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="832"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1325.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> All six suits were dismissed based on lack of jurisdiction. Asserting that there is diversity jurisdiction over the TCPA claims and that they have representational standing. We affirm the various judgments of dismissal based on the Plaintiffs' lack of standing while rejecting the rationale that diversity jurisdiction is unavailable for these claims. Who are Colorado residents. All six are based on orders containing similar rationales. The district court determined that US Fax Law Center lacked representational standing to assert TCPA claims because such claims are unassignable under Colorado law. The court held that the claims are unassignable because they are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="832"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr99/97-9095.man.html">SNAPPER, INC. V. REDAN (4/5/1999, NO. 97-9095)<BR></A><BR> A district court's remand order is reviewable when the court issued the order to enforce a contractual forum selection clause. Because we conclude that appellate review is available in this context. This new arrangement also seems to have been mutually satisfactory. The six individuals thus made liable are Steven I. Snapper demanded that KPM purchase more inventory than KPM could sell to its dealers so that Snapper would not have to close a manufacturing plant. Seeking to have the case transferred to New Jersey to be consolidated with the New Jersey action. Concluding that removal premised on diversity jurisdiction was a right based on domicile. We hold today that the district court's interpretation of the forum selection clause is subject to appellate review and affirm the order on the merits.</P> <P><CENTER>II. REVIEWABILITY</CENTER> </P> <P> There are two potential obstacles to appellate review in this case. Even if the final judgment rule is satisfied. Because we conclude that the district court's order is final. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="832"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-7191a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="832"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1241D802AB900EF988256EE800585374/$file/0335306.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was that day driving a SKC dump truck on United States Highway 93 as it ran through the Flathead Reservation. Smith was driving as part of his work on a vocational course at SKC. All claims were resolved before trial. That cross claim alleged that SKC was liable for the accident and also asserted a claim of spoliation of evidence. While that second tribal court appeal was pending. Which is now before us. The district court found that SKC was a tribal entity for jurisdictional purposes and that Smith's claims arose on the reservation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. з 1291. 358 (2001) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="832"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-3105.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Seeking damages and declaratory relief for the Insurers' alleged breach of insurance policies under which THAN is insured. I. BACKGROUND THAN is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Delaware with <hr> its principal place of business in Lenexa. Kansas.(1) THAN is a subsidiary of Philips Electronics North America Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="832"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/586083C2CA11725088256E5A00707CA4/$file/0070293.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case is before us on appeal from a judgment of the Tax Court. The Commissioner contends that equitable recoupment is not available on the facts of this case. Was named the executor and residuary beneficiary of his estate. The Willits stock was valued at $485 per share and the Savings stock at $181.50 per share. The executor was authorized to sell a certain portion of this stock (500 shares of Willits stock and 2800 shares of Savings stock) in order to pay applicable estate taxes. The declared value of the stock was used as a basis for determining the gain from their sale.1 Consistent with this statutory requirement. 000) was reported as a capital gain on the estate tax return. March was also required to use the stock value declared on the estate tax return for the purpose of determining her capital gain from the sale. The basis of this deficiency was the Commissioner's conclusion that the Willits and Savings stocks were worth substantially more than the estate declared. The Tax Court concluded that the Willits Stock was worth $626 per share and the Savings Stock was worth $276 per share. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="832"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr99/97-9095.man.html">SNAPPER, INC. V. REDAN (4/5/1999, NO. 97-9095)<BR></A><BR> A district court's remand order is reviewable when the court issued the order to enforce a contractual forum selection clause. Because we conclude that appellate review is available in this context. This new arrangement also seems to have been mutually satisfactory. The six individuals thus made liable are Steven I. Snapper demanded that KPM purchase more inventory than KPM could sell to its dealers so that Snapper would not have to close a manufacturing plant. Seeking to have the case transferred to New Jersey to be consolidated with the New Jersey action. Concluding that removal premised on diversity jurisdiction was a right based on domicile. We hold today that the district court's interpretation of the forum selection clause is subject to appellate review and affirm the order on the merits.</P> <P><CENTER>II. REVIEWABILITY</CENTER> </P> <P> There are two potential obstacles to appellate review in this case. Even if the final judgment rule is satisfied. Because we conclude that the district court's order is final. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="832"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-0002a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="832"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3465020EB5EB70C088257138005E7490/$file/0415097.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We dismiss the petitions for lack of jurisdiction because they were untimely filed without reasonable grounds for delay. BACKGROUND Jan's and Americopters are not related by common ownership. Their petitions and appeals have been consolidated before us. I. JAN'S AND THE ZEIGLER EMAIL Jan's owns a de Havilland Caribou DCH 4A ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="832"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1EE0CE62ED2CD4DB88256ABE005BB8E4/$file/0070293.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case is before us on appeal from a judgment of the Tax Court. The Commissioner contends that equitable recoupment is not available on the facts of this case. Was named the executor and residuary beneficiary of his estate. The Willits stock was valued at $485 per share and the Savings stock at $181.50 per share. The executor was authorized to sell a certain portion of this stock (500 shares of Willits stock and 2800 shares of Savings stock) in order to pay applicable estate taxes. The declared value of the stock was used as a basis for determining the gain from their sale.1 Consistent with this statutory requirement. 000) was reported as a capital gain on the estate tax return. March was also required to use the stock value declared on the estate tax return for the purpose of determining her capital gain from the sale. The basis of this deficiency was the Commissioner's conclusion that the Willits and Savings stocks were worth substantially more than the estate declared. The Tax Court concluded that the Willits Stock was worth $626 per share and the Savings Stock was worth $276 per share. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="830"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DF46457E24BF27D5882570930054FEF1/$file/0471325.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> CIR COUNSEL Petitioner appellant was represented by Robert E. Respondent appellee was represented by Eileen J. This is an appeal by Charlotte's Office Boutique. Were actually wages and that appellant was liable for employment taxes on those wages and penalties. Which was first raised before the Tax Court by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="830"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/737077ADEF7C3A4588256B5900034A07/$file/0030411.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Have provoked concern about the reach of the federal government and the rights of those brought into court via these statutes. The concern is even greater. Pierre Y. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="830"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1279.html">PHOENIX PETROLEUM V. U.S.F.E.R.C.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="830"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/95-4979.opa.html">REPUBLIC OF PANAMA V. BCCI HOLDINGS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Republic of Panama v. Background<p> <p> BCCI Holdings is the parent corporation of BCCI S.A. and BCCI Ltd. These foreign defendants were the principal corporations in an international banking group operating in sixty nine countries. They will be referred to as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="830"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/12BFFB6D3CF0E52F88256E010072FEFE/$file/0256272.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Over a German toy company which has questioned her ancestry by asserting that Barbie was a copy of its doll and that Mattel had infringed its patent and other intellectual property rights. That lawsuit was resolved by a dismissal with prejudice of those and other claims. It presumably also helps to explain why a lawsuit was filed in Germany in May 2001 by G&H. That motion was denied by the district court. Mattel's entire lawsuit was dismissed by the district court. We conclude that the subject matter of Mattel's current lawsuit which concerns and is essentially defined by the claims currently asserted by G&H in Germany is sufficiently related to the action filed in California by G&H in 1961 to support personal jurisdiction over G&H in the current case. I. BACKGROUND At the center of this case is the question of whether Mattel. Unfairly copied a doll produced by G&H known as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="830"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-5004.html">CITY OF BURBANK, CALIFORNIA V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="830"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0A1EB78DA8B420AB882571C6007C3BDA/$file/0435984.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="830"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug97/95-4979.opa.html">REPUBLIC OF PANAMA V. BCCI HOLDINGS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Republic of Panama v. Background<p> <p> BCCI Holdings is the parent corporation of BCCI S.A. and BCCI Ltd. These foreign defendants were the principal corporations in an international banking group operating in sixty nine countries. They will be referred to as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="826"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-4179.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was held liable for breach of contract. We AFFIRM the district court's judgment because we conclude that the court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over Sporoptic was proper. The parties disagreed about whether the order was cancelled in a timely fashion or whether the cancellation was a breach of contract. The jury found that Orlux did not have a contract with Pro Axess and thus had no liability in this case. Pro Axess has the burden of proving that the court's exercise of jurisdiction was proper. A plaintiff must show that jurisdiction is legitimate under the laws of the forum state and that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="826"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2002/00-12809.opn.html">BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS V. MCIMETRO ACCESS TRANSMISSION SERVICES (1/10/2002, NO. 00-12809)<BR></A><BR> We are asked to review two orders of the Georgia State Public Commission (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="826"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1132.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellants. Were on brief for Colour Library Books. Were on brief for The Winston Company. Although the photograph was meant to appear in a coffee table book titled Boston: City of Dreams. It was never published or distributed. Provides information about dining and entertainment in France and is sponsored by the Cooperation Gesellschaft fuer Markendiversifikation mbh. At least 305 copies of various French magazines containing the advertisements were distributed to. At least 183 of these were sold from. Fellow police officers told Noonan that a magazine with a picture of him on the back cover was circulating. As a result of what Noonan felt was an attack on his reputation. Defendant Lintas:Paris is a French corporation. Reynolds Tobacco ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="826"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1162.html">NATIONAL PRESTO V. DAZEY CORP.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="826"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2265.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> DeFreitas and Saab Law Firm were on brief for appellant. This appeal presents issues regarding the scope of jurisdiction of federal courts over claims for benefits under an employee benefits plan that is subject to regulation under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Ordinarily the appropriate judgment for a district court to order is one or the other of two kinds. If the district court determines that the out of court decisions were arbitrary and capricious. The appropriate form of order is one remanding to the out of court decisionmaker for further proceedings to decide whether the claim or claims have merit. The usual form of order is a final judgment affirming the decisions of the out of court decisionmaker. Appellees assert that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="826"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1350.html">JANE DOE V. U.S., ET AL.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>With her on the brief was <u>Vanessa Soriano Power</u>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text align:justify'><span style='font size:12.0pt. Argued for defendants appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>With him on the brief were <u>Peter D. Mso bidi font family: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="826"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/094EE0D365F5F35A88256C150057358C/$file/9936166.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was seriously injured when his car struck a horse that had wandered onto Route 5. McDonald is an enrolled member of the Ogalala Sioux Tribe. He is not a member of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe. Alleging McDonald was negligent in allowing his horse to trespass onto Route 5. The Supreme Court held that a tribal court lacks authority over the conduct of nonmembers on land within a reservation that is owned in fee by a non Indian.2 Id. at 565 566. Means argues that Route 5 is in fact a tribal road exempted from the Strate analysis. The primary issue in this case is thus whether BIA roads. Are non Indian fee land subject to the Montana rule. A. Route 5 is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="826"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2002/00-12809.opn.html">BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS V. MCIMETRO ACCESS TRANSMISSION SERVICES (1/10/2002, NO. 00-12809)<BR></A><BR> We are asked to review two orders of the Georgia State Public Commission (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="826"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1996/95a1239p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The question presented in this case is whether various state law claims against a bankruptcy trustee in his individual capacity can be either a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="826"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5814F4959DB08678882571A80075BE54/$file/0415577.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I Pebble Beach is a well known golf course and resort located in Monterey County. Caddy's business operation is located on a cliff overlooking the pebbly beaches of England's south shore. The name of Caddy's operation is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="826"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1998/98a1839p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is an appeal of a district court order denying a motion for reconsideration filed by Hudson United Bank ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="822"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/93-3291.ma3.html">UNITED STATES V. GECAS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Is a Lithuanian national who has lived in the United States as a resident alien for thirty four years. Claiming that his silence is protected by the constitutional privilege against self incrimination. Held that Gecas was entitled to the equitable relief provided by the privilege because he had a real and substantial fear of conviction under foreign law.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="822"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/08/964141P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is hereby withdrawn and the amended opinion is substituted in its place. The opinion is amended in Part IV. IT IS SO ORDERED. Darrell </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="822"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/06/964141P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Darrell </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="822"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19956878.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case is before the panel on a petition for writ of mandamus. Alabama Police Department were engaged in a high speed chase of Kahalley. The case was set for trial in state it was continued. CONTENTIONS Petitioners contend that the district court erred in remanding the entire case to state court and assert that the district court should have retained all of the claims. Petitioners contend that the language of 28 U.S.C. з 1367(c) is clear and unequivocal and only empowers a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction. Is appropriate under section 1367(c)(2) where the state claims substantially predominate over federal claims. found Respondents that the argue state that law the issues district court correctly substantially predominated over the federal issues. Respondents contend that the district court could have remanded the entire case under section 1441(c). ISSUE The sole issue we address is whether. We have jurisdiction to review such an order on a petition for writ of mandamus. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="822"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9E1069E47CAA213788256D6F0006D727/$file/0017146.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> First is the adjudication phase. The judicial decree defining the distribution of water rights is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="822"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-7212a.html">EL-FADL HASSAN V. CTRL BNK JORDAN<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="822"></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="822"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1709.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It has become commonplace to observe that the world is getting smaller and that boundary lines between one country and the next have become blurred. One of their more important functions is to allocate litigation among the several national court systems. We have just such a case. Is fighting Hyatt's effort now to hale him into the U.S. courts to resolve some disputes that have arisen. We conclude that the case should not have been dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. I Coco is a director and employee of A.T.E. Is a business organized under the laws of England with its principal place of business in London. Is a business organized under the laws of Italy. It was in these capacities that he was approached in 1999 by the English entity Newpenny. Coco unequivocally stated that he was acting merely as an agent of Newpenny. Accordingly was not seeking a commission or broker's fee from Hyatt. Hyatt went ahead solo in the development of what will soon open as the Park Hyatt Milan. Was backed by a later recommendation that he be provided a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="822"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B27E3A2C9C1EBD7388256DE60004738D/$file/0271143.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: 1. ASHCROFT 16579 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="822"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug97/93-3291.ma3.html">UNITED STATES V. GECAS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Is a Lithuanian national who has lived in the United States as a resident alien for thirty four years. Claiming that his silence is protected by the constitutional privilege against self incrimination. Held that Gecas was entitled to the equitable relief provided by the privilege because he had a real and substantial fear of conviction under foreign law.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="822"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982091.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lines 1 2 the identity of the district court is corrected to read: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="822"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-30622.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. We conclude that the district court should have dismissed the claims against EDC for lack of personal jurisdiction. Background Brokerwood U.S. is a Louisiana corporation affiliated with a Canadian corporation. Both Brokerwood corporations (and the other related entities) are owned by William and Janet Shiell. Who are also Brokerwood U.S.'s sole employees. A written letter from Brokerwood Canada is based in Montreal. all six related Shiell companies. Indicates that the international head office for all the companies is in Montreal and that at least one of the officers can always be reached there. Cuisine is a Canadian corporation. Brokerwood Canada was to act as an exclusive agent for United States cabinetry sales. Appellee Cross Appellant EDC is a Canadian Crown corporation solely owned by the Canadian government. The Louisiana suit was followed by two others in Canada. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="822"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul09/03-30622.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. We conclude that the district court should have dismissed the claims against EDC for lack of personal jurisdiction. Background Brokerwood U.S. is a Louisiana corporation affiliated with a Canadian corporation. Both Brokerwood corporations (and the other related entities) are owned by William and Janet Shiell. Who are also Brokerwood U.S.'s sole employees. A written letter from Brokerwood Canada is based in Montreal. all six related Shiell companies. Indicates that the international head office for all the companies is in Montreal and that at least one of the officers can always be reached there. Cuisine is a Canadian corporation. Brokerwood Canada was to act as an exclusive agent for United States cabinetry sales. Appellee Cross Appellant EDC is a Canadian Crown corporation solely owned by the Canadian government. The Louisiana suit was followed by two others in Canada. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="822"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2058_015.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Phencorp was a wholly owned subsidiary of Philip Services Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="822"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-2227.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom Carmencita Velazquez Marquez and McConnell Valdes were on brief. With whom Humberto Ramirez was on brief. At the base of the appeal is a sexual harassment suit brought by Nydia G. Because none of these claims is relevant to this appeal. Employers are held strictly liable for damages 2 notwithstanding that the plaintiff had neither pleaded a cause of action thereunder nor invoked the statute at trial. Three questions are now before us. (1) May a district court enter judgment for a plaintiff on a cause of action that was neither pleaded in the complaint nor raised during the course of trial? (2) May a district court prior to the close of trial unilaterally introduce an unpled cause of action into the proceedings? (3) In any event. Assume supplemental jurisdiction over a nonfederal cause of action that could have been introduced during trial. The statutory language is inexplicit. Rodriguez has not challenged these rulings and they are unaffected by this appeal. All references herein to the judgment are. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="817"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/03/98-4180.htm">98-4180 -- PEAY V. BELLSOUTH MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PLAN -- 03/06/2000<BR></A><BR> BST is headquartered in Atlanta. Was McCluskey's treating physician. They assert that when a court's jurisdiction is invoked based on ERISA's nationwide service of process provision. Minimum contacts with the forum are unnecessary. A federal district court can exercise jurisdiction over defendants as long as defendants have minimum contacts with the United States. Plaintiffs claim that defendants have the requisite minimum contacts because defendants are large corporations carrying on day to day business throughout this country.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="817"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2000/97-5726.man.html">CONSOL. DEV. CORP. V. SHERRITT, INC. (7/5/2000, NO. 97-5726)<BR></A><BR> Are United States corporations whose Cuban subsidiaries formerly held oil concessions and leases to drill for oil in the Republic of Cuba. These concessions were expropriated by the Cuban government in 1959.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="817"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-4052.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> INTRODUCTION The current action is one of a number of pending judicial and administrative actions raising the question whether incumbent local exchange carriers ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="817"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200106/00-1402b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Thomas G. Klee were on the brief for amici curiae Senator Robert G. With him on the brief were Christopher J. With him on the brief were Michael F. Is bound by the usual rules governing the treatment of such obligations in bank ruptcy. Con gress also directed the Commission to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="817"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTI5Njhfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-2968_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While his appeal was pending in this Court. The appeal is converted to a petition for review brought under 8 U.S.C. з 1252. Gonzales is automatically substituted for former Attorney General John Ashcroft. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Franklin A. While his appeal was pending in this Court. That act of Congress To precipitated the principal issues before us on this appeal. sort through and bring order to what Congress said and what its purpose was in passing the section of the REAL ID Act that we focus on here is not an endeavor. As the reader will observe. Two questions presented are first. To transfer the case to the circuit where the alien's immigration proceedings were held here. Which is one of first impression 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 in this Circuit. That is. Moreno Bravo was born in Peru on October 24. In October 1996 he snatched a gold chain from the neck of He was one Mercedes Martinez in Elizabeth. Which states that a lawful resident </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="817"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19956429.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BCBSA is immune from liability to the United States for payments its officers certify and disburse to Medicare beneficiaries. Analyzing both the context within which the subsection is made applicable to the Medicare Act. The Supreme Court cases that have construed it. Body was an employee of appellee Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama from 1973 to 1989. Including: The Medicare program is administered by the Health Care Finance Administration (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="817"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2000/97-5726.man.html">CONSOL. DEV. CORP. V. SHERRITT, INC. (7/5/2000, NO. 97-5726)<BR></A><BR> Are United States corporations whose Cuban subsidiaries formerly held oil concessions and leases to drill for oil in the Republic of Cuba. These concessions were expropriated by the Cuban government in 1959.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="817"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A795A16F14F7409B882571CC00701998/$file/0435677.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is withdrawn and superseded by the opinion filed concurrently herewith. The opinion is amended as follows: 1. Delete from the sentence beginning </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="817"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1644p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal from an order of the district court imposing heavy sanctions upon a law firm. Is charged in the underlying complaint with having poisoned </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="817"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june98/95-6429.man.html">UNITED STATES V. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF ALA.(6/26/1998, NO. 95-6429)<BR></A><BR> BCBSA is immune from liability to the United States for payments its officers certify and disburse to Medicare beneficiaries.</P> <P> In part I. Analyzing both the context within which the subsection is made applicable to the Medicare Act. The Supreme Court cases that have construed it. Body was an employee of appellee Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama from 1973 to 1989. Issued in the form of Administrative Bulletins.</P> <P> Body was employed as a senior auditor by BCBSA in 1984. Was assigned to audit the 1983 cost reports of. Reversed his proposed adjustments.</P> <P> Body contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation in January 1989 to report BCBSA's reimbursements to Alabama hospitals of interest costs that he felt were not authorized under Medicare regulations. The OIG concluded that four of the fourteen adjustments were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="817"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1997/97a1644p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> <u>Circuit Judge</u>. <br wp= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="817"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june98/95-6429.man.html">UNITED STATES V. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF ALA.(6/26/1998, NO. 95-6429)<BR></A><BR> BCBSA is immune from liability to the United States for payments its officers certify and disburse to Medicare beneficiaries.</P> <P> In part I. Analyzing both the context within which the subsection is made applicable to the Medicare Act. The Supreme Court cases that have construed it. Body was an employee of appellee Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama from 1973 to 1989. Issued in the form of Administrative Bulletins.</P> <P> Body was employed as a senior auditor by BCBSA in 1984. Was assigned to audit the 1983 cost reports of. Reversed his proposed adjustments.</P> <P> Body contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation in January 1989 to report BCBSA's reimbursements to Alabama hospitals of interest costs that he felt were not authorized under Medicare regulations. The OIG concluded that four of the fourteen adjustments were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="817"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1402b.html">NEXT WAVE PRSNAL COMM V. FCC<BR></A><BR> Olson argued the cause for petitioners/appel lants.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="817"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct97/97-5726.opn.html">CONSOL. DEV. CORP. V. SHERRITT, INC. (7/5/2000, NO. 97-5726)<BR></A><BR> Are United States corporations whose Cuban subsidiaries formerly held oil concessions and leases to drill for oil in the Republic of Cuba. These concessions were expropriated by the Cuban government in 1959.</SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="817"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200402/02-1060a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="817"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct97/97-5726.opn.html">CONSOL. DEV. CORP. V. SHERRITT, INC. (7/5/2000, NO. 97-5726)<BR></A><BR> Are United States corporations whose Cuban subsidiaries formerly held oil concessions and leases to drill for oil in the Republic of Cuba. These concessions were expropriated by the Cuban government in 1959.</SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="813"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-7085a.html">DAVID J. GORMAN V. AMERITRADE<BR></A><BR> Craig argued the cause for appellees.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="813"></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-8.gif" ALT="813"></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-8.gif" ALT="813"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct97/96-6747.opa.html">PETERSON V. BMI REFRACTORIES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Peterson v. Which was removed to it from a state court located in another district. Which is contrary to the geographic requirements of 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="813"></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-8.gif" ALT="813"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/01/97-9556.htm">97-9556 -- HRI, INC. V. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY -- 01/06/2000<BR></A><BR> The effect of state adjudications against a tribe on EPA's authority to assess whether lands are Indian country. Dismissing in part and remanding in part. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="813"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/01/97-9556a.htm">97-9556A -- HRI, INC. V. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY -- 01/06/2000<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="813"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001658.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction to hear TechnoSteel's appeal from that portion of the district court's order and we deny Beer's motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The parties disagreed as to whether the dispute was subject to arbitration or litigation and as to whether the proper forum was in Georgia or South Car TECHNOSTEEL v. Litigation was commenced by the parties in both states. Which was subsequently removed by Beers to the federal district court in South Carolina. Asserting that it was the forum agreed upon by the parties in their subcontract. The transferred action was received and docketed in the Northern District of Georgia. To Georgia where similar litigation was pending. Such a decision is At oral argument. Which is an immediately appealable decision. Beers draws no distinction between the reviewability of interlocutory decisions which are immediately appealable and those which are not. Relying on precedent which holds that a transferor circuit court loses jurisdiction to review interlocutory decisions of its district courts that are not immediately appealable once the file is physically transferred under з 1404(a). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="813"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct97/96-6747.opa.html">PETERSON V. BMI REFRACTORIES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Peterson v. Which was removed to it from a state court located in another district. Which is contrary to the geographic requirements of 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="813"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200001/99-7097a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Richard J. With him on the brief were Robert F. The issues presented are whether the District Court may assert personal jurisdiction over the defendants and whether venue is proper in the District of Columbia ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="813"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2179.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> King and Rudman & Winchell were on brief for appellants. Lucy with whom Richardson & Troubh were on brief for appellee. The district court allowed the motion on the ground that the Boits failed to make a prima facie showing that Gar Tec is subject to jurisdiction under the Maine long arm statute. She declared that Gar Tec is an Indiana corporation with a principal place of business in Lowell. Indiana and is a wholesaler and importer of power tools and products. Rather the gun was manufactured by Kress Elektrik G.M.B.H. of Germany. He placed a written order with Brookstone for the hot air gun that is the subject of the Boits' complaint. Babson also testified that the hot air gun was labelled </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="813"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AC0ED2D1B39D56A688256C29005653E1/$file/0135276.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are called upon to decide two significant issues. Legally documented agricultural workers have standing to sue their employers. ZIRKLE FRUIT CO. the constitutionality of supplemental subject matter jurisdiction involving a party over whom there is no independent basis for federal court jurisdiction. The purported class ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="813"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTQ4ODYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-4886-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Teitler was substituted as a party pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 43(a)(1). 1 Peter W. Was retained by plaintiffsappellees Rene Garcia ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="813"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1002.html">ORLEANS INTERNATIONAL, INC V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Kevin J. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="813"></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-8.gif" ALT="813"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/02-8016.htm">02-8016 -- NICODEMUS V. UNION PACIFIC CORPORATION -- 02/13/2003<BR></A><BR> Background</center> <p> Plaintiffs appellees are Wyoming landowners (1) Warren Nicodemus. Plaintiffs claim that Union Pacific's rights of way over their land are easements and that plaintiffs retain the servient tenement in the underlying land. That </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="813"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19956429.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BCBSA is immune from liability to the United States for payments its officers certify and disburse to Medicare beneficiaries. Analyzing both the context within which the subsection is made applicable to the Medicare Act. The Supreme Court cases that have construed it. Body was an employee of appellee Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama from 1973 to 1989. Issues The Medicare program is administered by the Health Care Finance Administration (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="813"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1979.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="811"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTQ2MzFfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-4631_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because petitioner's application for asylum was found to be untimely by the Immigration Judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="811"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0D11D4E2203C4EF7882571990050574D/$file/0435677.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That is not so. The primary jurisdiction doctrine is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="811"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200206/01-7085a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Robert S. We consider whether the courts of the District of Columbia may assert general jurisdiction over a defendant that is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="811"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june99/96-5262.opn.html">TAMIAMI PARTNERS V. MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS (6/7/1999, NO. 96-5262)<BR></A><BR> Which is making its third appearance before our court. <A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="811"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTQ2MzFfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-4631_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because petitioner's application for asylum was found to be untimely by the Immigration Judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="811"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BBAF3C4AD260891188256D60006E97BD/$file/0271143.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are presented with constitutional and regulatory challenges to the Board of Immigration Appeals' ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="811"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june99/96-5262.opn.html">TAMIAMI PARTNERS V. MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS (6/7/1999, NO. 96-5262)<BR></A><BR> Which is making its third appearance before our court. <A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="811"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/01/013698P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were (1) the restraint methods used by the institution's employees. (2) the lengthy confinements to which inmates were subjected. The parties notified the court that they were conducting settlement negotiations and later presented a settlement agreement for approval. Although the court explicitly determined that the agreement was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="811"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul26/03-10902-CR0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fernandez was convicted in the Western District of Texas (Western District) on two counts of importing marihuana. Fernandez was sentenced to two three year terms of supervised release. Was arrested in the Northern District of Texas (Northern District) while transporting illegal aliens. When he was arrested. There were filed Thereafter. Where Fernandez was being held. Fernandez was sentenced in the Northern 2 District on the illegal alien transportation charge on August 14. Arguing that the Northern District Court lacked jurisdiction to revoke his supervised release imposed by the Western District Court because the transfer of jurisdiction was not in accordance with 18 U.S.C. з 3605. The appeals were later consolidated. 3 Discussion The relevant statute is 18 U.S.C. з 3605: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="811"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/03/051822P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Michael Meyer sought and was granted an The Honorable Theodore McMillian died on January 18. This opinion is being filed by the remaining judges of the panel pursuant to 8th Cir. Because we conclude that a district court is without subject matter jurisdiction to expunge a criminal record where the motion to expunge is based solely on equitable considerations. Meyer stated in an affidavit that he was employed in the securities industry by an institution insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="811"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B09A26A2FD13FCAD88256E6E005A0F64/$file/0256581.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Senior District Judge: This is an appeal from the district court's order denying a motion by O'Neill. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. з 1291 and affirm. Are undisputed. OLS were the long time attorneys for Robert O'NEILL. Which was settled in 1990. He signed a letter agreement entitling OLS to collect the amounts owed when he was able to sell his interest in a parcel of land located in Carson. The Carson property was entangled in environmental litigation. Paragraph XI provided that the parties could seek relief from the court to resolve disputes they were unable to resolve themselves. It appears that following entry of the decree the property was sold and Ferrante liquidated his interest. That section vests jurisdiction in district courts having original jurisdiction of an action </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="811"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul26/03-10903-CR0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fernandez was convicted in the Western District of Texas (Western District) on two counts of importing marihuana. Fernandez was sentenced to two three year terms of supervised release. Was arrested in the Northern District of Texas (Northern District) while transporting illegal aliens. When he was arrested. There were filed Thereafter. Where Fernandez was being held. Fernandez was sentenced in the Northern 2 District on the illegal alien transportation charge on August 14. Arguing that the Northern District Court lacked jurisdiction to revoke his supervised release imposed by the Western District Court because the transfer of jurisdiction was not in accordance with 18 U.S.C. з 3605. The appeals were later consolidated. 3 Discussion The relevant statute is 18 U.S.C. з 3605: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="811"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ED482DD84D44CDCC88256A3B005ADD5C/$file/9955576.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because appellants have failed to demonstrate by the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="811"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200416733.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the Defendants did not have sufficient contacts with the state of Florida to assert personal jurisdiction over them. Was severely injured when he dove into the shallow end of a swimming pool at the Nassau Resort. 1 claiming they were negligent for installing poor lighting. WHC moved to dismiss on the sole basis that it was an improper party because it exercised no control over and held no interest in Nassau Resort.2 In support of the motion to dismiss. The court did not address any other issue. 2 The motion to dismiss was filed by Wyndham before the August 25. 1268 69 (11th Cir. 2002). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="811"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B5A836BA1BA84CA488256E5A00707B11/$file/9955576.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because appellants have failed to demonstrate by the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="811"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/june96/95-1425.wpd.html">SEC V. KNOWLES<BR></A><BR> The previously filed opinion is withdrawn and the accompanying opinion substituted. The question presented is whether the appellant has the requisite minimum contacts to justify the district court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over him. These subpoenas were issued in connection with the Formal Order of Investigation in the nonpublic investigation conducted by the SEC out of its Denver. Knowles is presently a Bahamian citizen and resident and has been so since 1951. He is an independent investment consultant and. At the times the subpoenas were served on him. Was also the president of two Bahamian companies. The SEC sought to determine whether bank accounts in the names of these two companies were used to bribe brokers in the United States to sell certain stock of American companies in violation of federal securities laws. The SEC applied to the district court in the judicial district where it is conducting the investigation. Knowles responded to the Order to Show Cause and moved the district court to (1) The Formal Order of Investigation is not a part of the record in this case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="807"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D11A39AF8E498C3F88256DF300616260/$file/0136045.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Anderson was subsequently served with a notice that Wills must vacate the premises or fill out an application and be approved to live in the unit. Left on a trip to California and were gone for more than a week. On the same day the action was filed. All full time United States Magistrates in the District of Oregon have been certified to exercise civil jurisdiction in assigned cases. Parties are 17124 ANDERSON v. Both parties needed to consent to the magistrate judge's authority to enter judgment for the magistrate judge to have jurisdiction over WoodCreek's motion to dismiss and Anderson and Wills's summary judgment motion. Anderson and Wills's next pleading was filed May 27. Was titled in part </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="807"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct98/96-4118.man.html">FDIC V. LACENTRA TRUCKING, INC. (10/16/1998, NO. 96-4118)<BR></A><BR> Section 1821(d)(13)(D) provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="807"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5124.html">FOLDEN, ET AL. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>On the brief was <u>Russell D. Argued for defendant <span class=SpellE>appellee</span>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>With her on the brief were <u>Peter D. <span class=SpellE>Keisler</span></u>. Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Susan L. <span class=SpellE>Launer</span></u> and <u>Roberta L. The court determined that plaintiffs failed to state a claim for breach of contract because they were unable to establish the existence of an implied in fact contract with the government arising from their filing of lottery applications for cellular communication licenses with the Federal Communications Commission (the Commission ).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span><u>Id.</u> at 51 55.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>On the second point. 402(b).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span><u>Id.</u> at 55 60.</p> <p class=MsoBodyTextIndent3>We agree with the Court of Federal Claims that plaintiffs claims are covered by subsection 402(b). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="807"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/06/063093P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Seeking to have a tribal judgment of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Court of Appeals declared null and void. The bank now argues that the tribal courts lacked jurisdiction over the Longs' discrimination claim and that it was denied due process by the tribal proceedings. I. The Long Company is a family farming and ranching business incorporated under the laws of South Dakota and located on the Cheyenne River Sioux Indian Reservation. Who are both enrolled members of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe (Tribe). Who was not a tribal member. The parties disagree about whether his shares were distributed to Ronnie Long. 2 but it is undisputed that the Longs have majority ownership of the company. In his will Kenneth purported to devise his interest in the company and his land on the reservation to his four children. Noting that it has filed a creditor's claim against the estate and asserting that Kenneth's interest in the company was never distributed by the probate court. The estate was still in probate at the time of the district court judgement. 22 1 The bank is a South Dakota corporation with its principal place of business outside the reservation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="807"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1514.html">3D SYSTEMS V. AAROTECH<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="807"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct98/96-4118.man.html">FDIC V. LACENTRA TRUCKING, INC. (10/16/1998, NO. 96-4118)<BR></A><BR> Section 1821(d)(13)(D) provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="807"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200312146.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Moved the circuit court alternatively to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim for relief or for a more definite statement on the ground that the allegations of the complaint were so vague and confusing that a responsive pleading should not be required. Inc. was merged into American Home Products Corporation. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals is a division of Wyeth. Which is the only defendant before us. Who were citizens of Florida. The first question we must decide is whether we have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. We conclude that we have jurisdiction. I. Section 1447(d) of Title 28 of the United States Code provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="807"></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-8.gif" ALT="807"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200407/03-7117a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="807"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2003/022897.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will vacate the district court's order and judgment and will remand the case for further proceedings. I. BACKGROUND Chi Mei is a New Jersey corporation and Minmetals is a corporation formed and existing under the laws of the People's Republic of China ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="807"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EF48386956684E8388256F540056492F/$file/0273538.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ASHCROFT 16177 Immigration Judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="807"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/993047.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> S 2D1.1 because the Government did not prove the substance involved in his criminal offenses was crack cocaine. The court order declared: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="803"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/42D9067E62BAA44B88256EC9005774EF/$file/0315544.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the ground that the arbitrator did not have jurisdiction over Health Net. HNL is a wholly owned subsidiary of Health Net. That no valid basis existed to vacate the award. 2 Health Net of California is. The request was submitted to Health Net as plan administrator. Health Net determined that no medical benefits were available for Katie's jawbone reconstructive surgery. Health Net reminded Carter that his sole recourse was arbitration of his claim through the American Arbitration Association (AAA). HNL was dismissed without prejudice. Over its protests that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="803"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6A6A87536E8D60808825707A007DF444/$file/0316364.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are presented with the question of whether a bankruptcy court has subject matter jurisdiction to enter a money judgment in a nondischargeability adversary proceeding where the underlying debt has been reduced to judgment in state court. The stay was granted subject to the condition that Sasson </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="803"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/05/99-2131.htm">99-2131 -- MARTIN V. FRANKLIN CAPITAL CORP. -- 05/29/2001<BR></A><BR> We conclude that we have jurisdiction over this appeal. The court addressed the amount in controversy requirement by stating </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="803"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CE5E9CE16D0D776F88256A8B0059D05A/$file/9935874.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issues before us are jurisdictional. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. з 1291. The court found that: (1) the case was moot because the Tribe BIA contract had been completed and the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="803"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/08FBB64A028909358825707E004BBBC9/$file/0356547.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is withdrawn and replaced by the amended opinion filed concurrently with this order. The petition for panel rehearing is denied. The vessels were arrested pursuant to maritime procedure. The district court determined that in rem jurisdiction was lost because there was no res against which to enforce an eventual in rem judgment. The district court held that it was powerless to order the Owners to reinstate the security. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. з 1291. The Original District Court Action Ventura Packers is a corporation that provides stevedoring services in Ventura. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="803"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june99/95-5198.opn.html">AQUAMAR V. DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE (6/30/1999, NO. 95-5198)<BR></A><BR> Plaintiffs/appellees (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="803"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C22C6168E456491788256E5A00707BE9/$file/9935874.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issues before us are jurisdictional. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. з 1291. The court found that: (1) the case was moot because the Tribe BIA contract had been completed and the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="803"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1540.html">EMC CORP. V. NORAND CORP.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="803"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/07/02-2214.htm">02-2214 -- CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE V. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR -- 07/27/2004<BR></A><BR> We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. <p> The heart of this dispute is a 2001 Solicitation for Offers issued by Interior for the provision of office space to house the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians. 072 provides </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="803"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1828.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jefferson Melish</U> was on brief. The scope of that jurisdiction was narrow. The Authority and plaintiff appellant Ninigret Development Corporation (Ninigret) a Rhode Island business corporation in which a member of the Tribe apparently is a principal embarked upon a series of business transactions.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="803"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/12/98-4138.htm">98-4138 -- SOMA MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL V. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK -- 12/01/1999<BR></A><BR> We affirm the denial of the discovery order. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="803"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200410104.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Background and Procedural History This putative class action was filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County Georgia. By issuing a Registration Statement and Prospectus that was materially false and misleading. The plaintiff's action is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="803"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june99/95-5198.opn.html">AQUAMAR V. DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE (6/30/1999, NO. 95-5198)<BR></A><BR> Plaintiffs/appellees (collectively </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="803"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/055520p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the District Court's dismissal of Marten's claims. The course work for the program is completed online. Who are primarily located in Kansas. Marten then submitted an application to the program and was accepted in August of 2001. He deferred the start of his course work until the following spring. 2 During the time Marten was enrolled. Defendant Ronald Regan was Director of the program. Defendant Harold Godwin was a professor. Defendant James Kleoppel was an associate clinical professor.1 The defendants never visited Pennsylvania and never recruited Pennsylvania pharmacists to enroll in the University's program. Marten alleges he complained to a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="803"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0311p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Providing notice that if an adjudication of guilt is entered against Appellant. Claiming that the district court was without jurisdiction to impose the enhanced penalties under section 841. Appellant was named in a twelve count indictment that charged him in Counts 1. Appellant was convicted of drug trafficking. The mandatory minimum and the maximum possible penalties on each count are as follows . . . Followed by at least 8 years of supervised release. [] The parties agree not to seek any other [there was an agreement on a threepoint reduction under U.S.S.G. з 3E1.1(a) (b) for Appellant's acceptance of responsibility] enhancements. (3) that there was nothing in the agreement that he did not understand. (4) that he understood that the statutory penalty for each of the counts to which he was pleading guilty was a mandatory minimum of ten years in prison followed by at least eight years of supervised release. (6) that his plea was voluntarily made and of his own free will. The Guideline range of imprisonment was 100 25 months. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="803"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AA1F55BD132160858825705A000016EA/$file/0356547.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The vessels were arrested pursuant to maritime procedure. The district court determined that in rem jurisdiction was lost because there was no res against which to enforce an eventual in rem judgment. The district court held that it was powerless to order the Owners to reinstate the security. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. з 1291. The Original District Court Action Ventura Packers is a corporation that provides stevedoring services in Ventura. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="803"></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="803"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/96opinions/96-3084a.html">USA V. OAKAR MARY ROSE<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="803"></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-8.gif" ALT="803"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0074p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This diversity of citizenship case was filed as a result of an explosion and fire in a hunting cabin in northern Canada. Paul Brunner and Douglas Otte are United States citizens who were injured in the fire. Karen Brunner is the wife of Paul Brunner. Identifying the parties and the alleged tortious acts that gave rise to this diversity case: Plaintiffs Paul and Karen Brunner are residents of Missoula. Plaintiff Douglas Otte is a resident of St. Defendant Pamela Hampson is a resident of Fairfield County. Ohio and is the Executrix of the Estate of Jerry Jay Hampson. Defendant Canada North is an international booking agent and outfitter providing sport hunting excursions in the Province of Nunavut. Canada North is incorporated under the laws of the Province of Ontario. Defendant Knap is the owner and sole shareholder of Canada North and is a resident of Almonte. Was contacted by Brent Sinclair. Was naphtha. A fire investigation concluded that: (1) the hunting party was accommodated in an inadequate hunting camp that was neither inspected nor licensed for commercial operation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="799"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200110/99-1151a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Lauren E. With her on the brief were John C. Grant was on the brief for intervenor Navajo Nation. In proposing to promulgate and administer a federal 1 The following petitions for review challenging the same EPA rule were consolidated and are before us: State of Michigan. Was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on Septem ber 14. 2000. operating permits program for areas where EPA believes the Indian country status is in question. Among the requirements is that the state demonstrate that it has </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="799"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1052.html">LSI INDUSTRIES INC V. HUBBELL LIGHTING, INC<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief was <u>Theodore R. With him on the brief was <u>Alfred N. Hubbell is a Connecticut corporation that maintains its principal place of business in Virginia. The district court stated that satisfaction of both the Due Process Clause and the Ohio long arm statute was required for it to exercise personal jurisdiction over Hubbell. Standard of Review</p> <p ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="799"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/99opinions/99-1151a.html">STATE OF MICHIGAN V. EPA<BR></A><BR> Nickel argued the cause for petitioners.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="799"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053706p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Held that it had diversity of citizenship jurisdiction because the sole beneficiary of Emerald Trust was Emerald Investors Ltd. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="799"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug09/03-20226-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> OTSI is an independent contractor that supplies experienced personnel. The stated purpose of which was to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="799"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200303/02-5251a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="799"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0066p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Taveraz </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="799"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4A41B1D160D65AB388256EC2007E4D94/$file/0256937.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Background Schwarzenegger is a resident of California. He was a private citizen and movie star. Schwarzenegger was generally cast as the lead character in so called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="799"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2374.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is corrected as follows: On page 38. Trias & Melendez were on brief. Hans Kobelt and Pollack & Kaminsky were on brief. Palcu & Miranda were on brief. Gonzalez & Rodriguez were on brief. Our principal task today is to resolve the contested legal status of these financing agreements. That all are. BACKGROUND The facts relating to the underlying breach of contract and the protracted litigation emanating from it are chronicled in 3 a series of opinions. We confine our account to the facts that are needed to place the instant appeals into workable perspective.1 A. As these events were unfolding. To repayment of all indebtedness in relation to the line of credit to have been obtained in Dopp's name. 000) than Dopp claims was due. The amendment is only peripherally related to the issues we must decide today. To the extent it is relevant. Which provides in its entirety: When a litigated credit is sold. The debtor shall have the right to extinguish the same by reimbursing the assignee for the 6 When his communiques drew no meaningful response. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="799"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5644158508C8CA9088256EEB00779E22/$file/0216305.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> NEW SENSOR CORP. 10957 We also remand for the district court to consider whether the exercise of pendent personal jurisdiction is appropriate in this case. CE's principal place of business is in Arizona. New Sensor's principal place of business is in New York. CE is the exclusive United States distributor of Jensen speakers. Which are manufactured in Italy by Sica Altoparlanti (SICA). New Sensor was aware of CE's exclusive distributorship. Which is also based in Arizona. Complicating matters between the companies was the assignment of a trademark for electron tubes to New Sensor by the former exclusive distributor of the tubes. New Sensor's assigned trademark was from Svetlana Electron Devices. CE does not assert that general personal jurisdiction over New Sensor existed. 3 The district court's ruling was made before we decided Harris Rutsky. 2 10960 CE DISTRIBUTION v. B. Intentional Tort Claim (Interference With Distributor Agreement) [3] When an intentional tort claim is asserted. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="799"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Mar2002/001268.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That district courts have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. Is unable to do so. The statute provides in pertinent part: A person who is prohibited from possessing. The Secretary may grant such relief if it is established to his satisfaction that the circumstances regarding the disability. Are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest. Any person whose application for relief from disabilities is denied by the Secretary may file a petition with the United States district court for the district in which he resides for a judicial review of such denial. 18 U.S.C. Or receiving firearms that have traveled in interstate commerce. 18 U.S.C. A convicted felon can regain his firearms privileges if the jurisdiction in which he was convicted expunges his conviction. Rice was the first circuit court opinion to address whether the appropriations ban enables felons to seek the restoration of their firearms privileges in federal court despite ATF 's inability to review their applications. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="799"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/752876AC2E72D7B088256DA3007BDB70/$file/0116391.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The conforming amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act have not been completed. If the investment is made in a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="799"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/September2004/032184p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Including undue influence and breach of fiduciary duty as the executor of a will. We will affirm in part and reverse in part. Appellant Robert Golden is a citizen of the state of New York and holds general power of attorney for Leah Golden. Appellant Donald Earwood is the personal representative of the estate of Helen Earwood. Golden and Darlene Koposko are both adult citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. King executed a Last Will and Testament (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="799"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-2903_010.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On behalf of himself and all persons that FedEx Ground employed there as local package delivery drivers who were or are improperly classified as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="799"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011938.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Was fatally injured on July 18. Motivation had no knowledge that the crane was being shipped to North Carolina. The record is void of any evidence indicating Motivation was even aware that Polar had a North Carolina plant. 1 YATES v. Found that the exercise of personal jurisdiction in this case was appropriate and denied Motivation's motion to dismiss. That Motivation is subject to the personal jurisdiction of the district court. We find that the district court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over Motivation exceeds the limits of due process and is therefore constitutionally impermissible. Whether Motivation's contacts with North Carolina were sufficient to support the district court's exercise of personal jurisdiction is a question of law which we review de novo. It is well established that. Motivation does not separately contest that it is subject to North Carolina's long arm statute. The scope of our inquiry is simply whether North Carolina may. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="799"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2001/003550.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A Joint Venture Agreement ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="799"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTU4NzgtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5878-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The precise issues presented are whether the remand order is appealable. Whether 2 the remand for noncompliance with the local rule was proper. We conclude that the remand order is appealable. That the remand order was erroneously issued. That the District Court's subject matter jurisdiction was properly invoked. The Authority was created by legislative acts of New York. The Plaintiffs are Buffalo residents. Seeking to enjoin the Authority from taking any further action on an international Border Infrastructure Improvement Project ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="799"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTAzMjUtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0325-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were mostly on the losing side of a hardfought union election. Arguing that (1) because the plaintiffs' state law defamation claims were socalled minor disputes under the Railway Labor Act (RLA). (2) because the RLA preempts state law claims that are minor disputes. We do not reach the question whether the plaintiffs' state law claims are the type of socalled minor disputes that. Are within the exclusive primary jurisdiction of arbitral panels established pursuant to the RLA. Voting in the union elections took place while the plaintiffs were suspended. Count 1 also alleged that American was liable for the defamation because it allowed the fliers to remain on a company bulletin board. Such disputes are known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="795"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1335.html">JIM ARNOLD CORP. V. HYDROTECH SYSTEMS<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="795"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200005/98-1196a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Michael B. With him on the briefs were David S. With them on the briefs were Lois Schiffer. With her on the brief were Wil liam W. Petitioners' principal contention is that EPA has granted too much authority to tribes. The first is whether Congress expressly delegated to Native American nations authority to regulate air quality on all land within reservations. Including fee land held by private land owners who are not tribe members. The second is whether EPA has properly construed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="795"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1134.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. Were on brief. The district court concluded it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over Count I of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. з 1331. Facts</STRONG></P> <P> The facts related to this appeal are largely undisputed and are taken from the district court's memorandum and order. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="795"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1356.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This matter is before the court on defendants appellees' petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc. The panel will clarify the rationale in its opinion by issuing an amended opinion. A copy of the amended opinion is attached to this order. The suggestion for rehearing en banc was transmitted to all the judges of the court in regular active service in accordance with Rule 35 (b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The suggestion for rehearing en banc is DENIED. It should have vacated its previous substantive rulings and remanded the case to state court in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1447(c).(1) The State Court Complaint In June 1999. Whose successor in interest was BHP. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> of their employment with HIOC. The assignments provided that plaintiffs would share in the NPIs once payout was reached. Although the plan was adopted in 1981. Cunningham and Mantor alleged that the payments they received were not calculated properly. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="795"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0447p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that this action was improperly removed from the state court as federal subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. Palkow claimed that she was terminated from her probationary employment as a railroad conductor trainee at CSXT because of her sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That case ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="795"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/9_opinions/92-1634a.html">SHELL OIL CO V. FERC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="795"></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-7.gif" ALT="795"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/373C9CAE188B8B5388256A6B005BC95E/$file/9956130.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It also illustrates the relationship 7465 between pleading in the district court and federal appellate jurisdiction and serves as a reminder that pleading a patent claim in the complaint will. Federal court jurisdiction was premised on diversity. Because the district court's jurisdiction was based in part on з 1338. Was actually promised. Promised that Breed and his consulting firm </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="795"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0192p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Fortis states that the agreement was for a term of five years (see Appellant Br. 1). Is a surrogate insurance underwriter of Metallia. Is a well known steel commodity carrier in the Great Lakes region. A marine transportation consultant: It is a matter of widespread general knowledge within the maritime chartering industry that Fednav['s] primary business is the carriage of international cargoes to and from the Great Lakes. Fednav is also known for calling especially at Great Lake ports that receive steel cargoes. A link to which is contained on the website of Defendant Viken Ship Management. Fednav International Ltd. is the largest international user of the St. Lawrence Seaway is. Page 3 of these calls (114) were at U.S. 29 of these calls were at Ohio. The Charter Agreement provides that the rate to charter a vessel is $9. Including the following description of the M/V Inviken: ╖ The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="795"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1663_014.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Burgess was involuntarily committed to a Wisconsin state mental health facility after a jury found that he was a sexually violent person as defined in Wisconsin's Sexually Violent Person Commitment Statutes. Burgess now appeals to this court. 2 No. 05 1663 What distinguishes this case from the many habeas corpus petitions this court entertains each term is that it involves one additional sovereign Burgess is a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe. We conclude that the Supreme Court of Wisconsin's ultimate resolution of Burgess's jurisdictional claim was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established law as articulated by the Supreme Court of the United States. I Burgess is an enrolled member of the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians (Lac du Flambeau). He is a legal resident of his tribal reservation land. Burgess was convicted of attempted second degree sexual assault of a child (a crime that he committed on his reservation) in the Circuit Court for Vilas County. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="795"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200314189.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> One of which is an issue of first impression in this circuit: whether a state law claim alleging conversion of an idea is completely preempted by з 301 of the Copyright Act. Cotham liked Dunlap's idea and was invited by Dunlap to become the co founder of G&L Bank. Offered her the position of A detailed discussion of the intricate facts involved in this case is unnecessary because the outcome of this appeal depends upon whether the district court properly exercised federal subject matter jurisdiction. 3 1 President of G&L Bank. After Cotham and Griffith were on board. Before his employment term was to end. Dunlap was terminated from his position. Dunlap's claims in this appeal are based on the alleged breach of this employment agreement and the ownership and use of the G&L Bank trademark. (2) whether Dunlap's federally registered trademark was valid under 15 U.S.C. зз 1051. That they stole his Bank idea by continuing to operate the Bank after he was terminated and that they fraudulently induced him to give up his rights in the G&L Bank trademark and then continued to use the mark after his termination ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="795"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1996/96a1250p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issue presented in this appeal is whether the district court properly dismissed the complaint of Vetrotex for lack of personal jurisdiction. Because it is not contested that general jurisdiction does not lie. We will affirm. I. Vetrotex is a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of various fiber glass reinforcement products. Which was incorporated in March of 1991. Is a wholly owned subsidiary of CertainTeed Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="795"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3270.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="795"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1590.html">BRAZOS V. U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="795"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1995/94a0933p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> L.P. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="795"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2000/993234.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Does the District Court have mandamus jurisdiction over the Territorial Court? The jurisprudence is clear that jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus lies in cases where potential jurisdiction exists. We further conclude that the ROA's command that the relationship between the District Court and local courts mirror the one between state and federal courts is not a bar to the District Court's exercise of mandamus power because the District Court retains appellate jurisdiction over the Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands. Which precludes dismissal of criminal cases absent a judicial finding that the dismissal is in good faith. Because this judgment is reserved to prosecutors under the old common law power of nolle prosequi. Rule 128(b) is a substantive rule of law rather than a procedural rule that the local court is authorized to promulgate under the ROA. The local rules of the Territorial Court apply the Federal Rules in circumstances in which there are no valid rules to the contrary. The argument that this rule also has a substantive component is not without force. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="795"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/67080336DD941EAE88256E5A00707B96/$file/9956130.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It also illustrates the relationship 7465 between pleading in the district court and federal appellate jurisdiction and serves as a reminder that pleading a patent claim in the complaint will. Federal court jurisdiction was premised on diversity. Because the district court's jurisdiction was based in part on з 1338. Was actually promised. Promised that Breed and his consulting firm </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="795"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2297.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> F claimed that Tyco International was liable. F is a Delaware corporation that maintains its principal place of business in North Carolina and Tyco International is a Nevada corporation that maintains its principal place of business in New Hampshire) and the existence of a controversy exceeding $75. A plaintiff may amend its complaint once as of right before a responsive pleading is served. A limited partnership is deemed to be a citizen of every state of which any of its general or limited partners are citizens. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="795"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-9560.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The director revoked James's visa three months later based on a finding that James was adopted after the age of sixteen. Hamilton admits James was adopted after the statutory age cut off. He contends the state court adoption decree which was issued nunc pro tunc to a date prior to James's sixteenth birthday satisfies the requirements of the INA.(1) In revoking James's visa. The director concluded a nunc pro tunc decree is (1) Following approval of the visa petition. When James was seventeen. Even though adoption proceedings were commenced after James's sixteenth birthday. Hamilton argues the adoption was legally effective before James's sixteenth birthday and thus in conformity with the INA. <hr> not acceptable for establishing the age of adoption for immigration purposes. We must resolve whether we have jurisdiction to do so. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="795"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTU4NzgtY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/04-5878-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The precise issues presented are whether the remand order is appealable. Whether the remand for noncompliance with the local rule was proper. We conclude that the remand order is appealable. That the remand order was erroneously issued. That the District Court's subject matter jurisdiction was properly invoked. The Authority was created by legislative acts of New York. The Plaintiffs are Buffalo residents. Seeking to enjoin the Authority from 3 taking any further action on an international Border Infrastructure Improvement Project ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="795"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042848np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs' relatives were forced to sell their shares in a family business in Germany. I. Plaintiffs Barbara Principe and Martin Wortham are a daughter and a grandson. Who was the son of Franz and Kфthe Wertheim. AWAG was a holding company that operated department stores in Berlin and owned another real estate holding company. Instead indicated that AWAG was in financial straits. Neither agreement was publicly recorded at that time. The District Court denied the motion to recuse because both law clerks were walled off from the case. Asserting jurisdiction is not reasonable under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They claim that defendants are corporate successors of Hertie and AWAG. Supp. at 864 (implying that merger is the only circumstance implicating successor Substantive state law is taken from the state of the transferor court. Successor liability is imputed in similar circumstances. 454 (4th Cir. 1990) (successor jurisdiction exists if successor liability is present). 460 (1965) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="795"></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="795"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-1053_015.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We also conclude that the Ho Chunk Nation is not entitled to sanctions or double costs for Wisconsin's allegedly frivolous appeal that Wisconsin voluntarily moved to dismiss before the completion of briefing. Which is now known as the Ho Chunk Nation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="795"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-0011a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="791"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5082.html">FUSHER V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>With her on the brief were <u>David M. Kinsella</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Captain Andrew M. Virginia.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>Of counsel was <u>Virginia G. What must a plaintiff establish regarding the existence of a money mandating law source in order for the Court of Federal Claims to have subject matter jurisdiction over the case under the Tucker Act?<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span>Second. What are the consequences of a failure to prove the elements of the cause of action. Even assuming the cause of action is otherwise established. Are there issues that. Are nonjusticiable?<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>а </span></p> <p class=MsoHeader style='text indent:.5in. Filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims alleging that while he was on active duty. He should have been found unfit for continued service because of a physical disability. 1201 should have been retired for disability. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="791"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-7244a.html">MICHAEL PRICE V. SOCIALIST PEOPLE'S LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA<BR></A><BR> <span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="791"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/03/98-2267.htm">98-2267 -- UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION V. ALBERTSON'S -- 03/16/2000<BR></A><BR> At the time this litigation was filed. Federal jurisdiction was soundly based on </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="791"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0266p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> All of whom are government officials. One count is devoted to federal law and another to state law. Substantive Facts The district court stated the background facts that gave rise to this case as follows: The plaintiffs in this case are a Michigan circuit judge. Nor have plaintiffs moved yet for class certification. Plaintiffs purport to represent all active and retired Michigan judges who are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="791"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb99/97-9177.man.html">STATE TREASURER OF THE STATE OF MICH. V. BARRY (2/19/1999, NO. 97-9177)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> Because the partial summary judgment order involved here was not a final decision. There was no subsequent motion for partial summary judgment on. This would have allowed the parties to appeal the May 27 partial summary judgment order.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="791"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2000/99-10880.man.html">S & DAVIS INT'L V. REPUBLIC OF YEMEN (7/21/2000, NO. 99-10880)<BR></A><BR> Asserting that the General Corporation was controlled by the government. The district court held there was sufficient subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction to proceed. The district court's interlocutory order denying immunity is reviewable under 28 U.S.C. з 1291 and the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="791"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-7045.html">BARRERA V. GOBER<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="791"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTI0MDQtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-2404-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is vacated. The Clerk is requested to modify the official caption to reflect that Willie Jacques. Jr. is no longer a party to this appeal. * 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 27 28 29 30 31 32 DAVID B. Which is з 806 of the Sarbanes CTI has settled its dispute with Jacques. He is no longer a party to this appeal. 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Oxley Act of 2002. 2003 was that he had raised concerns with management about CTI's financial reporting. The Secretary issued a preliminary order finding that Bechtel's expression of concern is activity protected by з 1514A and ordering reinstatement. The power of the inferior federal courts is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="791"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2000/99-10880.man.html">S & DAVIS INT'L V. REPUBLIC OF YEMEN (7/21/2000, NO. 99-10880)<BR></A><BR> Asserting that the General Corporation was controlled by the government. The district court held there was sufficient subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction to proceed. The district court's interlocutory order denying immunity is reviewable under 28 U.S.C. з 1291 and the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="791"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200206/00-7244a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Andrew C. With him on the brief was Stuart H. Two central questions have been raised on appeal: first. Whether plaintiffs have alleged facts that are legally sufficient to revoke Libya's immunity under the FSIA. That plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for hostage taking adequate to abrogate sovereign immunity and establish subject matter jurisdiction. We hold further that the allegations supporting plaintiffs' torture claim are not adequate to bring the case within the statutory exceptions to foreign sovereign immuntiy. The complaint in its present form is simply too conclusory to satisfy s 1605(a)(7). Plaintiffs have at least intimated that they can allege facts that might state a proper claim for torture under the FSIA. We will remand the case to allow plaintiffs to attempt to amend their complaint in an effort to satisfy the statute's rigorous definition of torture. We note that there is a question as to whether the complaint states a claim for relief upon which plaintiffs can recover. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="791"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-7250a.html">WORLD WIDE MINERALS V. REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN<BR></A><BR> Keller argued the cause for appellants.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="791"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb99/97-9177.man.html">STATE TREASURER OF THE STATE OF MICH. V. BARRY (2/19/1999, NO. 97-9177)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> Because the partial summary judgment order involved here was not a final decision. There was no subsequent motion for partial summary judgment on. This would have allowed the parties to appeal the May 27 partial summary judgment order.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="791"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/may97/96-4073.wpd.html">UTE INDIAN TRIBE OF THE UINTAH AND OURAY RESERVATION V. STATE OF UTAH<BR></A><BR> That the lands in question are not part of the Uintah Valley Reservation. The district court held that it was bound under the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="791"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTA3MzMtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0733-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Judge) granted the remand motion and denied defendants' motion for reconsideration on the basis that 28 U.S.C. з 1447(d) prohibited the court from entertaining the motion. 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 27 28 The district court's order denying the defendants' motion for reconsideration is vacated. The court's order granting the plaintiff's motion to remand to state court is vacated. The case is remanded to the district court with instructions for the court to deny the motion to remand and to conduct further proceedings. A plaintiff will be deemed to have waived his objection to removal by filing his motion for remand after the statutory period for doing so has run. That a) the remand granted by the district court in this case was made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. з 1441(b). Which prohibits a defendant from removing an action to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction if any defendant </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="791"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199910880.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Asserting that the General Corporation was controlled by the government. The district court held there was sufficient subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction to proceed. The district court's interlocutory order denying immunity is reviewable under 28 U.S.C. з 1291 and the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="791"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199910880.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Asserting that the General Corporation was controlled by the government. The district court held there was sufficient subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction to proceed. The district court's interlocutory order denying immunity is reviewable under 28 U.S.C. з 1291 and the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="791"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTA3MzMgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/04-0733%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Judge) granted the remand motion and denied defendants' motion for reconsideration on the ground that 28 U.S.C. з 1447(d) prohibited the court from entertaining the motion. 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 27 The district court's order denying the defendants' motion for reconsideration is vacated. The court's order granting the plaintiff's motion to remand to state court is vacated. The case is remanded to the district court with instructions for the court to deny the motion to remand and to conduct further proceedings. A plaintiff will be deemed to have waived his objection to removal by filing his motion for remand after the statutory period for doing so has run. That a) the remand granted by the district court in this case was made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. з 1441(b). Which prohibits a defendant from removing an action to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction if any defendant </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="791"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1098.html">STANLEY F. CERMAK, V. BRUCE BABBITT<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <u>Lois J. ) are. The Department asserted that the Cermaks have no rights in the parcels and that the Department instead holds the land in trust for the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community. </p> <p ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="791"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A4FEC09E8DF1F1F48825701F00154E3F/$file/0256751.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor. Claiming that the detention was in violation of the Fourth Amendment and seeking damages. Rocha's initial contention is that. The courts are closed to the Sissokos. 1 purThe INS was abolished on March 1. Its functions were transferred to the Department of Homeland Security. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="791"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2004/032801p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was one of ten beneficiaries of a trust created by her uncle. The other beneficiaries sought declaratory relief in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to have the New Jersey adult adoption statute declared invalid and Maria's adoption proceedings declared null and void. I. Plaintiffs/Appellants are surviving beneficiaries of a revocable trust (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan96/95-6878.man.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>In re City of Mobile United States Court of Appeals. Circuit Judge: This case is before the panel on a petition for writ of mandamus. Alabama Police Department were engaged in a high speed chase of Kahalley. The case was set for trial in state court on June 26. It was continued. Petitioners request that this court issue a writ of mandamus ordering the district court to retain and hear the entire case. CONTENTIONS Petitioners contend that the district court erred in remanding the entire case to state court and assert that the district court should have retained all of the claims. Petitioners contend that the language of 28 U.S.C.
	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 Plaintiffs/appellees (collectively
	MILAN EXPRESS V. AVERITT EXPRESS (4/7/2000, NO. 98-7024) Inc. (
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief were Martha B. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Shawn S. Their separate appeals were consolidated before this court because there is a common issue among them. Because Tunik's case is moot. I. BACKGROUND Tunik was an Administrative Law Judge (
	OPINION/ORDER Of counsel on the brief was Brian C. With her on the brief were Peter D. This is a consolidated appeal from two decisions of the Court of Federal Claims. Because the RAC is an agent of the United States. BACKGROUND I At the heart of this case is the administration of the AMAA. The AMAA was originally enacted during the Depression. Producers the principal purposes of which are to raise the price of agricultural products and to establish an orderly system for marketing them.
	DICK V. DEPT. OF VETERAN AFFAIRS Argued for respondent.
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER A man claiming to be Alejandro CejaPrado was arrested and charged with entering into a conspiracy to sell methamphetamine. Was sentenced to 151 months of imprisonment with three years of supervised release. Although Ceja Prado testified during his plea colloquy that he was twenty one when the crime was committed. He now presents evidence purporting to establish that he was a juvenile at the time of the crime. If this is true. There is presently. Was at the time of the conviction. Provides that federal courts have no jurisdiction over certain prosecutions for acts of juvenile delinquency unless the cases have been certified for prosecution by the Attorney General or his specified representatives. Is a Mexican national who entered the United States several years ago. Were arrested and charged with conspiracy to distribute. Ceja Prado twice replied that he was
	OPINION/ORDER P.C. were on brief. Was on brief. Mavricos was on brief. Assocs. were on brief for amici curiae Gay &. The sole basis for the Union's federal complaint is its contention that the MCAD proceeding is preempted by federal labor law under
	OPINION/ORDER Plaintiffs/appellees (collectively
	OPINION/ORDER The Dealers are CLM Equipment Company. Are Volvo Construction Equipment North America. Champion Road Machinery Limited (
	MILAN EXPRESS V. AVERITT EXPRESS (4/7/2000, NO. 98-7024) Inc. (
	OPINION/ORDER
	99-3065 -- STATES OF ALABAMA, CALIFORNIA, CONNECTICUT, ET AL. V. U.S. DEPT. OF ENERGY -- 03/06/2000 Circuit Judges.
	OPINION/ORDER Line 1 the phrase
	OPINION/ORDER The Corps asserts jurisdiction based on the fact that the wetlands are adjacent to waters of the United States. Adjacency is no longer sufficient to establish the Corps' jurisdiction under the CWA. The site is roughly rectangular. It is bordered on the north by Cushing Parkway. The flood control channels are navigable and connect with the Bay. The wetlands are separated from the flood control channels by man made berms. If the berms were removed. Baccarat asserts that if the berms were removed. The wetlands are 65 70 feet from the flood control channels. The wetlands on the site are separated into six delineated areas. Five of which are at issue in this case. The Corps' jurisdiction over the wetlands in that area is not in dispute. The District noted that the flood control channels are
	OPINION/ORDER Was on brief for appellant.
	OPINION/ORDER Because we conclude that Associated is not a
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief. Were on brief. Were on brief. Were on brief. Were on brief. Were on brief. Although over two million votes were cast. Are separated by a very narrow margin a few thousand votes. This extremely close election has raised emotions in Puerto Rico and spawned the actions that are before us. Plaintiffs Appellees include NPP candidate Rosselló. The validity of certain ballots that were cast in connection with the November 2. The Acevedo Defendants seek review of that order. Also part of this appeal is an action filed on November . Rez Plaintiffs
	OPINION/ORDER Pedersen were on the joint briefs. Barr were on the joint briefs for petitioners Southern California Gas Co. Were on the brief. Leif were on the joint brief for intervenors Amoco Energy Trading Corporation. Barr were on the joint brief for intervenors Public Utilities Commission of the State of California. This delay was arbitrary and capricious. It could and should have ordered the intrastate pipeline to refund the charge. This case would never have reached this court. CPUC concluded that a refund was inappropriate because the interstate shippers had re ceived service and use of the interconnection facilities from SoCal. The gas was transported to local end users under contracts between SoCal and the end users. No refund was appropriate because the interstate shippers nominated deliveries into the intercon nection facility. CPUC reasoned: It is obvious to us that these nominators are customers of SoCalGas. Service was provided to the interstate ship per. In California they nominate in writing to SoCalGas for SoCalGas to transport gas to be delivered by the 1 The interstate shippers who appear as Petitioners before this court are: Amoco Energy Trading Corporation.
	HILLMAN V. WEBLEY Because it is necessary for an understanding of the instant appeal. (AHI) is a Delaware corporation with its principal offices in Colorado. AHI was engaged in the business of providing remote electronic monitoring of business and residential security systems throughout the United States. Barnard is a former director and president of AHI. One proposed opportunity was for investors to purchase interests in various limited partnerships which were established to purchase alarm monitoring accounts from small. Among the many investors who took part in the offerings were a group of entities. Was appointed as a member of AHI's board. Was appointed as Senior Vice President of AHI. B. The securities lawsuits A series of lawsuits were subsequently filed in California. Who were involved in the management of AHI and/or AHI related entities. Also named in several of the suits were Coopers & Lybrand. AHI's statements and promises to investors were simply a cover up for an
	OPINION/ORDER Not the additional work hardening and therapy that Jarrard claims were necessary to treat his remaining injuries. Causing him to lose medical and temporary disability benefits that were to fund the treatment of his shoulder injuries until such time that he could return to work. Jarrard's request was denied. Arguing that the Indiana legislature did not indicate that the statute was to be applied retroactively the Board therefore did not have jurisdiction because the acts Jarrard complained of took place prior to the statute's effective date. The Board agreed and issued an order dismissing Jarrard's third party claim on the basis that it did not have jurisdiction to hear his third party complaint.2 A final award in Jarrard's worker's compensation claim was entered on May 4. IC 22 3 4 12 1 is not retroactive and does not apply to Jarrard's allegations. So the Board was the exclusive forum for Jarrard's new complaint. The district court did have jurisdiction to hear his case because. The Board's entry of award accepting the defendants' interpretation of the statute was
	OPINION/ORDER This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > In re City of Mobile United States Court of Appeals. Circuit Judge: This case is before the panel on a petition for writ of mandamus. Alabama Police Department were engaged in a high speed chase of Kahalley. The case was set for trial in state court on June 26. It was continued. Petitioners request that this court issue a writ of mandamus ordering the district court to retain and hear the entire case. CONTENTIONS Petitioners contend that the district court erred in remanding the entire case to state court and assert that the district court should have retained all of the claims. Petitioners contend that the language of 28 U.S.C.
	AUCTION COMPANY AMER V. FDIC
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Marshall Lee Miller. M. Melissa Glassman was on the brief. With him on the brief was Thomas B. With her on the brief were Francis A. 18 U.S.C. s 1961 et seq.1 The defendants in this case are Kazakhstan and two of its instrumentalities. Are also plaintiffs in this case. Holding that it did not have personal jurisdiction over that New York corporation because World Wide's injuries did not arise out of any act that took place in the District of Colum bia. As to those claims where there was no waiver. We agree with the district court that the act of state doctrine is fatal to World Wide's suit. Because the dismissal of the claims against Nukem was based on a misunderstanding regarding the date upon which World Wide alleges that officials of Nukem and Kazakhstan met in the District of Columbia to conspire against it. We remand those claims to permit the district court to determine whether the facts are sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. World Wide submitted a proposal 2 The facts set out in this Part are taken from World Wide's amended complaint and documents incorporated by reference there in.
	OPINION/ORDER He asserts that he is a United States national and accordingly is not subject to the immigration laws. Also before us is Asemani's habeas petition which the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania transferred to this Court on the basis that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Asemani asserts that the petition should not have been transferred because the District Court has jurisdiction to determine citizenship in the first instance. Vacated the Immigration Judge's termination of proceedings and remanded the case for removal proceedings after finding that Asemani was not a United States national. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. з 1291 to consider the order of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissing Asemani's petition for a writ of habeas corpus and will affirm. We do not have jurisdiction to consider the habeas petition transferred from the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania because Asemani failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and is not appealing a final order of removal.
	OPINION/ORDER Have failed to comply with this Court's order in Parker v. Defendant was ordered to pay a total of $1 million in damages to the plaintiff. Defendant was further ordered to implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. 3 reversed the damages award because the district court did not instruct the jury that damages were only recoverable by a party that owned or occupied the Parker property during the relevant time period. Parker's children were included in the damage award. Defendants are deemed to have a permit by rule and do not need any other solid waste handling permits. Plaintiffs failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that defendants were in violation of the district court's order to develop and implement a legally sufficient SWPPP. STANDARD OF REVIEW There are three issues presented on appeal: I. A defendant's present ability to comply with a court order is subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. The district court is in the best position to weigh the competing interests set forth in з 1367(c) and [United Mine Workers v.
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs was Peter H. With him on the brief was William H. With him on the briefs were Frank W. Dunn was on the notice of joinder in brief for appellant Joseph P. Rotenberg was on the brief for amicus curiae The Regents of the University of Minnesota. The court thought it was obliged to decide that issue before reaching the question we decided whether the statute provides for a qui tam action against a state because the Eleventh Amendment issue is jurisdictional. We too were obliged to decide that issue. The Fifth Circuit reasoned as follows: since the question whether a relator can sue a state under the Act is a cause of action or merits question. Since the question whether a federal court can hear such a suit under the Eleventh Amend ment is a jurisdictional one. The principal authori ty that the Fifth Circuit relied on is Steel Co. v. Where the merits question was easier and the prevailing party on the merits would be the same as the prevailing party were jurisdiction denied. Is flatly inconsistent with core principles limiting the role of Article III courts:
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER Or distributed the CARC products to which he was exposed in Kentucky. None of the defendants are incorporated or have principal places of business in Arkansas. Then the complaint is factually deficient. Are enough to confer personal jurisdiction of a nonresident defendant. Our inquiry is limited to whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with due process. Specific jurisdiction is viable only if the injury giving rise to the lawsuit occurred within or had some connection to the forum state. We have instructed courts to consider the following factors when resolving a personal jurisdiction inquiry:
	OPINION/ORDER American Depositary Receipts (
	00-3057 -- STATE OF KANSAS V. U.S. -- 05/04/2001 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
	KENNETH R. BURKHARDT V. HERSHEL W. GOBER With him on the brief were David W. Burkhardt seeks review of the final decision of the United States Court of Veterans Appeals holding that it did not have jurisdiction over an application for costs and fees. Burkhardt was not satisfied with either of the rating decisions and challenged them at the Board of Veterans Appeals (". The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims explained that the June 1946 rating decision could not be final until notice was sent to Burkhardt informing him of the decision. The court concluded that the claim corresponding to that decision was still pending before the RO and. In order to have jurisdiction over the EAJA application. The court must have had jurisdiction over the action giving rise to the expenses. Our jurisdiction is established by statute which states that this court ". The VA asserts that this court does not have jurisdiction because the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims merely interpreted and applied its own precedent. Does have jurisdiction.
	OPINION/ORDER Kil Soo Lee (
	USA/LONG RONALD E. V. STATE OF NEW YORK Argued the cause for appellant/cross appellee. With him on the briefs was Peter H. With him on the brief was William H. With him on the briefs were Frank W. Hunger. Dunn was on the notice of joinder in brief for appellant Joseph P. Rotenberg was on the brief for amicus curiae The Regents of the University of Minnesota. Before: Wald. The court thought it was obliged to decide that issue before reaching the question we decided whether the statute provides for a qui tam action against a state because the Eleventh Amendment issue is jurisdictional. We too were obliged to decide that issue. We think it appro priate to issue this supplemental opinion to explain why we believe we should stick with the order of decision we adopted. The Fifth Circuit reasoned as follows: since the question whether a relator can sue a state under the Act is a cause of action or merits question. Since the question whether a federal court can hear such a suit under the Eleventh Amend ment is a jurisdictional one.
	OPINION/ORDER To change the terms of her will and revocable trust. Approximately six weeks after she was moved to Indianapolis. Evelyn executed a new will and a new trust agreement. Evelyn once again executed a new will and an amendment to the trust. Causing her to execute a new will and a new trust naming Robert the sole beneficiary of her estate. As this was essentially a probate matter. Finding that Brion's lawsuit
	OPINION/ORDER 1991 is amended as follows: On page 23. Insert
	OPINION/ORDER D.C. 20044 Counsel for Respondent This case was argued before the panel of Judges Ambro. It is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C. з 46(d). We do not have jurisdiction to consider the IJ's conclusion that Alaka abandoned her lawful permanent resident status. I. Factual Background Alaka is a citizen of Nigeria who entered the United States without inspection in November. Is now called the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. She was ultimately denied this relief. There are thus two sets of facts relevant to this petition: Alaka's criminal history and her trips abroad.2 In 1992. Alaka was convicted in the United States for aiding and abetting bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. зз 1344 and 2. She was indicted on three counts for conduct involving fraudulent checks. Alaka was convicted. For which the actual loss was $4. She argued at sentencing that the finding of intended loss should be based only on the charge for which she was convicted. Alaka is a member of the Yoruba tribe in Nigeria and a Christian.
	OPINION/ORDER The issue in these appeals is the scope of bankruptcy court jurisdiction. Was executed by Debtor and Safeco. Was renewable for four additional one year periods unless Safeco gave ninety days notice of its intent to cancel or not to renew. The ADM bond further provided: It is understood and agreed that [ADM] may recover the full amount of the Bond (less any previous amounts paid to [ADM] under the Bond) if [Safeco] cancels or nonrenews the Bond and. Because Debtor was now in bankruptcy. The agreement reflected in the Term Sheet was a post petition security credit agreement that required bankruptcy court approval. 3 In late July and early August. Although the new arrangements were later approved by the bankruptcy court. The ADM bond is in full force and effect. There have never been any claims against it. Safeco's original complaint sought a declaratory judgment determining that ADM was not entitled to forfeiture of the penal sum of five million dollars and an injunction preventing ADM from continuing to demand payment.
	OPINION/ORDER They have brought a class action against Lafarge for current and future personal and real property damages. We are called upon to decide whether the plaintiffs' class action against the nation's largest cement plant is solid. It is the largest cement manufacturing plant in the nation and has been owned and operated by Lafarge since 1987. Id. at 787 (noting that
	OPINION/ORDER Jr. and Smith & Nevares were on brief for appellant Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Geoffrey Woods and Woods & Woods were on brief for appellee/cross appellant Futura Development of Puerto Rico. Jr.was on brief for defendants appellees. Futura brought this suit seeking a determination that CDC was an alter ego of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The Commonwealth was liable for the judgment. Futura was awarded summary judgment. All of which were dismissed by the district court sua sponte. The jury in that case rejected CDC's cross claims alleging that the Ciudad Cristiana property was contaminated with mercury. Jurisdiction in that case was premised entirely upon diversity. This court is faced with the current dispute over satisfaction of that judgment. CDC is a public corporation that was created by the Puerto Rico Legislative Assembly in order to develop housing cooperatives across Puerto Rico. A majority of the CDC's budget each year is provided by the Commonwealth. Futura argues that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is liable for the original judgment because it was a de facto party to the original litigation.
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief was Robert L.Vogel. The complaint further alleged that Pedre is a New York corporation with its main office in New York City. That the district court had venue because Pedre
	OPINION/ORDER 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.
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief for appellee. The district court concluded that Seminole Tribe was a bar and dismissed the suit. Ninety six current and former probation and parole officers (plaintiffs appellants) have asserted that the State of Maine improperly failed to pay them overtime in accordance with the requirements imposed by Section 7 of the FLSA. Maine contended that the probation officers were exempt from the FLSA's overtime provisions. The district court concluded that the plaintiffs were covered employees but came within the FLSA's partial exemption for law enforcement officers. Was challenged under the Commerce Clause as well as the Fifth and Tenth Amendments. These amendments were challenged under the Tenth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled in 1968 that the amendments were legitimate expressions of Congress' Commerce Clause powers. Held 5 5 that Congress did not have the power to extend FLSA protections to state employees in
	OPINION/ORDER Which is an appellee and is participating in this appeal. Certain other parties that have been dismissed from the action or are not participating in the appeal. As the parties have done in their briefs. As a matter of convenience we will treat him as the sole appellant in this opinion referring to him as
	OPINION/ORDER The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. The subpoenas were issued by an arbitration panel presiding over an arbitral proceeding to which neither Stolt nor its former counsel is a party. We have previously stated that
	BROWN AND DARNELL V. U.S.
	OPINION/ORDER 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.
	OPINION/ORDER The bankruptcy court dismissed Rodney's case on the ground IN RE: MILES 16185 that he was generally paying his undisputed debts as they became due. One of which was that the petitions were filed in bad faith.1 The bankruptcy court retained jurisdiction to determine the alleged debtors' rights to attorneys' fees. The causes of action asserted by Melinda and Kelly were based on the bankruptcy court's finding that the involuntary petition against their mother. Was filed in bad faith. On the basis that he was generally paying his undisputed debts as they became due. The causes of action asserted by Ann were based solely on the bankruptcy court's dismissal of the involuntary petition against her husband. While these motions were pending. Appellants moved for remand under 28 U.S.C. з 1452(b) on the premises that the removal was untimely and that there was no federal jurisdiction over damages claims by third parties resulting from the filing of an involuntary bankruptcy petition. Holding that it had
	02-3096 -- HILL V. KANSAS GAS SERVICE COMPANY -- 03/26/2003 Are local natural gas public utilities
	OPINION/ORDER I. The substantive facts of this case are not in dispute on appeal. Lindsey alleges that while working for Dillard's she was sexually harassed by a male homosexual co worker who made comments about men and male homosexual activity. Lindsey was injured on the job. Dillard's removed the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.1 The removal was effected on December 7. Which asserted that once the ADA claim was dismissed. Asserting that the district court should not have remanded the remaining state court claims because of the separate existence of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. з 1332. Orders made pursuant to one of the bases set forth in 28 U.S.C. з 1447(c) are not reviewable on appeal.2 Section 1447(d) provides in pertinent part:
	OPINION/ORDER Substantive Facts Defendant MTA is an association of approximately 700 member companies in the metalworking industry in Michigan. Plaintiff is a licensed insurance agent in the state of Michigan. While Plaintiff was initially hired as a salaried employee. Plaintiff was deemed an
	OPINION/ORDER The motion is GRANTED. The previous order of dismissal is withdrawn. The following opinion is entered in lieu thereof. The owner of the ship on which he was injured. Appellants removed to federal court on the grounds that their dispute with Dahiya was subject to an arbitration agreement governed by the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the
	OPINION/ORDER We reaffirm the principle that the Tax Court's jurisdiction over appeals from CDP determinations is limited to issues over which the Tax Court would have had jurisdiction to consider the underlying tax liability. Is entitled to raise defenses and to contest the levy or lien. 26 U.S.C. з 6330(c)(2)(A).1 After receiving a determination from Section 6320(c) looks to з 6330 for issues regarding hearings. Which was denied. II [1] The Tax Court is an Article I
	OPINION/ORDER We reaffirm the principle that the Tax Court's jurisdiction over appeals from CDP determinations is limited to issues over which the Tax Court would have had jurisdiction to consider the underlying tax liability. The lien is not effective until the IRS has filed notice. Is entitled to raise defenses and to contest the levy or lien. 26 U.S.C. з 6330(c)(2)(A).1 After receiving a determination from the 1 Section 6320(c) looks to з 6330 for issues regarding hearings. Which was denied. II [1] The Tax Court is an Article I
	OPINION/ORDER Pollock & Sheehan Incorporated was on brief for appellants. Collins & Graham was on brief for appellees. The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island found that the amount in controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. 1332(a) was not met and dismissed the case. A wholly owned subsidiary of Stop & Shop (hereinafter appellees will be referred to collectively as
	OPINION/ORDER The district court based its removal decision on the grounds that the claim was
	OPINION/ORDER The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. The subpoenas were issued by an arbitration panel presiding over an arbitral proceeding to which neither Stolt nor its former counsel is a party. We have previously stated that
	OPINION/ORDER Harper's employment was transferred from AutoAlliance to AAI Employee Services Co. The conditions and terms of his employment were governed by the collective bargaining agreement (
	OPINION/ORDER We also decide that an arbitrated dispute that is based on the breach of a construction contract growing out of a territorial housing project financed by federal funds does not establish federal question jurisdiction. We will reverse an order of the district court vacating an arbitrator's award. Funding for the project was supplied by a program that receives part of its funding from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under the Comprehensive Improvement Assistance Program. The contract was executed on September 29. No notice to proceed was issued. Contending that it was entitled to compensation for the work it had performed before the termination. The Housing Authority asserted that consideration of the amended claim was unfair and prejudicial. The two cases were consolidated by an order that was originally limited to discovery. Based on evidence that some of the expenses claimed by Coastal might have been inflated or completely false. The district court reasoned that the Housing Authority may have been prejudiced.
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: Today regarding we decide a narrow but in not unimportant courts question and the diversity jurisdiction federal application of the doctrine of
	OPINION/ORDER James Callwood appeals the order of the District Court of the Virgin Islands denying his pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which he challenges the failure of the Virgin Islands Director of Corrections to recommend him to the Virgin Islands Board of Parole for an early parole eligibility date to which he claims he is entitled by statute. Callwood was armed with a sawed off shotgun and Smith with a machete. Bruggeman was asleep in the bedroom. The underlying facts of the crime are taken from the transcript of Callwood's plea hearing and therefore reflect the facts as admitted by Callwood at the time of his plea. Although Callwood was a juvenile (16) at the time of his arrest. He was transferred on August 26. He was sentenced to 40 years imprisonment. He was sentenced to an additional 5 years for an earlier escape from custody. Were denied on the merits by the District Court. Callwood filed the pro se petition that is the subject of this appeal. He alleges that he is in custody in violation of his rights under a Virgin Islands statute and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.
	OPINION/ORDER We will dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.1 II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY PGI is the employer sponsor and named fiduciary of the Pressman Gutman Co. Throughout this opinion we will refer to the petition as seeking only a writ of mandamus as all the relief PGI seeks is available through mandamus. Even though the facts relating to defendants' liability are in sharp dispute. The pertinent facts material to our disposition of these matters are undisputed. We note that each party in these contentious proceedings accuses its opponent of improperly citing material outside the record in contravention of the
	OPINION/ORDER Patel contends that his Illinois conviction for aggravated criminal sexual abuse is not an aggravated felony within the meaning of the removal statute. BACKGROUND Patel is a native and citizen of India who entered the United States on February 18. In which it charged that Patel was removable under 8 U.S.C. з 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) because he had committed an aggravated felony. He was entitled to rely on з 212(c) because he was convicted in 1989. Because it is the same as the version applicable at the time of Patel's conviction in October 1989. Patel represents that
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Debra L. With him on the brief was William R. With him on the brief were Peter D.
	OPINION/ORDER Although it is unnecessary to refer to them by name. Recomm's business was carried on. The lease assignments were without recourse. The laws governing Chapter 11 proceedings are codified at 11 U.S.C. зз 1101 1174. Several reorganization plans were proposed. Only the third and fourth plans are relevant here. Were served with a copy of the Third Amended Plan in June 1997. The Third Amended Plan purported to modify the leases of all
	OPINION/ORDER The BIA held that the Immigration Judge did not have jurisdiction over these claims at the time he considered Johnson's application for relief under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel. The question before us is whether on remand the Immigration Judge's jurisdiction was limited to the CAT issue. In deciding that it was limited. The Petition for Review will be granted and we will vacate the Board's order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1. He was placed in exclusion proceedings and taken into custody by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (
	OPINION/ORDER The defendants appeal only the jury's determination that they are liable under the CWA and the RCRA. We conclude that there was substantial evidence for the jury to find the defendants liable under the CWA and the RCRA. The facts are taken largely from the district court's order denying the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law. 2 1 * Parker moved into the house located on that property in 1983 and lived there until medical problems forced her to move out in 1998. The house at 9144 Washington Street has remained vacant.2 The property adjoining the Parker property is 8194 Washington Street (
	OPINION/ORDER Mause were on the briefs. During the mid 1980s C&W and CCC entered into a joint venture in which CCC was to develop a Caribbean wide FM broadcast ing system that C&W would then use to offer an FM paging service. CBS later sought and was granted leave to file a First Amended Com plaint in order to correct a technical error in its description of the ownership of CBS. The court explained that the complaint
	OPINION/ORDER Is amended as follows: At slip op. 8609. Is DENIED. Circuit Judge: We hold that an unincorporated Indian tribe such as appellee is not a
	OPINION/ORDER We must decide whether 8 U.S.C. з 1252(a)(2)(C) which bars our review of a removal order when the alien
	OPINION/ORDER I. Sabri Samirah is a Jordanian citizen who first entered the United States in September 1987 on a student visa. We examine that long legal history only insofar as it is relevant to the narrow issue before us. Who was still classified as an alien. Is basically permission for a resident alien to reenter the United States after departing for some stated purpose.). Which was about four months earlier than he had represented to the INS. While Samirah was abroad. Revoked his advance parole because the INS had received information that he was a
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: We hold that an unincorporated Indian tribe such as appellee is not a
	OPINION/ORDER Does the appellate court have jurisdiction to review the entire proceeding? This court has not yet had occasion to consider whether we may exercise jurisdiction where the agency decision under review was rendered pursuant to both the agency's authority under a statute providing for original jurisdiction in the district court and its authority under a statute providing for immediate review in the court of appeals.2 This circuit has considered the question whether a district court may exercise jurisdiction where plaintiffs assert independent statutory challenges to agency action taken pursuant to a statute vesting exclusive jurisdiction in the courts of appeals. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR [2] Several circuits addressing this question have held that where an agency decision has more than one basis of authority. Cir. 1994) (holding that where a challenged agency rule was issued pursuant to the authority of two statutes providing for separate paths of judicial review.
	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 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.
	OPINION/ORDER As this is an appeal from a denial of a motion to dismiss on grounds largely of qualified immunity. We are asked to decide these weighty questions aided only by the skeletal at best factual picture sketched out in the complaint. 1 2 Pub. The federal courts may not dismiss a complaint unless
	OPINION/ORDER Sylvan wishes to argue that the contracts between plaintiffs and defendant were ultra vires. A claim that defendant itself is prohibited from raising under Pennsylvania law. Federal jurisdiction for the original claims is based on the diversity of citizenship between plaintiffs and defendant. In order to assert as a defense that the agreements between plaintiffs and defendant were ultra vires. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. з1291 because the denial of a motion to intervene as of right is a final. We will reverse
	OPINION/ORDER I. Gaming World is a Delaware corporation that specializes in operating casinos. The Band is a federally recognized Indian tribe. The Band is governed by the White Earth Tribal Council which has conducted business as the White Earth Reservation Business Committee. A written contract was drafted which provided for a term of seven years and a division of the net profits of the casino. Sixty percent of the net profits were to go to the Band and forty percent to Gaming World. The casino was furnished through a $5. Casino management contracts involving Indian tribes are regulated under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA). 25 U.S.C. зз 2701 et seq. Although IGRA was passed in 1988. It was only in February 1993 that NIGC began to function. An unreviewed decision by an Area Director was not a final agency decision for purposes of exhaustion and judicial review. 43 C.F.R. зз 4.21(c). Contracts approved under the Secretary's interim authority were to be effective only
	OPINION/ORDER The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This case has led a somewhat tortured existence in the federal courts. Who are Wyoming landowners. Which was granted on April 22. Thus the settlement proceedings that could have mooted the rehearing en banc fell through. The parties then advised this Court that they were ready to proceed with the previously scheduled rehearing. We vacated our decision to rehear the case en banc and referred the case back to the original panel to consider the effect of Grable & Sons and Exxon Mobil on the (1) We note that though both parties now agree that the District Court had jurisdictionPlaintiffs suggest diversity jurisdiction is proper while Union Pacific suggests federal question jurisdiction is properwe must nevertheless find jurisdiction as it
	OPINION/ORDER Because the exercise of personal jurisdiction was integral to the order on appeal. This case is remanded to the district court for entry of an order to dismiss. Facts The facts underlying this controversy are complex. The properties involved in this case are three industrial facilities located in Bowling Green. Balkhouse Properties became the fee simple owner of the properties and Kroger was the lessee. The three lease agreements were essentially identical. Each lease was for a twenty year term. Malease and Balkhouse Associates then entered into three separate
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: Today regarding we decide a narrow but in not unimportant courts question and the diversity jurisdiction federal application of the doctrine of
	OPINION/ORDER The court concluded that certain of Bryan's claims arose under federal law and were subject to dismissal under the
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: We consider whether the federal courts have jurisdiction over a class action brought by Latin American banana workers against multinational fruit and chemical companies alleged to have exposed the workers to a toxic pesticide. I Dibromochloropropane (DBCP) is a powerful pesticide. The pesticide was banned from general use in the United States by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1979. Plaintiffs have reportedly won multimillion dollar settlements. Defendants have managed to have the cases dismissed for forum non conveniens. The merits are not before us. We must decide whether the case is properly in federal court. Which are alleged to have manufactured some of the DBCP used in plaintiffs' home countries. The Companies were. II Dole was entitled to remove the case to federal court if plaintiffs could have brought it there to begin with. We must therefore consider whether plaintiffs could have brought the case in district court under federal question jurisdiction or the FSIA1 1 Because Dole Food Company is a citizen of the forum state.
	00-2451 -- U.S. V. CITY OF LAS CRUCES -- 05/07/2002 INTRODUCTION This is an appeal from the district court's order dismissing the United States' suit to quiet title to water rights in a portion of the Rio Grande River. The purpose of the Reclamation Act was to facilitate irrigation of arid and semi arid western territories and states by providing for the construction of large scale irrigation works. See Henkel v. The Project is one that grew out of the Act. It is expansive. Just below Elephant Butte Reservoir is Caballo Reservoir. Water is released into the Rio Grande riverbed. The water is then diverted by one of six diversion dams into canals running on either side of the river. Riverwater is further diverted into channels and ditches running to farmland. The water is used to irrigate crops. The process is repeated several times over the length of the Project to irrigate land in both southeastern New Mexico and western Texas. Irrigation in the United States is not the sole use of Project water. Project water is also used outside of the United States.
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: We consider whether the federal courts have jurisdiction over a class action brought by Latin American banana workers against multinational fruit and chemical companies alleged to have exposed the workers to a toxic pesticide. I Dibromochloropropane (DBCP) is a powerful pesticide. The pesticide was banned from general use in the United States by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1979. Plaintiffs have reportedly won multimillion dollar settlements. Defendants have managed to have the cases dismissed for forum non conveniens. The merits are not before us. We must decide whether the case is properly in federal court. Which are alleged to have manufactured some of the DBCP used in plaintiffs' home countries. The Companies were. II Dole was entitled to remove the case to federal court if plaintiffs could have brought it there to begin with. We must therefore consider whether plaintiffs could have brought the case in district court under federal question jurisdiction or the FSIA1 1 Because Dole Food Company is a citizen of the forum state.
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were Richard J. The court would have no jurisdiction over an appeal from the Board. BACKGROUND Appellant Bates is an attorney who represents claimants for benefits before the VA. Such representation is permissible only if an attorney is accredited by the VA pursuant to 38 U.S.C. зз 5901 and 5904(a). Bates was accredited. Bates was also accused of violating 38 U.S.C. з 5904(c)(2) by seeking unreasonable fees from his clients. Bates urged that the Secretary's action was reviewable by the Board. Because the Secretary's decision to cancel his accreditation under 38 U.S.C. з 5904(b) was such a decision. An SOC is a mandatory prerequisite to a Board appeal. 38 U.S.C. зз 7105(a) and (d) (2000). the SOC. The court held that it would possess jurisdiction to issue the writ only if the granting of Bates' petition could lead to a Board decision over which the court would have jurisdiction. Therefore there was no authority to issue a writ of mandamus. 38 U.S.C. з 7252 (2000).
	OPINION/ORDER He claimed Defendants knowingly presented or caused to be presented false valuations of royalties owed to the Government for carbon dioxide (CO2) production in violation of 31 U.S.C. (1)The Latin phrase
	97-1178 -- GOLD V. LOCAL 7 UNITED FOOD AND COMMERICIAL WORKERS UNION -- 11/03/1998 Later that same month she was terminated by the union. Rule 15(b) provides that
	OPINION/ORDER The International Fuel Tax Agreement is a
	OPINION/ORDER Federal courts have recognized the right of prisoners to relief if prison officials deny them basic medical care. The vehicle for such suits is 42 U.S.C. 1983. The vehicle is not so clear. Some courts have treated such actions as Bivens actions. 403 U.S. 388 (1971).(2) Others have assumed that there exists a non statutory basis for injunctive action. The question arises whether the actions are barred by sovereign immunity. Very often the nature of the claim and the basis for rejecting sovereign immunity are not addressed.(4) We believe clarification would be useful. Assert that the action is barred by sovereign immunity. Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (rejecting federal prisoners' First Amendment challenge to a BOP regulation prohibiting electric instruments). the case is properly denominated an action for relief in the nature of mandamus. That sovereign immunity is not a bar. That his claims against the Bureau of Prisons are not properly before us. I. Background and Facts Plaintiff Appellant Ron Simmat was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced by the State of Connecticut to life imprisonment in 1962.
	OPINION/ORDER Which was paid. We hold that the district court should have exercised its discretion to abstain. We will vacate the district court's judgment and remand with instructions that the district court dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint. We asked the parties to submit supplemental briefs addressing the question of whether the district court properly should have abstained from entertaining the plaintiffs' claims under the abstention doctrine announced by the Supreme Court in Younger v. Appeals from the traffic court's decisions were heard by the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas. A parking ticket is affixed to the vehicle. The owner of the ticketed vehicle is sent a notice by first class mail. The person to whom the ticket is issued has fifteen days to answer it. A failure to answer or to pay the fine will result in a Bureau of Administrative Adjudication (
	OPINION/ORDER Praying for relief under California's Unfair Competition Law (
	OPINION/ORDER Is the owner of the well known Harrods of London department store. The defendants are 60 Internet domain names (
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief were David M. The district court should have abstained under principles of international comity. He did not violate the securities laws of the United States because the interests Swiss Trade sold were not securities. Neither summary judgment nor the relief granted the SEC are warranted. Some of Blackwell's arguments are not properly before this court. The others are without merit. The individual investor was not a party to the Endeavor Trust agreement and was not ordinarily ap prised of the terms of the trust arrangement prior to invest ing. Was directed at low income individuals to whom Blackwell privately referred as
	OPINION/ORDER Was on brief for appellant. Sherden and Peabody & Arnold were on brief for appellee. Of the Third Circuit. The district court was to certify these findings and rulings to the Clerk of this court. At the time this action was brought. Rather the magistrate judge found that Montle was by then physically residing in Houston. Resided by the time this action 2 was commenced within the same state as plaintiff. Diversity of citizenship was entirely lacking. As the district court was without jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332. It should have granted Montle's original motion to dismiss on that ground. Was on brief for appellant. Sherden and Peabody & Arnold were on brief for appellee. Of the Third Circuit. While not specifically alleging
	MILAN EXPRESS V. AVERITT EXPRESS (6/19/2001, NO. 00-13481) 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 (
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: Jose Cedano Viera is a native and citizen of Mexico who 4362 CEDANO VIERA v. He was later convicted of Lewdness with a Child Under Fourteen Years of Age in violation of Nevada law. Charging that Cedano Viera's conviction was an
	03-6112 -- FELIX V. LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC. -- 10/26/2004 Which was denied by the district court on the basis of ERISA complete preemption. We conclude that Plaintiffs' state law fraud claims are not completely preempted by ERISA. Lucent entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the brief was John S. Of counsel on the brief were James F. With her on the brief were Peter D. The United States is liable for the use of a method patent only when it practices every step of the claimed method in the United States. I. Zoltek Corporation (
	OPINION/ORDER We have jurisdiction to review the district court's preliminary injunction order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. з 1292(a)(1). Only one is directly relevant here: a
	OPINION/ORDER Is amended as follows: Delete Footnote 4. Praying for relief under California's Unfair Competition Law (
	OPINION/ORDER Hold that the award should have been confirmed in full. That the Southern District of New York (
	OPINION/ORDER Dailey were on brief for appellants. Dana & Gould were on brief for appellees. This appeal requires us to decide for a second time1 whether plaintiffs appellants (
	OPINION/ORDER Her underlying contention is that she is the owner of certain real property. That Defendants have acted illegally in interfering with her ownership. The agreement secured the indebtedness by promising to pay Plaintiff for all sums provided if and when the Henry Ruff Property was sold. Plaintiff was the sole title holder of the Huff Road Property. The circuit court found that the Henry Ruff Property was marital property to be divided2between Mary and Edward. The circuit court failed to even address whether the 1976 reconciliation agreement was valid. The court of appeals remanded the case to the circuit court to determine whether the 1976 reconciliation agreement and any of the subsequent transfers were valid. As there was a question of whether the transfers were part of a conspiracy to deprive Edward of his rightful marital property. Should have the opportunity to testify at trial. The circuit court later determined that the conveyances by Frances and Nancy were fraudulent. The circuit court found that the 1976 conveyance from Edward to Mary was void because it lacked consideration and because it was against public policy.
	OPINION/ORDER Which was denied by the district court on the basis of ERISA complete preemption. We conclude that Plaintiffs' state law fraud claims are not completely preempted by ERISA. Lucent entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: We are presented with the question of whether this action should have proceeded to hearing and judgment in the face of an earlier state court judgment that involved the same parties and issues but was subject to appeal. Should have abstained. Because Vulcan filed a motion to arbitrate in California under the California Arbitration Act and a California court has confirmed the arbitration award albeit in a judgment subject to appeal the district court should have abstained from hearing and deciding this case. I Phillip Barker was one of the founders of Rio Linda Chemical Company. He would have been required to pay approximately $5.2 million.). These distribution rights were memorialized in a Distribution Agreement between Rio Linda and Barker dated March 1. The Distribution Agreement was to be governed by the law of Virginia. [where both Rio Linda and Barker were located] or another mutually acceptable California location and will be final and binding. . . . Including questions as to whether the dispute is arbitrable.
	03-4115 -- BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON INC. V. HELIQWEST INTERNATIONAL -- 10/07/2004 Which was conducting heli logging operations near Mt. Plummeted immediately to the ground and was completely destroyed. Canada where some of the relevant parties are citizens. Given the large number of actors with ties to the helicopter it is unsurprising that there are questions about whether the Utah long arm statute permits personal jurisdiction over Copter Lease. Whether there is personal jurisdiction over Copter Lease in Utah determines. Because we find that Copter Lease is not subject to personal jurisdiction in Utah we also find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment action. The helicopter was destroyed in service in 1976. Which was not an original part. Was manufactured by Textool. It was installed on the helicopter in 1993. The United States Forest Service requires its contractors to have a U.S. registration number. While the exact nature of the relationship between Copter Lease and Eagle Copters is unclear. The
	SEC V. BANNER FUND INTERNATIONAL, ET AL. With him on the brief were David M. The district court should have abstained under principles of international comity. He did not violate the securities laws of the United States because the interests Swiss Trade sold were not securities. Neither summary judgment nor the relief granted the SEC are warranted. Some of Blackwell's arguments are not properly before this court. The others are without merit. The individual investor was not a party to the Endeavor Trust agreement and was not ordinarily ap prised of the terms of the trust arrangement prior to invest ing. Was directed at low income individuals to whom Blackwell privately referred as
	HENSON V. CIBA-GEIGY CORP. (8/14/2001, NO. 99-6021) The principal issue presented is whether the district court had removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. з 1441 and the All Writs Act. Was originally filed in the circuit court of Mobile County. The Louisiana court stayed
	OPINION/ORDER Was preempted by. Holding that it did not have jurisdiction to review the MPSC's order under 42 U.S.C. з 252(e)(6). Federal law. where the agency rule or action giving rise to the controversy is final and not contingent upon future uncertainties or intervening agency action. The challenged order was the product not of з 252 proceedings. It is presumably because з 252(e)(6) does not provide GTE with an adequate assurance of federal review that the MPSC does not seriously defend on appeal the district court's conclusion that з252(e)(6) satisfies Thunder Basin because it defers. The MPSC argues that
	OPINION/ORDER Sawyer & Brewster were on brief for appellant. I. Tak How is a Hong Kong corporation with its only place of business in Hong Kong. Its sole asset is the Holiday Inn Crowne Plaza Harbour View in Hong Kong (
	OPINION/ORDER Were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Circuit Judge: We are asked to decide whether a federal district court in California can properly exercise personal jurisdiction over 6116 HARRIS RUTSKY & CO. v. England based entities alleged to have interfered with a California corporation's contractual and business relations by their actions in Europe. Dba American Special Risk Insurance Services (
	97-1437 -- JURADO-GUTIERREZ V. GREENE -- 08/19/1999 Circuit Judge.
	OPINION/ORDER Are former students Honorable George C. The appellees are: the Secretary of the United States Department the Student Loan Higher Education of Education. Assistance Corporation (GHEAC). and the Georgia Higher Education This lawsuit is based upon the appellants' contention that the school fraudulently induced them to enroll in the school and to enter into federally guaranteed student loan contracts. Appellants were left with several thousand dollars in student loan debt. Financed their attendance at the school.1 The GSL program was designed to encourage private lenders to provide educational loans to students. The federal government provides private commercial lenders with a guaranty that a student's educational loan will be repaid even if the student defaults. The institution of higher education ordinarily is not a party to the loan agreement and has no role in the transaction other than to provide the lender with a statement of the student's estimated cost of attendance and financial assistance needs. Provides the private lender with a guaranty that the loan will be repaid even if the student defaults.
	OPINION/ORDER Who are a class of prisoners at the Washington Corrections Center for Women (the Prison). Who are current and former prison officials. The decree was to expire on January 12. To have Defendants held in contempt for past violations of the consent decree and moved to compel discovery. We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. з 1291. Which are not clearly erroneous. Defendants' motion to terminate the consent decree is moot. (e) In response to Plaintiffs' first contempt motion. Because the entire consent decree was still in effect when Plaintiffs filed their motion.1 (f) Plaintiffs are not entitled to a reversal based on the district 1 Plaintiffs' second contempt motion is addressed in a separate Order. The district court's jurisdiction was to terminate automatically on January 12. When it became apparent that more time was necessary. The court concluded that Plaintiffs were not entitled to an extension of the Judgment. MORGAN 6339 scope of the evidentiary hearing on extension is therefore a question of law to be reviewed de novo.
	HENSON V. CIBA-GEIGY CORP. (8/14/2001, NO. 99-6021) The principal issue presented is whether the district court had removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. з 1441 and the All Writs Act. Was originally filed in the circuit court of Mobile County. The Louisiana court stayed
	OPINION/ORDER After a default award was entered against defendant Caja Nacional de Ahorro y Seguro (
	OPINION/ORDER Is amended as follows: Slip opinion at 4373 4374: eliminating the final two paragraphs in Part II. 4640 CEDANO VIERA v. Circuit Judge: Jose Cedano Viera is a native and citizen of Mexico who entered the United States as a lawful permanent resident (LPR) in April 1993. He was later convicted of Lewdness with a Child Under Fourteen Years of Age in violation of Nevada law. Charging that Cedano Viera's conviction was an
	OPINION/ORDER Were on the briefs. Were on the brief. 19790 UNITED STATES v. The government was also required to give up all notes made by reviewing agents. 1 UNITED STATES v. The subpoenas were returnable on February 5. Consists of two professional baseball leagues the National League of Professional Baseball Clubs and the American League of Professional Baseball Clubs. 4 The names of the players are under seal and are not disclosed in this opinion. 5 CDT is a third party administrator of
	OPINION/ORDER Is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 6360. That is because the consent decree that is the subject of Plaintiffs' contempt motion expired on January 5. Is no longer in effect. 190 (3d Cir. 1999) (holding that extension of jurisdiction over a terminated consent decree is an inappropriate remedy for past civil contempt). 10 Because the district court twice extended its jurisdiction over the Judgment. The medical services provisions were in effect until January 5. The date on which the court's final judgment was entered. The petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Who are a class of prisoners at the Washington Corrections Center for Women (the Prison). Who are current and former prison officials. The decree was to expire on January 12. To have Defendants held in contempt for past violations of the consent decree and moved to compel discovery. We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. з 1291. Which are not clearly erroneous. Defendants' motion to terminate the consent decree is moot. (e) In response to Plaintiffs' first contempt motion.
	OPINION/ORDER Seeking (1) declaratory relief stating that the Opera Plaza satellite policy is valid. Next the court determined that no substantial federal question was presented by Opera Plaza's suit. As the federal statute and regulation were relevant only as a possible defense by a satellite TV viewer. A federal question was not alleged. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. з 1291. The existence of subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law reviewed de novo. To determine whether a particular restriction is permissible or prohibited under this section. 47 C.F.R. з 1.4000(e). Opera Plaza's argument that the district court erred in dismissing this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is three fold: first. Because it is predicated on з 207 and 47 C.F.R. з 1.4000(e). Opera Plaza contends that з 1.4000(e) is the exclusive procedure for testing a restriction such as its satellite policy.
	96-2161 -- RIENHARDT V. KELLY -- 01/07/1999 000 and was awarded costs against them in the amount of $9. Were not liable. (2) that the district court should have abstained from hearing the tort claim. Because the jury's verdict is not severable into the issues over which the court did have jurisdiction and those over which it did not. The challenge to the exclusion of character evidence is mooted by the resolution of the first issue
	OPINION/ORDER Who are also members of the Tribe and who control the Tribe's Executive Committee. The essence of plaintiffs' complaint was that defendants had exerted improper control over the Tribe's assets and other affairs. The Catawba Indian Tribe was involved in land related lawsuits against the United States and the State of South Carolina. The Settlement Agreement was implemented through both federal and state legislation. The federal and state governments were to pay a total of $50 million in trust to the Tribe. It provided in the interim that if no Tribal court is created. Plaintiffs are fourteen individual members of the Tribe and of the Tribe's General Council. One of its responsibilities is to elect the officers of the Executive Committee. Defendants are five members of the Tribe who serve on the Executive Committee. A sixth member who is the Executive Director and Chief Financial Officer of the Tribe. The Executive Committee is charged with handling the day to day matters for the Tribe. Plaintiffs claim that defendants have exercised unauthorized control over the Tribe's affairs and have violated provisions of the Settlement Agreement and the Federal and State Acts.
	OPINION/ORDER The question presented in this appeal is whether an ERISA action ostensibly brought under 29 U.S.C. з 1132(a)(3) apparently for solely
	MILAN EXPRESS V. AVERITT EXPRESS (6/19/2001, NO. 00-13481) 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 (
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: Petitioner Charles Walker was convicted and sentenced by the Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands for breaking various Virgin Islands criminal laws. Our threshold task in this appeal is to satisfy ourselves that we have jurisdiction to entertain it. We ultimately conclude that we have no jurisdiction in the absence of a certificate of appealability issued under 28 U.S.C. We will afford him a fair opportunity to request such a certificate and to provide support for that request. A certificate will be issued only if Walker is able to meet the standard recently established in Slack v. He was questioned by a United States 2 Customs agent regarding his customs declaration form. Walker was detained at the airport and arrested later that same day. His motion was denied. 1 and he was tried and convicted of all counts. That appeal is currently pending. Alleges that he is in custody in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Petitioner also moved to suppress the identification of him by a salesperson from the jewelry store while he was detained in a holding cell at the airport.
	OPINION/ORDER Which was conducting heli logging operations near Mt. Plummeted immediately to the ground and was completely destroyed. Canada where some of the relevant parties are citizens. Given the large number of actors with ties to the helicopter it is unsurprising that there are questions about whether the Utah long arm statute permits personal jurisdiction over Copter Lease. Whether there is personal jurisdiction over Copter Lease in Utah determines. Because we find that Copter Lease is not subject to personal jurisdiction in Utah we also find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment action. The helicopter was destroyed in service in 1976. Which was not an original part. Was manufactured by Textool. It was installed on the helicopter in 1993. The United States Forest Service requires its contractors to have a U.S. registration number. While the exact nature of the relationship between Copter Lease and Eagle Copters is unclear. The
	OPINION/ORDER As James Jennings was working under a forklift that was hoisted by a floor jack. It is not an Indiana corporation. Nor is it licensed to do business in the state. AC Hydraulic maintains a website (www.achydraulic.com) with English translations that is accessible throughout the United States. It was dismissed from the suit during the state court proceedings based on the stipulation of the parties. We have removed Stertil Koni from our caption. A federal court must determine if a court of the state in which it sits would have personal jurisdiction over the defendant. We will assume. That AC Hydraulic's conduct was sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction under Indiana's long arm statute. This limitation allows potential defendants to structure their contacts with different forums so as to plan where their business activities will and will not render them liable to suit. 4 No. 03 2157 and Jennings argues that a court in Indiana may exercise specific jurisdiction over AC Hydraulic because the basis for the suit arises out of or is related to AC Hydraulic's contacts with Indiana.
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Stephen H. Was on the briefs for appellant. With her on the brief were Jeffrey A. This rescission was the result of a negative reference. The district court concluded that the cause of action was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. DOE was to remove certain documents from Greenhill's record and to direct to a specified person all requests for employment references on Greenhill. The 1999 agreement required that any complaint alleging breach must be filed
	OPINION/ORDER Sea Hawk's motion for relief from the automatic stay was denied. The State was not a party to that agreement. With prejudice
	OPINION/ORDER ORDER The parties' joint motion for corrections to opinion is GRANTED. Is further amended as follows: 1. Replace the last sentence of the last paragraph beginning:
	BARTELS V. ALABAMA COMMERCIAL COLLEGE This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Bartels v. Are former students of the now defunct Alabama Commercial College that did business as Riley Training Institute of Savannah. The appellees are: the Secretary of the United States Department of Education. This lawsuit is based upon the appellants' contention that the school fraudulently induced them to enroll in the school and to enter into federally guaranteed student loan contracts. Appellants were left with several thousand dollars in student loan debt. </i> financed their attendance at the school.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="762"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A9830F0DE2673A0288256E5A00707A4C/$file/9855807.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kerry Sanders was extradited from California to New York in October 1993 and incarcerated in a New York state prison until October 1995. Kerry Sanders would not have been arrested. Factual Background </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="762"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTU3ODYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-5786-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The dispute involves L.L.C. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="762"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/04/022160P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> SISCO is a holding company that owns stock in various companies including Stewart Title and Guaranty ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="762"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-7008.html">PHILLIP ANDRE V. ANTHONY PRINCIPI<BR></A><BR> Argued for respondent appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="762"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1635091A3F71F647882572B9007EF60C/$file/0635021.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Justin Metuchen Gamba was convicted and sentenced for witness tampering in violation of 18 U.S.C. з 1512(b). Defense counsel may waive a defendant's right to have an Article III judge conduct closing argument where the decision is one of trial tactics or strategy. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Gamba was charged with two counts of making false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. з 1001. He pleaded not guilty to all charges and the case was set for jury trial. After the instructions were finalized. The relevant portion of the trial transcript reads as follows: THE COURT: Let me tell you what the problem is that I've got. It will be 2:30. Because that's when it will be. Do you have any objection? One thing that I could do is have Judge Erickson sit in on the argument and submit the case to the jury. I have no objection to that. I just have to MR. I have no problem doing that. THE COURT: So is that all right with you guys? THE COURT: Is that all right with the defendant? I'll take a break and then ask Judge Erickson to come in and just sit there for the balance of the argument and submit the instructions and Mary will swear in the bailiff and then send them off. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="762"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1446.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dana & Gould LLP were on brief. Were on brief. Even for the federal agencies charged with enforcing the laws is illustrated by this case. What is involved is properly ascertaining congressional intent in light of constitutional guarantees in decision of cases. What is involved is whether she will be deported. Possibly back to that war torn land she left when she was a child. The complexity of the immigration laws was enhanced by two new statutes. Was signed into law. Was signed into law. Both statutes contain jurisdiction stripping provisions removing from the federal circuit courts of appeals their previous jurisdiction over certain categories of final orders of deportation. 2 2 This case was originally argued on May 9. It would have been vastly preferable. For the INS to have asserted this jurisdictional argument initially. We have some concern about the government's burdening of immigrants with the obligation to respond to new found statutory interpretations by the INS after a case has been heard and decided.1 Nonetheless. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="762"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BB1BBF996F636D9B882570D60004C895/$file/0117489.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lara was decided April 19. The United States was entitled to intervene. Is withdrawn. An opinion is filed contemporaneously with this order. The petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc are denied as moot. Circuit Judge: This case concerns whether an Indian tribe can exercise criminal jurisdiction over a person who is not a member of the tribe. Who is an enrolled member of another Indian tribe. Facts This is an appeal from a denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Who is an Omaha Indian. The offenses are misdemeanors under the Navajo Code. He argued that the tribal court had no jurisdiction over him because he was not a Navajo. Means testified that he is an enrolled member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe of Indians and a permanent resident of Porcupine. Means lived on the Navajo Indian Reservation from 1987 to 1997 when he was married to a woman who was a half Navajo. The alleged offenses occurred later when Means was visiting the Navajo reservation. Means testified that the difference between an OglalaSioux and a Navajo is analogous to the difference in nationalities between an American and a French person. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="762"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043374p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> PA 19103 Counsel for Appellee Sun Ship Inc. This case was argued before the panel of Judges Fuentes. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 USC з 46(d) Judge Roth assumed senior status on May 31. 2 alleging both false claims and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="762"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june97/96-4408.opa.html">SEC V. CARRILLO<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>SEC v. BACKGROUND<p> <p> Defendant Bosque Puerto Carrillo ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="762"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DEDA3978C124A95F88256F6A0059074A/$file/0310516.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Anderson was convicted of theft. The district court had jurisdiction and we affirm.1 I Anderson was the chairperson in 1997 and 1998 of the Robinson Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians (the Tribe). A federally recognized tribe whose reservation is located outside of Nice. He was one of six members of the Robinson Rancheria Citizen's Council (the Council). The Tribe's governing body that was responsible for overseeing its business affairs. One of the Tribe's primary business ventures was the Robinson Rancheria Bingo and Casino (the Casino). The Casino is located on Robinson Rancheria. The scheme was implemented. Anderson was indicted for this scheme and others. That зз 1163 and 371 are not enclave laws but instead are laws of nationwide applicability. Anderson was convicted on one count of conspiracy and one count of theft from an Indian tribal organization.2 He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of twelve months and one day. Is at the heart of Anderson's appeal. It provides: He was also found guilty of mail and wire fraud. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="762"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200112/00-5266a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Richard E. With him on the brief was John F. Gaine was on the brief for amicus curiae Man aged Funds Association. Because the regulation of their advertising practices was subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="762"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june95/94-8607.opa.html">BARTELS V. ALABAMA COMMERCIAL COLLEGE<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bartels v. Are former students of the now defunct Alabama Commercial College that did business as Riley Training Institute of Savannah. The appellees are: the Secretary of the United States Department of Education. This lawsuit is based upon the appellants' contention that the school fraudulently induced them to enroll in the school and to enter into federally guaranteed student loan contracts. Appellants were left with several thousand dollars in student loan debt. </i> financed their attendance at the school.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="762"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/58EA134FB6BA34A988256F2600543DAA/$file/9956498.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That decision is the subject of the appeal in case No. 99 56498. MOD moved the district court for a determination that its judgment against Cubic was immune from attachment. JURISDICTION The denial of a motion to intervene as of right is an appealable final order. District court orders entered after the entry of judgment are generally reviewable by a separate appeal. We therefore have jurisdiction over the consolidated appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. з 1291. The judgment against the Iranian defendants was for Flatow sued under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="762"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19965034.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> VACATES its prior order in this matter and substitutes the following in its place: We are asked to review a sua sponte order of the district court remanding this proceeding to state court. The central issues presented are whether this Court's review is barred by the operation of 28 U.S.C. з 1447(d) and. Whether the untimely remand was proper. That case holds that a district court's order to remand a case to state court is a final judgment that can be reviewed on direct appeal. A writ of mandamus is unavailable where there is another means to obtain adequate review. 61 L.Ed.2d 30 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="762"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june97/96-4408.opa.html">SEC V. CARRILLO<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>SEC v. BACKGROUND<p> <p> Defendant Bosque Puerto Carrillo ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="762"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/01/981520P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Tribe is federally registered and resides on a reservation in Idaho. Begin gambling once the account is funded. The Tribe offers the lottery to residents of thirty six States who have Internet access. Counsel for UniStar argued the US Lottery is lawful nationwide but appellees made the business decision to lower legal costs during start up by not offering it in States with strong policies against gambling. Two States whose Attorneys General have commenced litigation. Seeking to enjoin operation of the lottery because Internet gambling is illegal in Missouri and therefore the Tribe is violating state law by offering unlawful services and falsely advertising that the lottery is legal in Missouri. Arguing the US Lottery is not gambling on </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="762"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2002/01-10216.opn.html">BOARD OF WATER, LIGHT AND SINKING FUND COMMISSIONERS V. FED. ENERGY REGULATORY COMM'N (6/20/20002, NO. 01-10216)<BR></A><BR> The proposed connection will allow Beaulieu to bypass Dalton. Dalton contends that FERC's orders are unlawful for several reasons. Including that they violate Southern's tariff and that they were impermissible under various sections of the Natural Gas Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="762"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/47DC82E3005637AB882569F300627E4F/$file/9855807.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kerry Sanders was extradited from California to New York in October 1993 and incarcerated in a New York state prison until October 1995. Kerry Sanders would not have been arrested. Factual Background </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="762"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19964408.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND Defendant Bosque Puerto Carrillo ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="762"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2002/01-10216.opn.html">BOARD OF WATER, LIGHT AND SINKING FUND COMMISSIONERS V. FED. ENERGY REGULATORY COMM'N (6/20/20002, NO. 01-10216)<BR></A><BR> The proposed connection will allow Beaulieu to bypass Dalton. Dalton contends that FERC's orders are unlawful for several reasons. Including that they violate Southern's tariff and that they were impermissible under various sections of the Natural Gas Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="762"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/11/97-8078.htm">97-8078 -- LEONHARDT V. WESTERN SUGAR CO. -- 11/13/1998<BR></A><BR> Was dismissed for failure to state a claim. The district court correctly dismissed plaintiffs' state law claims without prejudice. <p> <strong><center>BACKGROUND</strong></center> <p> The plaintiffs are Wyoming farmers who grow sugar beets under contract for Western Sugar Company. Where they were put in a pile and weighed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="762"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4F03E8F0747EF3A888256F850079E16D/$file/0315958.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that even though a bankruptcy court's post confirmation </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="762"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/01-4009.htm">01-4009 -- SOUTHERN UTAH WILDERNESS ALLIANCE V. NORTON -- 08/29/2002<BR></A><BR> The district court reasoned that as long as an agency is taking some action toward fulfilling mandatory. The court concluded that the BLM did not abuse its discretion in determining that a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) was not necessary based on new information about increased ORV use. <p> Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="758"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTQ4ODIgQW1lbmRlZCB3IGRpc3NlbnRfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-4882%20Amended%20w%20dissent_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The principal issue in this case concerns whether the mandatory requirement of issue exhaustion in asylum cases is also jurisdictional. Nor is it enough to permit a panel of our court to reconsider past holdings that exhaustion of some asylum questions. Is jurisdictional. It is a reason. As will be apparent. The 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 question is determinative of the asylum case before us.1 Petitioner Lin Zhong ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="758"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1155.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Was on brief. Was on brief. Was on brief. Both the Narragansetts and the State of Rhode Island filed suits disputing the issue of whether the Tribe's operation of a smoke shop and sale of cigarettes on the Tribe's settlement lands are exempt from the application and enforcement of Rhode Island's cigarette tax laws. The State initially filed its complaint in Rhode Island state court and the Narragansetts removed the case to federal district court in an attempt to have it decided together with the Tribe's complaint. Which was brought in federal district court. The district court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the state case and remanded it to the state court. We are asked whether the district court could exercize jurisdiction over the State's complaint. 6 7 (1st Cir. 1997).</P> <P> The Narragansett Indian Tribe is a federally recognized </P> <P>Indian tribe located in the State of Rhode Island. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="758"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/97-8023.man.html">LOCKARD V. EQUIFAX, INC. (12/31/1998, NO. 97-8023)<BR></A><BR> Lockard alleged that he was denied credit because of outstanding debts on his credit report that he did not owe. Affirm the district court's ruling on the other three issues.</P> <P><CENTER><EM>FACTS</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> Lockard's wife was admitted to the Baton Rouge General Medical Center (BR Medical) twice for treatment in 1992. Lockard and his wife were married but separated. Blue Cross paid the portions for which it was responsible. 117.46 for the second.</P> <P> When the first balance was not paid. Stating he was not responsible for the debt. General Health claimed that appellant was removed as the responsible party for the first balance.</P> <P> When the second balance was not paid. Lockard notified Certified Bureau that he was not responsible for the debt. Appellant's son was treated at Southwest Mississippi Regional Medical Center (SW Medical). There was a balance of $64.01 which was not paid. The account was turned over to the Southwest Mississippi Regional Credit Services for collection.</P> <P> Appellant brought this action in a Georgia state court seeking a permanent injunction and damages under the FCRA. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="758"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19956878.DIS.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I agree with the majority that 28 U.S.C. з 1367(c) was the improper basis to support remand of the entire underlying case. With the majority and the district court's dismissal of 28 U.S.C. з 1441(c) as the basis for remanding the entire underlying case because the federal claim was not separate and independent from the state law claims. My review of the legislative history for the applicable 1990 amendment to section 1441(c) convinces me that the district court was authorized under this statute to remand the entire underlying case to state court. Which was created by the Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act of 1988 to study and report to Congress on certain issues relating to the federal 28 U.S.C. з 1367(c). The Committee's recommendations are contained in the Report of the Federal Courts Study Committee ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="758"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-M806.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Peter D. All proceedings in the Court of Federal Claims have been stayed pending our consideration of the petition. Scholl alleges that the denial of his reappointment as a bankruptcy judge by the United States Court of Section 1651(a) provides: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="758"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1838.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Plan is administered in Atlanta. The Plan provides pension benefits for Delta pilots and is administered entirely in Atlanta. There is no work related reason for pilots to live in the Southern District of Illinois. Johnson is currently based in Atlanta. The Plan contended that the Southern District of Illinois was not a proper venue under 29 U.S.C. з 1132(e)(2). The Plan also submitted that the Northern District of Georgia offered the most convenient venue to litigate the case because all of the Plan's documents and all witnesses associated with the Plan were located there and all of the events giving rise to the plaintiffs' complaint occurred there. The venue provision of Title I of ERISA allows plaintiffs to lay venue </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="758"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200407/03-3060a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="758"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052927p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="758"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2002/98-8639.opn.html">NIPPON CREDIT BANK, LTD V. MATTHEWS (5/15/2002, NO. 98-8639)<BR></A><BR> BACKGROUND</STRONG></CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="758"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200110216.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The proposed connection will allow Beaulieu to bypass Dalton. Dalton contends that FERC's orders are unlawful for several reasons. Including that they violate Southern's tariff and that they were impermissible under various sections of the Natural Gas Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="758"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19978023.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lockard alleged that he was denied credit because of outstanding debts on his credit report that he did not owe. FACTS Lockard's wife was admitted to the Baton Rouge General Medical Center (BR Medical) twice for treatment in 1992. Lockard and his wife were married but separated. Blue Cross paid the portions for which it was responsible. When the first balance was not paid. Stating he was not responsible for the debt. General Health claimed that appellant was removed as the responsible party for the first balance. When the second balance was not paid. Lockard notified Certified Bureau that he was not responsible for the debt. Appellant's son was treated at Southwest Mississippi Regional Medical Center (SW Medical). There was a balance of $64.01 which was not paid. The account was turned over to the Southwest Mississippi Regional Credit Services for collection. The district court found that these defendants were not located 4 in Georgia. Were not registered or qualified to do business in Georgia. The district court found that these contacts were too tenuous to satisfy the requirements of due process. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="758"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/07/053920P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This appeal is another chapter in the thirty year history of immigration proceedings involving Edy Uzor Ikenokwalu White ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="758"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011823.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 1 the paragraph is corrected to begin </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="758"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0239p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. are wholly owned by John and Judith Rapanos. These parcels are known as the Salzburg. The Rapanos were charged with illegally discharging fill material into protected wetlands at The Hono rable Danny C. The state informed him that the site was likely a regulated wetland and sent him an application for the necessary permits. Noting that the site probably contained wetlands but could be developed if the necessary permits were issued. Goff concluded that there were between 48 and 58 acres of wetlands on the site. Goff was unwilling to do so. Was denied access. The Criminal Proceedings Criminal charges were brought simultaneously with the instant civil action. The trial was moved to Flint. Finding that the court had improperly allowed the United States to pursue a line of questioning that was prejudicial to the defendant. Determined that the line of questioning was not improper and reversed the district court's grant of a new trial and remanded for sentencing. Pine River Bluffs Estates was also added as a defendant. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="758"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1994/94a0869p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Marcuses argue that the stay of their federal court case is inappropriate because the state criminal action and the federal civil rights action are not parallel proceedings under Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. Was part of an area called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="758"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/53DE6372E58D839988256BDE00807572/$file/0030337.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that the criminal statute under which he was charged the Indian Major Crimes Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="758"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19978023.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lockard alleged that he was denied credit because of outstanding debts on his credit report that he did not owe. FACTS Lockard's wife was admitted to the Baton Rouge General Medical Center (BR Medical) twice for treatment in 1992. Lockard and his wife were married but separated. Blue Cross paid the portions for which it was responsible. When the first balance was not paid. Stating he was not responsible for the debt. General Health claimed that appellant was removed as the responsible party for the first balance. When the second balance was not paid. Lockard notified Certified Bureau that he was not responsible for the debt. Appellant's son was treated at Southwest Mississippi Regional Medical Center (SW Medical). There was a balance of $64.01 which was not paid. The account was turned over to the Southwest Mississippi Regional Credit Services for collection. The district court found that these defendants were not located in Georgia. Were not registered or qualified to do business in Georgia. The district court found that these contacts were too tenuous to satisfy the requirements of due process. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="758"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/06/963618P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Magill was an active judge at the time this case was submitted and assumed senior status on April 1. Before the opinion was filed. 1 2 MAGILL. I. The Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe2 (Tribe) is a federally recognized Indian Tribe which occupies the Fort Totten Reservation (Reservation). Approximately three fourths of the reservation is held in fee by non tribal members. 000 acres are either held in trust for the Tribe by the United States. 958 (D.N.D. 1995) (Devils Lake). 2 The Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe was previously known as the Devils Lake Sioux 3 Tribe. Electricity consumers on the Reservation have received electrical services from three utilities companies: (1) Otter Tail. The North Dakota Public Service Commission (NDPSC) is a state administrative body which regulates investorowned electric utilities in North Dakota. Alleging that the NDPSC did not have jurisdiction over the Reservation. Because the Tribe was not a party to the proceedings. The court held 5 that Otter Tail did not have standing to argue that the NDPSC's assertion of jurisdiction over the Reservation would impair tribal sovereignty. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="758"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6BE9F56E8C7E860988256C09005AC61F/$file/0035098.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: 10912 HALLETT v. Who are a class of prisoners at the Washington Corrections Center for Women (the Prison). Who are current and former prison officials. The decree was to expire on January 12. To have Defendants held in contempt for past violations of the consent decree and moved to compel discovery. We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. з 1291. Which are not clearly erroneous. Defendants' motion to terminate the consent decree is moot. (e) In response to Plaintiffs' first contempt motion. Because the entire consent decree was still in effect when Plaintiffs filed their motion.1 (f) Plaintiffs are not entitled to a reversal based on the district court's denial of their discovery motion. The district court's jurisdiction was to terminate automatically on January 12. Defendants responded by arguing that Plaintiffs had not complied with the notice provisions of the Judg1 Plaintiffs' second contempt motion is addressed in a separate Order. 10914 HALLETT v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="758"></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="758"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200515890.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A fibrous form of blast furnace slag that resembles asbestos and is used for insulation and similar applications.1 Starting in mid 2004. About six weeks after service was effected. Or vacate the 1 See 2 SHORTER OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY 2864 (5th ed. 2002). 2 SARL is the French abbreviation for a term used to describe a private company similar to an American limited liability company. 2 judgment. Concluding that Eurisol was subject to specific personal jurisdiction in Alabama. I Rule 60(b)(4) allows a litigant н even one who does not initially appear н to collaterally attack a judgment on the ground that it is void due to lack of personal jurisdiction. This is because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="758"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/july97/95-1487.wpd.html">KEYES V. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1<BR></A><BR> Are not justiciable. There is no case or controversy as required by Article III. This appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (1) The district court removed the claims of the Congress of Hispanic Educators to a separate and independent civil action under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974. This case has evolved through several stages of litigation during which this and other courts have rendered numerous opinions.(2) A brief summary of the history of the case provides necessary context. The Supreme Court determined that the entire Denver school system was a dual system(3) requiring desegregation. Colo. 1995) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="758"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/12/97-8079.htm">97-8079 -- ORDINANCE 59 ASSOCIATION V. UNITED STATES DEPT.OF THE INTERIOR SECRETARY -- 12/01/1998<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="758"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972703.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. I. Whitehead is the former president of Hughes Communications. In March 1983 he was approached by Candace Johnson. Societe Luxembourgeoise Satellites (SLS) was formed in 1984 and was granted an exclusive franchise by the government of Luxembourg for the country's satellite system. Whitehead created and was chief executive officer of Coronet Societe d'Etudes. SES was organized as a private corporation in March 1985. It is two thirds owned by private investors. Which stated that it </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="758"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2002/98-8639.opn.html">NIPPON CREDIT BANK, LTD V. MATTHEWS (5/15/2002, NO. 98-8639)<BR></A><BR> BACKGROUND</STRONG></CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="758"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19988639.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND MFIP is a family limited partnership formed under Florida law in May 1990 for the purpose of owning property. Were named as general partners. MBI is a corporation formed under Florida law in October 1991 to act as the general partner of MFIP. PFH is a corporation formed under Florida law in 1993 for the purpose of holding title to real property. Two thirds of the PFH stock is owned by International Markets. One third of the PFH stock is owned by MFIP. When she realized that her initial loans were to 4 entities controlled by Matthews. Freezing the assets of Matthews' alleged alter egos and restraining the defendants from making payments to Mathews or to his alleged alter egos.3 The Corporate Defendants were directed to deposit all of their liquid assets into the registry of the court. The remaining defendants were Farm Depot. The records in these cases are filed as follows: in 98 8639 and 98 8687. The record consists of 1 volume and 8 boxes of exhibits (which are also filed as the record and exhibits in 98 8639 and 98 8687). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="758"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/97-8023.man.html">LOCKARD V. EQUIFAX, INC. (12/31/1998, NO. 97-8023)<BR></A><BR> Lockard alleged that he was denied credit because of outstanding debts on his credit report that he did not owe. Affirm the district court's ruling on the other three issues.</P> <P><CENTER><EM>FACTS</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> Lockard's wife was admitted to the Baton Rouge General Medical Center (BR Medical) twice for treatment in 1992. Lockard and his wife were married but separated. Blue Cross paid the portions for which it was responsible. 117.46 for the second.</P> <P> When the first balance was not paid. Stating he was not responsible for the debt. General Health claimed that appellant was removed as the responsible party for the first balance.</P> <P> When the second balance was not paid. Lockard notified Certified Bureau that he was not responsible for the debt. Appellant's son was treated at Southwest Mississippi Regional Medical Center (SW Medical). There was a balance of $64.01 which was not paid. The account was turned over to the Southwest Mississippi Regional Credit Services for collection.</P> <P> Appellant brought this action in a Georgia state court seeking a permanent injunction and damages under the FCRA. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="758"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AEF686E1BEFDBA9288256FE00053E1E2/$file/0315306.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court determined that it was required to abstain from exercising jurisdiction as to Bendel under Younger v. Canatella seeks an injunction against further disciplinary action and challenges several state bar statutes and one professional rule on the grounds that they are unconstitutional on their face and as applied. That his claims are ripe. That Younger abstention is inappropriate as to Canatella because the state disciplinary proceedings against him are no longer ongoing. Bendel's proposed complaint in intervention seeks a declaration that the state bar statutes are unconstitutional facially. Younger Abstention We review de novo whether abstaining from exercising federal jurisdiction is required under Younger. Abstention in favor of state judicial proceedings is required if the state proceedings (1) are ongoing. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="758"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-5038.html">LEWIS V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="758"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022149.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appeals from a district court order holding that Marino was not entitled to any attorney's fees for work she allegedly performed for DefendantsAppellees. One of these lawsuits was a class action. Judge Motz was assigned to the cases. Pioneer Honda was a class representative. That American Honda was attempting to settle the claims of Pioneer Honda by agreement with the dealership's new owner. Who were represented by Rapazzini & Graham. Who was Clutter and Pioneer Honda's counsel at the time. Graham told Marino that she was representing other individual dealers in the Honda Class Action and was interested in representing Clutter. 000 settlement offer (which at one time Clutter and Marino were inclined to accept) and to prosecute Pioneer Honda's claims through Graham. Marino is not a party to the Attorney Representation Agreement. Marino filed a notice of appearance in an action related to the Honda Class Action that was pending in the District of Maryland. Which was brought by Pioneer Honda against two fellow California Honda dealerships and was transferred to the District of Maryland as part of the America Honda multi district litigation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="758"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F61C87D5903EA3A28825731300564F27/$file/0556341.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is one of statutory interpretation. The question is whether the Provider Reimbursement Review Board has jurisdiction over a Medicare provider's appeal of a cost that was allowable under the Medicare regulations. Which have decided it. Indicating that providers who bypass an exhaustion requirement or fail to request reimbursement for all costs to which they are entitled under applicable rules may stand on different ground). 2 Compare St. Board . . . if (1) such provider (A)(i) is dissatisfied with a final determination of . . . its fiscal intermediary . . . as to the amount of total program reimbursement due the provider . . . the amount in controversy is $10. It has discretion under з 1395oo(d)4 to decide whether to order reimbursement of a cost or expense that was incurred within the period for which the cost report was filed. Even though that particular expense was not expressly claimed or explicitly considered by the intermediary. As well as on Loma Linda's cross appeal which in the main raises issues on which federal jurisdiction is lacking. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="758"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-1718_029.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Integral Research & Development Corp. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0938n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gabhart ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971629.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Neither Superfund count is before this court at this time. It is undisputed and. These principles have been codified in 28 U.S.C.з 1367. In any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction. The district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. As is relevant here. The test for determining whether state and federal claims form part of the same constitutional case or controversy is set forth in United Mine Workers of America v. Exists whenever there is [a federal claim]. The federal claim must have substance sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the court. . . . A plaintiff's claims are such that he would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding. There is power in federal courts to hear the whole. 383 U.S. 715. Clearly establish that Axel's four state law counts were not within the district court's supplemental jurisdiction. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1545.html">SCHAEFER FAN CO., INC V. J&D MANUFACTURING<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellees.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan2001/003387.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania may seek to revisit those issues in consolidated administrative appeals in its own permitting process in a costly pr oceeding that will delay NE Hub's construction of the Facility. Principally on the jurisdictional gr ound that it was not ripe for decision before the state pr ocess concluded. We disagr ee with the district court on the ripeness issue and accordingly will reverse its order dismissing the action and will remand the case for further proceedings. The construction is a substantial undertaking requiring NE Hub to drill through the Oriskany sand formation which contains competing storage facilities owned by Penn Fuel Gas. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F1B8D573A97829A2882570B20082B7D9/$file/0316538.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we conclude that the settlement agreement was valid. That enforcement of the agreement was proper. Although the district court erred in ruling that the appeal of the judgment enforcing the settlement was untimely. Rains is an attorney and a debtor in bankruptcy. Flinn is the bankruptcy trustee. A settlement conference was held on September 23. The agreement was reduced to writing and the parties (including Rains) and their attorneys signed it. Among the exemptions claimed by Rains was his interest in a retirement plan sponsored by the American Bar Association (retirement plan). The agreement alternatively provided that: [i]n the event that payment is not timely made by the defendants. 000 unless before the due date for payment the debtors have posted an irrevocable standby letter of credit . . . (or other instrument or collateral acceptable to the trustee and to [the creditor]) to support the $250. Rains drove himself to a hospital emergency room where he was admitted and diagnosed with a ruptured cerebral aneurysm. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1043.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Barlow</SPAN> were on brief for appellees.</SPAN></P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-7250.html">ELIE HALPERN V. ANTHONY PRINCIPI<BR></A><BR> Argued for respondent appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-11052.0.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. SSAB was soliciting bids SSAB invited Delta to submit a for two cut to length lines.1 bid. SSAB replied that Danieli & C was to provide its cut to length lines. Danieli Corp. opened a dialogue between Delta Danieli Corp. is organized under the laws of Delaware and its principal place of business is in Cranberry Township. Danieli Corp. is wholly owned by Danieli Holdings. Is wholly owned by Industrielle Betellingung SA. Is 90% owned by Danieli & C. 3 3 2 and Danieli & C. Danieli & C executed a confidentiality agreement with Delta and was provided with confidential documents regarding Delta's rotary shear and its electromagnetic stacker. Declined to finalized the subcontracting agreement while Delta was in Italy. Delta was not contacted by Danieli & C as planned. Delta telephoned Danieli & Danieli & C When Delta C repeatedly to check on the status of its bid. eventually emailed Delta that its price was too high. telephoned Danieli & C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/06/98-9512.htm">98-9512 -- CITY OF FORT MORGAN V. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION -- 06/25/1999<BR></A><BR> Reverse and remand to FERC for further proceedings. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200602/04-5418b.pdf">O:\CIRCULATED OPINIONS\NLRB V. COOPER TIRE\FINAL OPINION.WPD<BR></A><BR> With him on the briefs were Nancy A. With him on the brief was Helene D. Circuit Judge: The threshold issue in this case is whether the United States District Court for the District of Columbia had jurisdiction to enforce subpoenas issued by the National Labor Relations Board ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/11/99-3065.htm">99-3065 -- ALABAMA, ET AL. V. U.S. STATES DEPT. OF ENERGY -- 11/05/1999<BR></A><BR> Defendants Appellees have moved this court to dismiss these appeals for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Appellants have opposed these motions. 99 3066 are therefore GRANTED. <strong></strong> <p> <strong><center>BACKGROUND</strong></center> <p> Plaintiffs Appellants in cases 99 3065 and 99 3066 are the states of Alabama. Plaintiffs Appellants in case 99 3102 are the states of Delaware. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/04/976088P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we determine that 2 the bankruptcy court was without subject matter jurisdiction to determine the federal income tax liability for the 1990 through 1994 taxable years. The opinion below will be vacated. This Chapter 11 bankruptcy case was filed by the debtor on August 24. The taxes were based upon the additional $500. The debtor objected to the proof of claim on the basis that the funds were not income. An evidentiary hearing was held on the objection after which the bankruptcy court found. The IRS proof of claim was allowed in its entirety. That the debtor may have made restitution in subsequent tax years. No years were specified and the opinion does not indicate what tax years the Court believed would be in issue.1 Payments in the nature of restitution are deductible with respect to the tax years in which they are made. 26 U.S.C. з 165. He was entitled to claim a deductions of the amounts paid on his 1040 return for the 1991 taxable year. It appears that the delay was occasioned by settlement negotiations between the parties. 4 2 response objecting to the motion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-5003.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concluding it was not an available remedy under the FDCA as a matter of law. Which was then filled by a Canadian pharmacy and sent directly to the customer in the United States. The district court determined disgorgement was not available under the FDCA as a matter of law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2001/002235.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are called upon to answer a single legal question: did the District Court have jurisdiction to entertain a habeas corpus petition alleging a Fifth Amendment due process violation filed by aliens subject to a final order of removal for reasons other than a conviction for a deportable crime?1 Because the Supreme Court has concluded that Congress has not explicitly stated its intention to strip the federal courts of their habeas jurisdiction over petitions filed by aliens. We will reverse. I. The appellants are husband and wife. The Chmakovs are Russian. We will refer to such aliens as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0064p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It was on that basis that the defendant claimed in its removal notice that the case </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTQ4ODJfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-4882_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The principal issue in this case concerns whether the mandatory requirement of issue exhaustion in asylum cases is also jurisdictional. Nor is it enough to permit a panel of our court to reconsider past holdings that exhau stion of some asylum questions. Is jurisdictional. It is a reason. As will be apparent. The question is determinative of the asylum case before us. 1465 U.N.T.S. 85.1 Lin's removal from the United States was first ordered in 1994. Lin had failed to establish that he had been persecuted or was likely to be persecuted by the Chinese government on account of his political opinion. In cases such as this in which deportation proceedings were initiated prior to April 1. We will use the terms </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July2000/991893.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0887n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It has no duty to defend or indemnify Prewitt in a state tort action based on a sailing accident that occurred while Prewitt was at the helm of a sailboat owned by his friend Dr. Hensley was at the helm for five hours. This was the first time during the trip that Hensley had ever given Prewitt a specific course to sail. After realizing that the course set by Hensley was taking them directly toward the reef. The adjustment was not enough and the boat ran aground on the reef. The sailboat was uninsured. The district court concluded that it was appropriate to exercise jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment action by West American. (3) whether the declaratory remedy is being used merely for the purpose of procedural fencing or to provide an arena for a race for res judicata. (5) whether there is an alternative remedy that is better or more effective. Are: (1) whether the underlying factual issues are important to an informed resolution of the case. (2) whether the state trial court is in a better position to evaluate those factual issues than is the federal court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3738.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> During which a group of MexicanAmericans were savagely beaten with metal flashlights. They were arrested and. Ultimately all criminal charges against them were dismissed. Believing that it has effectively lost its right to have a federal forum resolve (at a minimum) the federal claims. Montaёo responds that the City is too late it should in his opinion have filed immediate appeals from the earlier (interlocutory) orders. We think there is a way. Festivities commemorating Mexican Independence Day (which actually falls on September 16) were taking place in the Little Village section of Chicago. Yesenia and David Mendez were among the celebrants when they were set upon by several officers of the City of Chicago Police Department. A significant amount of force was applied to Montaёo. The arrestees were transported to the Tenth District police station. All of the plaintiffs were subjected to a variety of racial epithets and other verbal abuse. Ruiz were strip searched. Yesenia Mendez was later transferred to the Eleventh District station. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972276.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. з 46(d) (1994). They are the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0073p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 02 1591 the condemned land was owned by a third party. We conclude that intervention was improper because the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear DIBCO's underlying claim. That it only required DIBCO to pay condemnation costs that were reasonable in light of federal regulations. DIBCO's counsel was in attendance at conferences in that action at which the United States indicated that it would not seek to condemn the entirety of Commodities' land. This court is under an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992443.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 31 the spelling of Justice Frankfurter's name is corrected. Line 3 the citation to Coeur d'Alene Tribe is corrected to read </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F0374301BCA1155288256C1C0057F6F4/$file/0056844.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This appeal presents the question of whether we have appellate jurisdiction over a district court order remanding to ABADA v. Schwab was the largest provider of on line brokerage services. Schwab's growth in the on line trading market was fueled by a marketing and advertising campaign that extolled its on line trading service as convenient. Market orders entered while the market is open are subject to immediate execution. Abada alleges that Schwab's on line system was. Abada claims this capacity was insufficient to meet customer demand. (Nasdaq ticket symbol </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1996/96a1245p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the district court's order as to its conclusion that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the second lawsuit and over W.W.'s counterclaim in the first. Will vacate the district court's order to the extent that it rejected jurisdiction over W.W.'s defenses to liability in W.W.'s petition to open judgment. This commitment was valid until October 30. The Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision found that Bell was likely to incur losses as a result of unsafe and unsound practices and appointed the RTC its conservator.[fn2] As a result. We will refer to this case as the removed case. The letter stated: As you are aware. . . . the Motion to Open Judgment that is presently pending. Given the fact that RTC is in receipt of these claims. No further filings are required by my client in order to permit RTC to determine these claims pursuant to 12 U.S.C. If this assumption is incorrect. I will assume that the presentation of the claims of my client in the Motion to Open Judgment are sufficient to permit the RTC to administratively determine such claims. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2002/004205.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the District Court's judgment in favor of the defendants. Ltd. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0341p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Finding that Curry had not provided any evidence that defendants were negligent. It became apparent that complete diversity was destroyed when Priddy and Susman were identified and substituted as nondiverse defendants. We therefore REMAND Curry's lawsuit to the district court with instructions to remand to the state court from which removal was granted. I. BACKGROUND The following facts are undisputed. Plaintiff Appellant Curry was on the job as a warehouse manager at American Metal Chemical Corporation in Medina. Curry was in charge of inventory at the warehouse. It was his job to direct incoming trucks making deliveries and to show the drivers where in the warehouse incoming truck loads should be dumped. Defendant Appellee Susman owned the truck that Priddy was driving. Bulk Transport was the lessee of the truck. While Priddy was in the truck's driver's seat. Curry moved to the side of the truck so that he could approach Priddy to tell him that the material was stuck to the truck. Curry incorrectly believed that the truck was equipped with a vibrator that could be used to shake a load loose. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0621n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Holding that the termination was effective under the terms of the SPA. When the facility was closed down. It is unclear whether Lurgi played any role in the creation of the room. After all preconditions to closing were met. Section 3.1 of the SPA provided: [T]he closing of the transactions contemplated hereby (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="752"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199801/95-1614a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on the briefs for petitioner. Was on the briefs. Were on the brief. The Federal Labor Relations Authority ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="748"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-3358.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Paul N. Of counsel was John H. She challenged the reduction by appealing to the Board and requesting that the Board adjudicate her claim that she should not have been required to pay the back premiums. She was removed from her position because the agency determined that she was unable to perform her duties for medical reasons. Her appeal was unsuccessful. OPM reviewed her application and determined that she had been eligible for immediate retirement in January 1991 when she was terminated. Because at that time she was 63 years old and had completed 16 years of service. Miller was entitled to a retirement annuity retroactive to January 6. The day after her employment was terminated. Miller was entitled to a retroactive annuity payment. OPM stated that it was required to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="748"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1503.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.A. was on brief for petitioner. Were on brief for respondent. Or operate such dam or other project works until it shall have applied for and shall have received a license under the provisions of this chapter. If no public lands or reservations are affected. Permission is granted to construct such dam or other project works in such stream upon compliance with State 2 2 FERC's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="748"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199802/96-3127a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on the briefs. Were on the brief. Before he was apprehended. Was released in February 1993. He was taken into custody in Nigeria by United States authorities and brought to the United States for trial. As the air piracy statute under which he was prosecuted bars sequential prosecutions. As this provision only applies if certain additional jurisdictional re quirements are satisfied. (4) that his trial was fatally tainted by the introduction of evidence relating to the passengers' deaths. That this evidence should have been presented in a separate phase of the trial or. That it should have been presented in a less grisly form. (6) that the district court erred in assessing the restitution he was to pay to his victims as part of his sentence. (7) that the district court may have erred in its orders relating to the disclosure of classified government documents to the defense. The following account of the hijacking was not contested at Rezaq's trial. Rezaq is Palestinian. Was. He was accompanied by two other hijackers. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="748"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9B92D03700596A9188256A42005B2814/$file/9855807.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is hereby recalled. 2001 is withdrawn. Kerry Sanders was extradited from California to New York in October 1993 and incarcerated in a New York state prison until October 1995. Kerry Sanders would not have been arrested. Violations of rights protected by state law.1 The defendants in this appeal are the City. Factual Background </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="748"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept97/96-6570.man.html">ARIAIL DRUG CO. V. RECOMM INT'L DISPLAY, LTD<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Ariail Drug Co. v. Because we conclude that we