 |
BICKERSTAFF CLAY PRODUCTS CO. V. HARRIS CTY.
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Bickerstaff Clay Products Co. v. Vacate in part.<p> I.<p> <p> A.<p> <p> The property in question is a landlocked 161 acre tract located in southwest Harris County. Which would have final authority over all zoning decisions. Which is the designation given to vacant property.<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.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july96/94-9215.man.html">BICKERSTAFF CLAY PRODUCTS CO. V. HARRIS CTY.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Bickerstaff Clay Products Co. v. Vacate in part.<p> I.<p> <p> A.<p> <p> The property in question is a landlocked 161 acre tract located in southwest Harris County. Which would have final authority over all zoning decisions. Which is the designation given to vacant property.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="820"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkzMjlfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9329_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
New Milford informed the Murphys that under zoning regulations they were prohibited from hosting regularly scheduled meetings exceeding twenty five nonfamily members. New Milford asks us to consider the propriety of July 2001 and August 2002 orders rejecting its argument that the Murphys' claims were not ripe for judicial review. Such that their claims were never ripe for judicial intervention. The Murphys have been They hosting Sunday afternoon prayer group meetings since 1994. assert that their Christian beliefs require them to hold these meetings. The Murphys also claim that because of Robert Murphy's severe illness their home is the only acceptable location to host such meetings. Sizable prayer meetings were not a customary accessory use in a single family residential area. Who are not `family' . . . Only those that were regularly scheduled and included twenty five or more non family participants. Where they could 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 have sought a variance from the zoning regulations.1 Gen. Stat. § 52571b a state analogue to RLUIPA.3
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="820"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept96/95-4351.opa.html">CORN V. CITY OF LAUDERDALE LAKES<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Corn v. The district court held that there was no taking of Corn's property. Approximately 8.5 acres were zoned C 1A. While Corn's adjacent land was zoned for residential use.<p> Between 1966 and 1977. The district court found that Corn did not prove that these expenditures were aimed at any specific use of the land. Both uses were permitted on land zoned C 1 and. The study was to address the propriety of situating commercially zoned property adjacent to residential property. The moratorium was to last for 150 days. It eventually was extended to last almost a year.<p> The record is ambiguous as to whether the moratorium applied to Corn's property for its entire duration. Was re zoned B 3 by Ordinance No. 549 within a month of the moratorium's inception. The parties have proceeded on this appeal under the assumption that the moratorium nevertheless applied to the Parcel for its duration and prevented Corn from building anything on the Parcel during that time.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-8.gif" ALT="820"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept96/95-4351.opa.html">CORN V. CITY OF LAUDERDALE LAKES<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Corn v. The district court held that there was no taking of Corn's property. Approximately 8.5 acres were zoned C 1A. While Corn's adjacent land was zoned for residential use.<p> Between 1966 and 1977. The district court found that Corn did not prove that these expenditures were aimed at any specific use of the land. Both uses were permitted on land zoned C 1 and. The study was to address the propriety of situating commercially zoned property adjacent to residential property. The moratorium was to last for 150 days. It eventually was extended to last almost a year.<p> The record is ambiguous as to whether the moratorium applied to Corn's property for its entire duration. Was re zoned B 3 by Ordinance No. 549 within a month of the moratorium's inception. The parties have proceeded on this appeal under the assumption that the moratorium nevertheless applied to the Parcel for its duration and prevented Corn from building anything on the Parcel during that time.
</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/1998/12/97-4078.htm">97-4078 -- MOUNT OLIVET CEMETERY ASSOCIATION V. SALT LAKE CITY -- 12/15/1998<BR></A><BR>
Plaintiffs contend the district court erred in finding the Association was the owner of the Mount Olivet Cemetery property. The City's local zoning ordinance was not preempted by federal law. All revenues generated by the sale of burial plots were to be retained by the cemetery and no funds were to
</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.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-4418_039.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That person will immediately think of Chicago's O'Hare International Airport. It is one of the busiest airports in the world: in 2005. It is also of central importance to the economy of Chicago and Northern Illinois. Its claims against the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) were resolved in the FAA's favor by the court of appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Village of Bensenville v. By approving the City's plan and determining that the plan was eligible for federal funding. Which is owned by the City. Was prepared and will be implemented by the City. Which is prepared to proceed without federal funds if necessary.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="792"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2001/002473.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Herr alleges that his right to substantive due process was violated by an eleven year campaign of the Township and its officers to delay and obstruct his development of an industrial park. While it acknowledged that Herr's project was grandfathered under the prior land use plan if he completed it within five years. Herr claims that the defendants' conduct with respect to his proposed development was motivated throughout by a strong desire to preserve agricultural land and restrain development in the Township. He has tendered evidence tending to show that the individual defendants had run for office on
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4D377C9418B42EB488256E4E00784B23/$file/0215693.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Property is the only location within Morgan Hill actually zoned for hospital use. Provided such uses are shown on the development plan for a particular PUD district as approved by the city council.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1997/97a1521p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Their applications were ultimately denied on the basis of an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="773"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0541n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
For relief from certain actions and inactions by the City that Andreano claims have prevented him from developing a parcel of his property in Westlake. That were based on the City's filing
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="771"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0C89280F6649BCFC88256C380004EC38/$file/0036031.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction over GOBIN v. The Tribes's reservation is located entirely within the County and comprises approximately 1.6% of the County's land area. The other half of the reservation is owned in fee simple by tribal members and nonmembers alike. Was reviewed and approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Solicitor's Office in the Department of the Interior. 14332 GOBIN v. Gobin's proposed subdivision would connect to septic systems because sewer service is not available on that part of the reservation. Which is maintained by the County. The County indicated only that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="768"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2003/022194p2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This matter is before us on a Petition for Rehearing filed by the Easttown Township Zoning Board (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="768"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200302/02-7055b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="766"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/93opinions/93-5067.html">PRESEAULT V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="754"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2004/024434p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania We are asked to review an order of the district court enjoining New Garden Township and its employees (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="754"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/22C83DA38D73C944882572F800812C60/$file/0556076.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO brief is granted. Is ordered filed. The motion of appellee County of San Diego for leave to file reply in support of its petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc is denied. Is hereby amended. The attached amended opinion is filed concurrently with this order. The petition for panel rehearing is denied. No further petitions for panel rehearing will be entertained. The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge of the court has requested a vote on en banc rehearing. The petition for rehearing en banc is denied. We conclude that the burdens imposed by the WTO were sufficient to sustain a facial challenge under § 253(a) and that Congress did not intend to permit enforcement of § 253(a) through a § 1983 damages action. It was not until December 1947 that Bell Labs scientist D.H. Overcoming the limitations of the single cell transmission system that was constrained by the number of channels available within the radio spectrum first allocated to mobile communications by the Federal Communications Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="754"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CC71EE7AF464C3B688256CAE0058359E/$file/0215189.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This case arises from the Maui County Council's denial of a conditional use permit that would have allowed plaintiffsappellees (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="749"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C65B8D8A645F754188256EB5004E4AD7/$file/0256487.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The controlling question in this case is whether Appellant the City of Los Angeles (the City) may revoke a building permit issued to Appellee Congregation Etz Chaim (the Congregation) authorizing renovations to a home owned by the Congregation and used as a place of worship. Because we agree with the district court that Congregation was entitled to rely on issuance of the building permit by the City. BACKGROUND There is a long history of litigation between the City and the Congregation. Most of the Congregation's claims were dismissed. After the Agreement was signed and the Congregation's action was dismissed. The City described the permit as having been issued
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="740"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/98-2247.htm">98-2247 -- ATKINSON TRADING CO. INC. V. SHIRLEY -- 05/02/2000<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="740"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1158.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
When it vacated a restrictive covenant attached to their property that was designed to preserve the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood. Was unconstitutional because it does not require the Commission to follow the procedures set forth in the state's eminent domain statute for determining public use. William and Judy Daniels (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="740"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051680p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Have been locked in a dispute over a 1994 application for subdivision and site plan approval for purposes of extending appellants' sand and gravel removal operations. We have jurisdiction over the appeal and cross appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will reverse in part and affirm in part and remand for further proceedings. Neither the parties nor the District Court questioned whether the SDP or EPC claims were ripe. We asked the parties to address this issue at oral argument because
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="735"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1994/94a0861p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The defendants have appealed the denial of their motions to dismiss on absolute and qualified immunity grounds. These appeals were first heard by a panel of this court. Which was bound by Prisco v. In that case it was held that a defendant may not appeal the denial of a claim of qualified immunity under the collateral order doctrine if the defendant would nevertheless be required to go to trial on a claim for injunctive relief. When the panel opinion was circulated to the full court before publication. The issues addressed in the remainder of this opinion have been considered by the panel only. We are called upon to decide whether the members of the County Council are entitled to immunity from suit for their actions of enacting two ordinances which down zoned Acierno's commercial property. We conclude that both the present and former members of the County Council are immune from suit because the actions they took with respect to Acierno's commercial property were either substantively and procedurally legislative in nature.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="731"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1999/983519.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Township claims that the District Court erred in concluding that its zoning ordinance was impermissibly exclusionary under the Pennsylvania Constitution. We conclude that the Township's ordinance is not invalid under state law or the TCA and will reverse. PCS systems are arranged around service
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="726"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2216.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Our case today concerns one of those issues when is a land use decision a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="726"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981985.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Doubtless was a consideration. AT&T is a company licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to provide wireless telephone services in WinstonSalem. This particular location was not necessary. Others would do.1 AT&T applied for a special use 1 It was pointed out. Would not have any lights or visible antennae. Private tract that is partly wooded and partly landscaped with park like features. Which was built in 1932 and is on the study list for the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). The Center's tract of land is surrounded largely by property restricted to residential purposes. There is no commercial property in the neighborhood nor on the Center's property. The record shows that the setting was described. The Center's property is zoned InstitutionalPublic (I P). A transmission tower is a permitted use. That will preclude the necessity for having a tower on the SECCA [Center] property and will also provide the same level of service.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="714"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200612022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: At issue today is the constitutionality of several zoning and public nudity ordinances adopted by the City of Daytona Beach (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="712"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may99/98-2088.man.html">LADY J. LINGERIE V. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE (5/27/1999, NO. 98-2088)<BR></A><BR>
The plaintiffs/appellants are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="712"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may99/98-2088.man.html">LADY J. LINGERIE V. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE (5/27/1999, NO. 98-2088)<BR></A><BR>
The plaintiffs/appellants are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="710"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov97/94-3521.op2.html">GILCHRIST TIMBER CO. V. ITT RAYONIER, INC.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gilchrist Timber Co. v. The district court erred in ruling that the jury could not reasonably have found (2) plaintiffs justifiably relied on defendant's representation. We now have reviewed the court's answer. Then the motion was properly granted. If there is substantial evidence opposed to the motion such that reasonable people. Then such a motion was due to be denied.<p> <p> <i>Id.</i> (quotation omitted). We must determine
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="710"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov97/94-3521.op2.html">GILCHRIST TIMBER CO. V. ITT RAYONIER, INC.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gilchrist Timber Co. v. The district court erred in ruling that the jury could not reasonably have found (2) plaintiffs justifiably relied on defendant's representation. We now have reviewed the court's answer. Then the motion was properly granted. If there is substantial evidence opposed to the motion such that reasonable people. Then such a motion was due to be denied.<p> <p> <i>Id.</i> (quotation omitted). We must determine
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="705"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19982088.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plaintiffs/appellants are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="705"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19982088.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plaintiffs/appellants are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="705"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200214294.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The work to be accomplished under the permit was for the admitted purpose of developing the property commercially. That is. Is whether constitutional due process was due. We find that substantive due process concerns are not implicated by the actions of the City in this case. Are essentially undisputed. This property is zoned for residential use and has been so zoned since Greenbriar purchased the property in 1990. Greenbriar has repeatedly contended that the property is not suitable for residential use and has used all available avenues to attempt to convince the City to re zone the property for commercial activity. Greenbriar applied for and was denied re zoning of the property for use as an office development. It is uncontested that Greenbriar's entire purpose for obtaining the Permit was to prepare for the eventuality of the property being re zoned for commercial use. Though the Permit was issued for the clearing of a commercial site. This request was denied yet again in October 1999. It is uncontested that.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="703"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1998/98a1833p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Its business was injured and it was forced to sell its properties. We have jurisdiction to review the final order of the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Philadelphia's Historic Preservation Ordinance The Philadelphia Historical Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="698"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992122.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The purpose of the RuralAgricultural District
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2003/022194.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Omnipoint is a wireless telecommunications provider that claims that there is a gap in the wireless telecommunications services available to remote users in Easttown Township. Omnipoint alleges that 2 the ordinance under which its variance application was denied violates Pennsylvania law because it is either de jure or de facto exclusionary and fails to provide a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2004/032431np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That the standard applicable to substantive due process claims involving executive action in land use disputes is the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0573n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude that summary judgment was appropriate. Which is commonly known both as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="684"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2000/98-4211.opn.html">DAVID VINCENT, INC. V. BROWARD COUNTY (1/18/2000, NO. 98-4211)<BR></A><BR>
Senior Circuit Judge:</P> <P> Plaintiffs appellants are adult bookstores in unincorporated Broward County. The district court ruled that Broward County's zoning ordinance for adult businesses was constitutional both facially and as applied to plaintiffs.</P> <P> The adult bookstores raise three issues on appeal. They question the district court's ruling that Broward County's zoning ordinance is facially constitutional. Support the district court's ruling that the zoning ordinance is facially constitutional. We cannot say that the district court's findings as to the number of sites available for adult businesses under the zoning ordinance are clearly erroneous. We affirm the district court ruling that Broward County's zoning ordinance is constitutional both facially and as applied. </P> <P> </P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="684"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2000/98-4211.opn.html">DAVID VINCENT, INC. V. BROWARD COUNTY (1/18/2000, NO. 98-4211)<BR></A><BR>
Senior Circuit Judge:</P> <P> Plaintiffs appellants are adult bookstores in unincorporated Broward County. The district court ruled that Broward County's zoning ordinance for adult businesses was constitutional both facially and as applied to plaintiffs.</P> <P> The adult bookstores raise three issues on appeal. They question the district court's ruling that Broward County's zoning ordinance is facially constitutional. Support the district court's ruling that the zoning ordinance is facially constitutional. We cannot say that the district court's findings as to the number of sites available for adult businesses under the zoning ordinance are clearly erroneous. We affirm the district court ruling that Broward County's zoning ordinance is constitutional both facially and as applied. </P> <P> </P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="682"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19954142.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Of the claims that Monroe County violated NPL's rights under the takings clause and the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="679"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept96/95-4142.opa.html">NEW PORT LARGO, INC. V. MONROE CTY.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>New Port Largo. This case was before us on appeal previously.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="679"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept96/95-4142.opa.html">NEW PORT LARGO, INC. V. MONROE CTY.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>New Port Largo. This case was before us on appeal previously.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="675"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/924A93785E9B655988256FBD005FBEB6/$file/0316759.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
MetroPCS alleged that the Board's decision (1) was not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-5030.html">BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/10/03-2068.htm">03-2068 -- SCHWARTZ AND HAYS V. HAFEN -- 10/05/2004<BR></A><BR>
The Park consists of 205 acres of land and is located on the northside of Las Cruces at the southeast corner of I 25 and U.S. 70. Which were approved by the Las Cruces City Council. <p> At issue in this case are Parcels 11 through 14 of the Park. An ordinance was passed by the City changing the zoning of these parcels from R 3 to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/07/002880P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was illegal under state law. Were located in an A 2 district. When these two operations are synchronized. Special strip mining techniques are used to create the space for the landfill. These techniques are more expensive than traditional methods of strip mining and are undertaken with the The Hon. They made it clear that they were opposed to locating a landfill at Star 14. Water wells were drilled to monitor the groundwater. The County was able to delay issuance of the Star 14 landfilling permit by various contacts with the DNR. So long as they remained
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1966_040.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Wisconsin Community Services was formerly Wisconsin Correctional Foundation. The name was changed while this action was pending in the district court. 1 2 No. 04 1966 Disabilities Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/09/01-4216.htm">01-4216 -- UTAHNS FOR BETTER V. U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION -- 09/16/2002<BR></A><BR>
The district court's jurisdiction was based upon the Administrative Procedures Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="658"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr2001/991932.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The ZHB contends that the District Court erred in finding that the ZHB's decision denying Omnipoint's application was not supported by substantial evidence as requir ed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="651"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199810/97-5282a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Nancie G. With him on the brief were Wilma A. Everett's attempt to overturn the Service's action was reject ed by the District Court and he now appeals. Persons or entities must ... obtain a special use authorization from the authorized officer unless that requirement is waived by paragraph (c) of this section.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="651"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/10/053049P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because the property in question (including the forty foot square parcel to be leased to USCOC) is only about 1.3 acres. The proposed tower is required to be
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="651"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200410481.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because full relief is available under the statute.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="651"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2003/013533.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which is too small to support two theaters. United Artists was required to show that the Supervisors' conduct
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="649"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-4274.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Both parcels are located south of the Bloomington Exit on the east side of I 15 in the City. The City's manager allegedly refused to provide such a letter because the City was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/12/974199P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1 and that even if Younger abstention was appropriate. Dismissal with prejudice was not. The leased property is zoned as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan98/96-2290.man.html">GJR INVESTMENTS, INC. V. COUNTY OF ESCAMBIA (1/5/1998, NO. 96-2290)<BR></A><BR>
ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT</CENTER> </P> <P> A complete copy of the complaint is made an appendix to this opinion. Inc. is a Texas corporation that is the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="642"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan98/96-2290.man.html">GJR INVESTMENTS, INC. V. COUNTY OF ESCAMBIA (1/5/1998, NO. 96-2290)<BR></A><BR>
ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT</CENTER> </P> <P> A complete copy of the complaint is made an appendix to this opinion. Inc. is a Texas corporation that is the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="640"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042440np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
319 U.S. 315 (1943).1 The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed. The land is surrounded by single family subdivisions and is abutted by two unlimited access roads. 1343 and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 2 1 and Franklin. Both of which are classified as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="640"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2004/034090np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge Plaintiff claims that its procedural due process rights were violated by the process used to review its land use application. We will affirm. Attempts at mediation have all been to no avail. EMI sought permission for its intended
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EEA37735B3C60A7388256E750077E587/$file/0315853.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We agree with the district court that the California Supreme Court's adjudication of the state takings claims was an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042698np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. An abbreviated recitation of the facts will suffice. The Planning Commission based its recommendation on the Township Engineer's opinion that two provisions of the Ordinances were not satisfied. Because the Township was interested in helping neighbors maintain open space. The plan was approved on February 8. A. Our review of a grant of summary judgment is plenary. Summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine issue of material fact. If the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We observed that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-7209a.html">DISTRICT INTOWN PROPERTIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP V. D.C.<BR></A><BR>
Christensen argued the cause for appellants. </p> <p>With him on the briefs was Stacey L. With him on the </p> <p>brief were Jo Anne Robinson. Nelson were on the brief for amicus </p> <p>curiae The National Trust for Historic Preservation and D.C. </p> <p>Preservation League.</p> <p>Before: Edwards. All nine lots were declared </p> <p>historic landmarks. </p> <p>finding that the construction was incompatible with the prop </p> <p>erty's landmark status. The District Court found that there was no categori </p> <p> . The property as it was </p> <p>originally purchased in 1961 and as it was held for 27 years </p> <p>prior to the 1988 subdivision. When the proper </p> <p>ty is viewed as a single parcel. There is no doubt that it has </p> <p>not been rendered valueless. Even if each subdivided </p> <p>parcel is considered separately. The record </p> <p>here does not show that District Intown's investment backed </p> <p>expectations were disappointed. This is not surprising. Be </p> <p>cause District Intown could not have had any reasonable </p> <p>investment backed expectations of development given the </p> <p>background regulatory structure at the time of subdivision. </p> <p>Accordingly.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199912/98-7209a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Stacey L. With him on the brief were Jo Anne Robinson. Nelson were on the brief for amicus curiae The National Trust for Historic Preservation and D.C. All nine lots were declared historic landmarks. Finding that the construction was incompatible with the prop erty's landmark status. The District Court found that there was no categori cal taking under Lucas. The property as it was originally purchased in 1961 and as it was held for 27 years prior to the 1988 subdivision. When the proper ty is viewed as a single parcel. There is no doubt that it has not been rendered valueless. Even if each subdivided parcel is considered separately. The record here does not show that District Intown's investment backed expectations were disappointed. This is not surprising. Be cause District Intown could not have had any reasonable investment backed expectations of development given the background regulatory structure at the time of subdivision. The property was known as Cathedral Mansions South and consisted of an apartment building and adjacent landscaped lawns.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031322.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 1
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-7209b.html">DISTRICT INTOWN PROPERTIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP V. D.C.<BR></A><BR>
Christensen argued the cause for appellants. </p> <p>With him on the briefs was Stacey L. With him on the </p> <p>brief were Jo Anne Robinson. Nelson were on the brief for amicus </p> <p>curiae The National Trust for Historic Preservation and D.C. </p> <p>Preservation League.</p> <p>Before: Edwards. All nine lots were declared </p> <p>historic landmarks. </p> <p>finding that the construction was incompatible with the prop </p> <p>erty's landmark status. The District Court found that there was no categori </p> <p> . The property as it was </p> <p>originally purchased in 1961 and as it was held for 27 years </p> <p>prior to the 1988 subdivision. When the proper </p> <p>ty is viewed as a single parcel. There is no doubt that it has </p> <p>not been rendered valueless. Even if each subdivided </p> <p>parcel is considered separately. The record </p> <p>here does not show that District Intown's investment backed </p> <p>expectations were disappointed. This is not surprising. Be </p> <p>cause District Intown could not have had any reasonable </p> <p>investment backed expectations of development given the </p> <p>background regulatory structure at the time of subdivision. </p> <p>Accordingly.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1995/95a1059p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That the dispositive issue is whether. We will reverse and remand this action for yet another trial. Was approved by the Township and recorded in 1972. These improvements were substantially completed. This ordinance was amended on June 15. Township regulation of development and construction was expanded again on July 27. Included in this July ordinance was a Code Appeals Board to hear appeals from code violations. Until the industrial park was completed. Maintain that they were applying the local zoning and permitting regulations in a lawful and reasonable manner. An aspiring developer of a parcel of land was required first to obtain the Township's approval of the subdivision plan and then to acquire three permits. The first permit was a land alteration permit. All land alteration permits were approved by the Township Board of Supervisors. A developer was required to obtain a building permit by verifying that the building plans were in accord with applicable building codes. After the building was erected but before it could be occupied.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="635"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199912/98-7209b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Stacey L. With him on the brief were Jo Anne Robinson. Nelson were on the brief for amicus curiae The National Trust for Historic Preservation and D.C. All nine lots were declared historic landmarks. Finding that the construction was incompatible with the prop erty's landmark status. The District Court found that there was no categori cal taking under Lucas. The property as it was originally purchased in 1961 and as it was held for 27 years prior to the 1988 subdivision. When the proper ty is viewed as a single parcel. There is no doubt that it has not been rendered valueless. Even if each subdivided parcel is considered separately. The record here does not show that District Intown's investment backed expectations were disappointed. This is not surprising. Be cause District Intown could not have had any reasonable investment backed expectations of development given the background regulatory structure at the time of subdivision. The property was known as Cathedral Mansions South and consisted of an apartment building and adjacent landscaped lawns.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2185A9176E5FB44888256DA9007C200D/$file/0157218.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the opinion filed June 25. Is amended as follows: CARPINTERIA VALLEY FARMS v. Clause that ends with
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="628"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1944.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellants. Lacouture and Peabody & Brown were on brief for the Narragansett Electric Company. Jefferson Melish was on brief for the Narragansett Indian Tribe of Rhode Island and the Narragansett Indian Wetuomuck Housing Authority. The
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="628"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200411542.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It is from this judgment that Mr. Although the parties have not raised the issue here. We are obliged to consider. Since he was neither a party to nor an intended beneficiary of that agreement. We do not have the power to entertain the appeal. The essential facts are these. Was originally chartered in 1963. The amendment was approved by referendum in the Town's November election. The Town Charter was amended to contain the provision:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="628"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4124.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs Julian Dean Hatch and Lynn Mitchell are residents of and property owners in the town of Boulder. The district court concluded that most of plaintiffs' claims were barred by res judicata (claim preclusion) based on prior suits filed in the federal district and Utah state courts. It determined that the doctrine of claim preclusion barred all of plaintiffs' claims that were based on facts that arose prior to final judgment in the former actions. We review the district court's analysis of the claims it found were not precluded by the prior actions. Should have been allowed to continue selling food and beer. Hatch contended that this requirement was essentially a pretext to run him out of business. 1999 Petition for Review Hatch and Mitchell were petitioners in a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="619"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2647.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. Was on brief. Were on brief. Were on brief. Were on brief. Were on brief. Was on brief. Were on brief. Background</STRONG></CENTER> </P> <P> The Narragansetts were aboriginal inhabitants of what is now Rhode Island. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992352.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Homeowners who live across from a Roman Catholic school which is constructing improvements and additions to the school without obtaining a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="614"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972549.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the title company on the ground that the title was marketable and the economic value of the timber was irrelevant to the question. We conclude that the loss sustained by Haw River Timber because of restrictions imposed by the municipal ordinance is not covered by the title insurance policy. It was informed by the Town of Garner that some of the property adjacent to Swift Creek was subject to municipal ordinances passed in 1988. The ordinances were enacted in response to a recommendation of the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development that the Swift Creek watershed be upgraded for environmental purposes. It states that the ordinances were not cross indexed in the Wake County Register of Deeds with the sellers or previous land owners in the chain of title. Central to the court's reasoning was the principle that zoning ordinances that affect all land generally are not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="614"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/12/952913P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Outdoor has presented no evidence that its billboards were erected before this ordinance took effect. The billboards were in place. All but one of Outdoor's billboards are located in residential zones.1 In 1960. The City issued certificates of nonconforming use for the billboards (which were then owned by Iowa Posting Company). Outdoor purchased thirty two billboards at ten locations in Burlington.2 Payments on the contract are due until the end of 1996. Testified that he believed the business was undervalued at that price. Outdoor purchased the company with the knowledge that the billboards were nonconforming uses and were subject to a recertification of such uses by the building inspector. Recertification of the nonconforming uses was never sought by Outdoor. The billboard that is not in a residential area is nonetheless in violation of the City's set back requirements. Outdoor owns the property on which all but three of the billboards are placed and leases the property for those three parcels of land. 000 each year.3 billboard business is estimated by Outdoor's appraiser to be $250.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="614"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-2239.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which we have consolidated for decision. Aurora Christian Schools Ocean Atlantic is a real estate development company that is incorporated in Virginia and maintains its principal place of business in Alexandria. Will Counties three of the suburban
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="612"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-1329_020.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/51BFE3F68EDF896E88256B0300792F66/$file/9835154.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
V. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because the district court did not have the opportunity to consider Appellants' First Amendment claim in light of Phillips. One of the most significant is loyalty to the client. Lawyers have long been required to place their clients' money in bank accounts separate from their own. Lawyers in all fifty states are held to that same high standard of professional conduct.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3B181A3BD78A945088256E5A00707D47/$file/9835154.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
V. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because the district court did not have the opportunity to consider Appellants' First Amendment claim in light of Phillips. One of the most significant is loyalty to the client. Lawyers have long been required to place their clients' money in bank accounts separate from their own. Lawyers in all fifty states are held to that same high standard of professional conduct.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9C1C74FA6BF84C668825733D007405DC/$file/0656211.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
All these claims were later dismissed. While the lawsuit was pending. Alleging that the Settlement Agreement is void because. The pendency of litigation is not a blank check for a city when it comes to the rights of its residents. A settlement agreement cannot override state law absent a specific determination that federal law has been or will be violated. Since no such findings were made here. The Settlement Agreement is invalid and unenforceable. This action was later upheld by the Board of Zoning Appeals and the Los Angeles City Council. While this federal action was pending. RLUIPA's effective date was September 22. None of whom were parties to the first federal court action. The court found The City and the Congregation have since been involved in litigation over the scope and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement. 2012. 2 This action was originally assigned to the Honorable Harry L. It was reassigned to the Honorable Christina A. That the privileges granted to the Congregation did not run with the land and were created by contract against a threat of litigation.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1994/94a0882p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The underlying action is Acierno's request for declaratory and injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages for the County's alleged violations of the Constitution and laws of the United States and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West 1994).[fn1] Presently before us is the County's appeal from an order entered by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granting Acierno's motion for a mandatory preliminary injunction directing the County to issue Acierno a building permit for development of a shopping mall. The district court also concluded that Acierno would suffer irreparable harm unless the County was compelled to issue the building permit and halt its interference with Acierno's development. The County argues Acierno failed to show he will be irreparably harmed unless a preliminary injunction issues against the County. A primary purpose of a preliminary injunction is maintenance of the status quo until a decision on the merits of a case is rendered. There is no evidence in this record to show that a delay in issuance of the building permit until this case can be decided on its merits would cause irreparable harm to Acierno.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="602"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1996/96a1352p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will reverse the August 16. Hovsons is a developer of nursing homes and other forms of senior citizen housing. Approximately twenty two (21.96) of the acres are located in Brick Township. The remaining (10.77) acres are in Lakewood Township. The nursing home facility Hovsons has envisioned is intended for persons who will require some form of nursing care for the rest of their lives.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1999/986484.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2) its decision is not supported by substantial evidence. We will affirm in part and reverse in part. I. Factual Background The parties have stipulated to the following facts. Are licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to provide wireless cellular telephone service to the Borough of Ho Ho Kus. Is licensed to provide wireless mobile radio services. Bell Atlantic and Nextel are referred to collectively throughout this opinion as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="598"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052253p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case presents the Court with the issue of whether neighboring property owners who allege that their property values will be diminished and their neighborhood blighted by the construction of a storage facility have standing to sue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The focus of this case is the propriety of the Darby Township Zoning Hearing Board's (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="595"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2002/01-14182.opn.html">PREFERRED SITES, L.L.C. V. TROUP COUNTY (7/10/2002, NO. 01-14182)<BR></A><BR>
Appellee alleged the Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. Which typically are used to provide cellular telephone service. Which is located in Troup County. Appellee's application was required by the Troup County Zoning Ordinance. Were submitted to the Board. A set of blank lines to write in an explanation of the proposal for which the petition was being circulated. Only two of the petitions were complete. Indicating both the purpose of the petition was to oppose the tower and the proposal for which the petition was circulated was to object to the construction of the tower. The third petition merely noted the location of the proposed tower and indicated the proposal for which the petition was circulated was to object to the construction of the tower. Appellant claimed Appellee's action was untimely filed and Appellee had failed to meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance. The district court held Appellee's action was filed within the statute of limitations.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="595"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2002/01-14182.opn.html">PREFERRED SITES, L.L.C. V. TROUP COUNTY (7/10/2002, NO. 01-14182)<BR></A><BR>
Appellee alleged the Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. Which typically are used to provide cellular telephone service. Which is located in Troup County. Appellee's application was required by the Troup County Zoning Ordinance. Were submitted to the Board. A set of blank lines to write in an explanation of the proposal for which the petition was being circulated. Only two of the petitions were complete. Indicating both the purpose of the petition was to oppose the tower and the proposal for which the petition was circulated was to object to the construction of the tower. The third petition merely noted the location of the proposed tower and indicated the proposal for which the petition was circulated was to object to the construction of the tower. Appellant claimed Appellee's action was untimely filed and Appellee had failed to meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance. The district court held Appellee's action was filed within the statute of limitations.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="591"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/nov95/94-8071.html">CLAJON PRODUCTION CORP. V. PETERA<BR></A><BR>
This case is a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action challenging several Wyoming hunting regulations as violative of the federal and state constitutional rights of a number of Wyoming ranchers (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="586"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011948.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Asserting that the local zoning ordinance was unconstitutionally vague on its face and that the denial of the permit to build the townhouse project amounted to an unconstitutional taking of his property without just compensation and violated his due process and equal protection rights. We affirmed the ruling that the ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague. He is joined by the Pacific Legal Foundation as amicus curiae. We now affirm the district court's grant of judgment to the defendants on the substantive due process claim and vacate the judgment on the takings claim because the latter claim is not ripe for review. I. Aubrey Henry is part owner of a 13.69 acre tract of land located in Jefferson County. Henry's restaurant was a nonconforming use under the new ordinance. He was permitted to continue operating the restaurant under a grandfather clause. If this was approved. Henry's proposed use was not allowed as of right. The Commission denied the permit based on the project's high housing unit density (which was much greater than the density in the surrounding area).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="586"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/63CA5B217C565EEB88256DA3007BF83A/$file/0215220.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
They also claim that the ordinances violate their Fourteenth Amendment rights to procedural due process and equal protection and are unconstitutionally vague. Associated with many hotels that were poorly maintained. The terms
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="586"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992389A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
OPINION PER CURIAM: This case was argued before the en banc Court on February 27. (2) holding that the establishment of a magnet schools program was an ultra vires. King and Gregory in the affirmative) attorneys' fees for work done on the unitary status issue are denied. Nominal damages and attorneys' fees in that regard are denied. The injunction is vacated. The imposition of sanctions is affirmed. The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed on the finding of unitary status and the imposition of sanctions. The judgment of the district court vacating and dissolving all prior injunctive orders and decrees is affirmed. The Board is to operate the school system without the strictures of these decrees no later than the 2002 2003 school year. Circuit Judge: This case is hopefully the final chapter in the saga of federal court control over the Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="584"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/july96/95-4041.wpd.html">BATEMAN V. CITY OF WEST BOUNTIFUL<BR></A><BR>
The district court held that these claims were not ripe for adjudication because Bateman had neither received a final administrative determination concerning his property. Utah.(1) The lot was one of several one acre lots located on 400 North that were granted conditional use zoning by the City. Which is admitted for the most part by the defendants. one residence permitted on each portion. Because the right of way was necessary to provide access to the other two portions of the lot. The normal setback and side yard requirements were waived under the conditional use zoning scheme. The buildings were constructed in stages. The City was aware of the construction. The structures were completed in approximately 1980. This Certificate indicated that Bateman's property was not in compliance with the setback and side yard requirements of the West Bountiful building ordinance. Which is still on file in the county recorder's office. As was permitted under Utah law. Bateman also asserted that the City was estopped under state law from enforcing the setback and side yard requirements.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="581"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct98/97-4901.man.html">BANNUM, INC. V. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE (10/5/1998, NO. 97-4901)<BR></A><BR>
Finding that the ordinance at issue was rationally related to the achievement of legitimate state interests. Inc. (collectively Bannum) are Kentucky corporations that work in cooperation with the United States Bureau of Prisons to provide supervised residential programs for ex offenders. The program participants were federal prisoners that had been convicted of nonviolent white collar crimes and were serving the last stages of their sentences before release. While Johnson was in the process of appealing the Board of Adjustments' decision to the Circuit Court of Broward County. Arguing that they were entitled to absolute. ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW</CENTER> </P> <P> The issue presented in this appeal is whether section 47 11.1.1(d) of the Fort Lauderdale Code of Ordinances. The City must prevail if section 47 11.1.1(d) is rationally related to the achievement of some legitimate government purpose. <EM>Georgia Manufactured Hous. Our inquiry is twofold. We must
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="581"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a1075n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND The Johnechecks are owners of forty acres of property in Bay Township who wished to The Honorable Jerome Farris. They were required to comply with the Township's zoning ordinance. Their application was denied by the Zoning Administrator. Stating that it did
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="581"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct98/97-4901.man.html">BANNUM, INC. V. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE (10/5/1998, NO. 97-4901)<BR></A><BR>
Finding that the ordinance at issue was rationally related to the achievement of legitimate state interests. Inc. (collectively Bannum) are Kentucky corporations that work in cooperation with the United States Bureau of Prisons to provide supervised residential programs for ex offenders. The program participants were federal prisoners that had been convicted of nonviolent white collar crimes and were serving the last stages of their sentences before release. While Johnson was in the process of appealing the Board of Adjustments' decision to the Circuit Court of Broward County. Arguing that they were entitled to absolute. ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW</CENTER> </P> <P> The issue presented in this appeal is whether section 47 11.1.1(d) of the Fort Lauderdale Code of Ordinances. The City must prevail if section 47 11.1.1(d) is rationally related to the achievement of some legitimate government purpose. <EM>Georgia Manufactured Hous. Our inquiry is twofold. We must
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="581"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2889.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It held that the County's denial of VoiceStream's application was supported by substantial evidence and that VoiceStream had failed to demonstrate that the County's decision had the effect of prohibiting personal wireless services. Is a provider of personal communication services (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="579"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1452.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C.</SPAN> were on brief for appellants and cross appellees</SPAN> <BR WP=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="577"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B05F3200F4BD992288256ECF0057CC71/$file/0235936.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
ORDER The opinion appearing at 368 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2004) is AMENDED as follows: On page 1191. The challenged Ordinances are explicitly intended to combat the secondary effects of adult stores' speech. The district court ruled that the purpose of the Ordinances is to regulate the harmful secondary effects associated with sexually oriented businesses. Preamble/Findings (4)(k) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="570"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-8028.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendants are Lincoln County. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm. <hr> I. Who were interested in creating a subdivision of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/01/961179P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E1AD8CF1047CF7138825733300551050/$file/0516173.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2007 at slip op. 8849 is hereby AMENDED as follows: Delete the paragraph at slip op. 8861 beginning
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A5D1F88B10778A5C882573210056CD54/$file/0516173.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that our review of Ordinance 1221 is limited by the Nevada Supreme Court's decision in McCarran Int'l Airport v. A portion of the property was zoned as Rural Estates Residential (R E). The County partially conditioned approval of the Landowners' rezoning request on the Landowners' granting of the following avigation easement: [The County] is to have a perpetual right of flight. It is further understood and agreed that the grantor himself. The parties did not complete the rezoning and the First Easement was not recorded. The Landowners filed another rezoning request with the County to have the R E property reclassified as H 1. The County conditioned its approval of the Landowners' rezoning request on the Landowners' granting the following avigation easement: It is understood and agreed that [the County is] to have perpetual right of flight. It is further understood the GRANTOR does hereby agree for himself to release Clark County. 47 foot casino and three 76 foot hotel buildings would penetrate the approach slope for proposed Runway 1R and thus
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0752n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Again the plaintiffs have appealed. We are not persuaded that the township's site plan and
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200107/99-1009a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were William Malone and Nicholas P. With him on the brief were Christopher J. With him on the brief were James H. Or use of [anten nas that are designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service. Is invalid on its face. If there is no taking. We deny the petition. 1 Petitioners are the Building Owners and Managers Associa tion International. Or use of [a s 207 device] ... is prohibited.... 47 C.F.R. s 1.4000 (1996). The rule allowed for several exceptions: Restric tions on s 207 devices were permissible if they served a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1053.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for appellant Superior Court of Puerto Rico for the District of Arecibo. Bonnet Rosario was on brief for appellants Rivera Santos. William Ramirez Hernandez with whom Nora Vargas Acosta was on brief for plaintiffs. Jeanne Finberg and National Senior Citizens Law Center were on brief for intervenors appellees. The Superior Court judgment was based on a determination that Casa Marie was operating in violation of local zoning ordinances and JDA restrictive covenants. A. The Opening and Expansion of Casa Marie The Jardines de Arecibo housing development was established in 1967. Each property in the development is subject to restrictive 3 covenants allowing only detached single family residences. Was established by Maria Pla Placencio on a dead end street in a section of JDA zoned residential (R 3). Elder care facilities are not allowed except as a variance. Casa Marie was granted a six month provisional DSS license to operate an elder care facility on Lots 19 and 20. Casa Marie was denied a permanent DSS license due in part to the discovery that the A.R.P.E. 1As these endorsements were not seriously at issue.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2B0D789626D52E6288256F32007C4BAD/$file/0216585.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service have violated numerous environmental and conservation oriented statutes. Background Fort Baker (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="563"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DAAA6273214AA58388256EA000809B6A/$file/0235936.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Whether the City of Spokane's ordinances regulating the location of adult oriented retail businesses (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200411409.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs claim that all other developers that came before the Planning Commission had received approval and aver that Plaintiffs were treated differently by the City because of Mr. Filed a second amended complaint in which only the municipality of Rainbow City was named as a Defendant. The mayor and the Board of Adjustment were no longer parties to the litigation. 2 1 Defendant Rainbow City has appealed. Plaintiffs have not offered any evidence to support an equal protection claim of similarly situated individuals who were treated differently. The district court should have granted the City's Rule 50 motion. The order of the district court is reversed. It is directed to enter judgment for Defendant. Campbell ran for the office of Mayor of Rainbow City and was defeated by the incumbent. Campbell was critical of Glidewell and her policies. Mayor Glidewell is a voting member of both the City Council and the Planning Commission and appoints six of the other nine members to the Planning Commission. Because we conclude that the district court should have granted the City's Rule 50 motion.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0425p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were prohibited from establishing themselves within 1. This site was within 1. Other periodicals which are distinguished or characterized by their emphasis on matter depicting. It concluded that Velvet Touch was not within the definition of an adult bookstore and therefore did not require a variance to conduct business at its chosen location. He claimed that 1) Velvet Touch was an adult bookstore. Agreeing with Vredevoogd that Velvet Touch was an adult bookstore as defined in the ordinance. The court determined that it was premature to rule on the remaining issues as Executive Arts was entitled to a ruling by the ZBA on the original variance request. The court also noted that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/10/961873P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(2) holding that Northgate's use is an unlawful nonconforming use. Jurisdiction was proper in the district court based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1343. Jurisdiction on appeal is proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed under Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 1996). 3 2 The terms
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/03/011869P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Coates is a town of 182 people located fifteen miles southeast of St. Nude dancing is expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. It is now well established that this type of regulation is permissible under the First Amendment provided the ordinance is justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech. Is designed to promote a substantial government interest. We have applied this test in numerous cases in which various adult entertainment businesses challenged local zoning and licensing ordinances. This type of delayed prohibition is known as an amortization provision because it justifies the removal of a nonconforming use by giving the owner a period of time to recoup (amortize) its investment before it must relocate. Jake's present location did not comply with the 1994 ordinance because it is not in an agricultural zone and is less than 750 feet from a residence. Kyle's opinion further stated: [I]f Coates' requirement for land dedication for subdivision were altered either to allow some non discretionary alternative (equivalent fee in lieu of the land dedication) or to limit the land dedication requirement to certain types of subdivision (i.e.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/01/01-4134.htm">01-4134 -- TOOL BOX V. OGDEN CITY CORP. -- 01/22/2003<BR></A><BR>
566 (1991) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/11/01-1220.htm">01-1220 -- Z.J. GIFTS D-4 V. CITY OF LITTLETON -- 11/18/2002<BR></A><BR>
Including one in which the circuits are substantially divided: namely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1688.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.A.</SPAN> was on brief for appellant.</SPAN> <BR WP=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTA1NDEtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-0541-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Town of Wallkill appeal from the district court's denial of their motions for summary judgment on the ground that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on appellee Clubside. Holding that Clubside did not have a constitutionally protected property interest in the extension of the sewer district.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/06/061150P.pdf">N:\DOCS\E-DOS\6-1\06-1150 SOUTH DAKOTA V. US DEPT OF INTERIOR OPN 5.23(D).WPD<BR></A><BR>
One of the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992389.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
As follows: On page 3 the list of amici curiae is corrected to read
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991218.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 5 the crossreference is corrected to read
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-4045_022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Hoagland made his opposition to the town's actions rather clearly known by posting a homemade
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19959578.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND Appellant and its predecessors have operated some type of rock quarry on their property since the turn of this century. the County zoned the property agricultural residential. No We affirm. the property was rezoned for single family residential use. further official action was taken regarding this property until 1989. The County denied the license because of a lack of evidence that the quarry was a legal nonconforming use of the property. Which found sufficient evidence that the quarry was a legal nonconforming use. The BOA held: This is to advise that the Board of Appeals. Overturned administrative decision that quarry operated at 7262 South Goddard Road is not a legal non conforming use (183 acre quarry approved as a legal non conforming use). The County then served Appellant with three summonses to Recorders It is only speculation and has no bearing on the issues in this appeal. We note that the parties may have lacked incentive to appeal because each party perceived that it had prevailed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1688.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Newman was on brief for appellant. Pollart were on brief for appellees. D.H.L. has never been successful in this endeavor because Matthew's is not located within the area of Tyngsborough zoned to allow adult entertainment. Is located about 40 miles from Boston near the Massachusetts/New Hampshire border. The Tyngsborough board of selectmen acts as the town's executive branch and is authorized to act as the licensing authority for alcoholic beverage and entertainment licenses. Town residents voting at meetings constitute the legislative branch of the town's government and as such are responsible for enacting the zoning ordinances at issue here. Was authorized. Did not actually contain any parcels of land and was. D.H.L. applied for and was issued both an all alcoholic beverage license and a live entertainment license for its restaurant called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jul2001/002135.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Bankruptcy Court held that this condition was unreasonable and issued an injunction requiring the BOA to allow BAPS to use its own uniformed volunteers for traffic direction and occupancy limit compliance. BAPS is an acronym. The full name of the organization is Bochasanwasi Shree Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha. 2 by the prior owner as a nightclub. Was contingent upon BAPS obtaining permission from the BOA to use the land as a house of worship. Because the property is located in an industrial zone. The Township denied the application on the ground that a use variance was requir ed under New Jersey law. Most of these problems were later discussed by BAPS's engineer. One of the chief problems McGrath identified was the fear that the property had insufficient parking spaces to accommodate its anticipated use. Testified that BAPS was willing to limit the temple's occupancy based on the number of available parking spaces. The number of parking spaces that would be available for worshippers' use is a matter of dispute.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5010.html">MARSHA SEIBER, ET AL. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Charles F. Argued for defendant <span class=SpellE>appellee</span>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/04/983506P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Judicial review is authorized by the FAA Authorization Act of 1994. We conclude the FAA's decision was not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2772.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
RVS was preparing to open a business at the Auburn Street location called Moulin Rouge. The Ordinance only applies to dancers who are clothed nude and semi nude dancers are regulated by a separate Rockford ordinance that deals with
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="539"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec99/98-5117.man.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Kellogg stated his homestead was approximately 1.3
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="539"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec99/98-5117.man.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Kellogg stated his homestead was approximately 1.3
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="539"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2472.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lee</SPAN> was on brief for appellants.</P> <BR WP=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-30346.0.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.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept99/98-2802.man.html">BOSS CAPITAL V. CITY OF CASSELBERRY (9/3/1999, NO. 98-2802)<BR></A><BR>
We conclude that the licensing provisions are valid but that the validity of the zoning provision turns on a factual question the district court left unresolved. A new adult entertainment establishment may operate in the same location as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept99/98-2802.man.html">BOSS CAPITAL V. CITY OF CASSELBERRY (9/3/1999, NO. 98-2802)<BR></A><BR>
We conclude that the licensing provisions are valid but that the validity of the zoning provision turns on a factual question the district court left unresolved. A new adult entertainment establishment may operate in the same location as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="537"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTA1NDEtY3YgQW1lbmRlZC5wZGY=/05-0541-cv%20Amended.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Town of Wallkill appeal from the district court's denial of their motions for summary judgment on the ground that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on appellee Clubside. Holding that Clubside did not have a constitutionally protected property interest in the extension of the sewer district.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb97/95-9578.opa.html">DEKALB STONE, INC. V. COUNTY OF DEKALB<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Dekalb Stone. BACKGROUND<p> <p> Appellant and its predecessors have operated some type of rock quarry on their property since the turn of this century. The property was rezoned for single family residential use. No further official action was taken regarding this property until 1989. The County denied the license because of a lack of evidence that the quarry was a legal nonconforming use of the property. Which found sufficient evidence that the quarry was a legal nonconforming use. The BOA held:<p> This is to advise that the Board of Appeals. Overturned administrative decision that quarry operated at 7262 South Goddard Road is not a legal non conforming use (183 acre quarry approved as a legal non conforming use).<p> <p> Upon receiving this determination. Shortly after the Recorders Court decision was issued. It seeks a preliminary injunction barring the County from enforcing the zoning regulations.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb97/95-9578.opa.html">DEKALB STONE, INC. V. COUNTY OF DEKALB<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Dekalb Stone. BACKGROUND<p> <p> Appellant and its predecessors have operated some type of rock quarry on their property since the turn of this century. The property was rezoned for single family residential use. No further official action was taken regarding this property until 1989. The County denied the license because of a lack of evidence that the quarry was a legal nonconforming use of the property. Which found sufficient evidence that the quarry was a legal nonconforming use. The BOA held:<p> This is to advise that the Board of Appeals. Overturned administrative decision that quarry operated at 7262 South Goddard Road is not a legal non conforming use (183 acre quarry approved as a legal non conforming use).<p> <p> Upon receiving this determination. Shortly after the Recorders Court decision was issued. It seeks a preliminary injunction barring the County from enforcing the zoning regulations.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992444.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judges. *Judge Murnaghan heard oral argument in this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We hold that the as applied takings claim is not ripe and therefore should have been dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because the district court's award of attorney's fees was based in part upon a finding that the unripe asapplied takings claim is frivolous. Greenspring maintains that it is legally entitled to a (b)(9) exemption because the proposed development qualifies as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></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-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200413210op2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Tanner applied for and was denied a sign permit because Tanner sought to construct signs that did not comply with section 1 43 of the Sign Ordinance. The district court denied injunctive relief on the ground that section 1 43 was constitutional and Tanner lacked standing to challenge the other provisions of the 1998 Sign Ordinance. Because all but one of the challenges by Tanner were rendered moot by the 2005 Sign Ordinance and Tanner lacks standing to challenge the remaining provision. Business or solicitation which is not carried out on the premises upon which the sign is located.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="532"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/02/923359P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="530"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200707/06-5354a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="530"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2174.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were disposed of through dismissals.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/01-2196.htm">01-2196 -- RANCHO LOBO LTD V. DEVARGAS -- 08/20/2002<BR></A><BR>
New Mexico (hereinafter
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="521"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5030.html">PALM BEACH ISLAND ASSOCIATES V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
On the brief were <U>Lois J. Of counsel on the brief was <U>Dorothy Boardman</U>. <U>Circuit Judge</U>.</P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="521"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991816.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
While the court concluded that the Board's denial of the permit application was supported by substantial evidence a conclusion with which we agree it held that the denial of the permit had
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2001/00-14434.opn.html">FLORIDA E. COAST RY. CO. V. CITY OF W. PALM BEACH (9/27/2001, NO. 00-14434)<BR></A><BR>
Is not pre empted by the ICCTA.</SPAN></P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200014434.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is not pre empted by the ICCTA. Appellate jurisdiction is under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Situated on this property are an office building. Rinker was FEC's largest customer. Rinker is in the business of supplying building material including
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2323.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. This matter is before the en banc court to review issues emanating from the panel opinion in O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal v. The underlying facts relating to the parties and the issues are fully described in the panel opinion and are therefore unnecessary to reiterate here. The en banc court is divided over the outcome of this case. The en banc court holds that courts in this Circuit must recognize that any preliminary injunction fitting within one of the disfavored categories must be more closely scrutinized to assure that the exigencies of the case support the granting of a remedy that is extraordinary even in the normal course. Movants seeking such an injunction are not entitled to rely on this Circuit's modified likelihood of success on the merits standard. A majority of the en banc court is of the view that the district court's entry of a preliminary injunction in this case should be affirmed. The decision of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico to grant UDV's request for a preliminary injunction is hereby AFFIRMED.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2001/00-14434.opn.html">FLORIDA E. COAST RY. CO. V. CITY OF W. PALM BEACH (9/27/2001, NO. 00-14434)<BR></A><BR>
Is not pre empted by the ICCTA.</SPAN></P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="518"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-4351.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because we conclude that the record sufficiently supports the Village's claim that the liquor prohibition is a reasonable attempt to reduce or eliminate the undesirable
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept97/95-3698.opa.html">VILLAS OF LAKE JACKSON V. LEON COUNTY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Villas of Lake Jackson v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> The plaintiff landowners here are attempting to establish a constitutional cause of action against the County because the rezoning of the landowners' real property took away their right to build high density apartment complexes. The Magistrate Judge to whom the case was submitted held that<p> (1) the due process taking claim fails because there is no such federal cause of action independent of a claim for relief under the Takings Clause of the Constitution. <p> <p> (2) the arbitrary and capricious due process claim fails because the ordinances challenged are rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. Or (b) the refusal of the district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their state law inverse condemnation claim.<p> The most significant holding on this appeal is that. There is no
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept97/95-3698.opa.html">VILLAS OF LAKE JACKSON V. LEON COUNTY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Villas of Lake Jackson v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> The plaintiff landowners here are attempting to establish a constitutional cause of action against the County because the rezoning of the landowners' real property took away their right to build high density apartment complexes. The Magistrate Judge to whom the case was submitted held that<p> (1) the due process taking claim fails because there is no such federal cause of action independent of a claim for relief under the Takings Clause of the Constitution. <p> <p> (2) the arbitrary and capricious due process claim fails because the ordinances challenged are rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. Or (b) the refusal of the district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their state law inverse condemnation claim.<p> The most significant holding on this appeal is that. There is no
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/02-4149.htm">02-4149 -- SKULL VALLEY BAND OF GOSHUTE INDIANS V. NIELSON -- 08/04/2004<BR></A><BR>
Appeal the district court's ruling that the state's statutes regulating the storage and transportation of spent nuclear fuel are preempted by federal law. <u>See</u> <u>Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians v. The Utah officials argue that the district court should not have reached the merits of this dispute because (1) the plaintiffs who challenge the statutes
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042758np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
For the sake of brevity we will refer to Appellants as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="516"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/02/96-1483.htm">96-1483 -- Z.J. GIFTS D-2 V. CITY OF AURORA -- 2/10/1998<BR></A><BR>
The district court held that the regulation was a content based restriction of speech as applied to Z.J. Gifts' remaining claims for relief were dismissed as moot. The city appealed. <p align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/02-1002.htm">02-1002 -- HEATH V. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BOULDER COUNTY -- 02/18/2004<BR></A><BR>
Access to the property is by historic Old Wagon Road which intersects with Boulder County Road No. 52. He was informed that before Land Use would process a site plan review application. The Denver View Claim and other alternative properties were accessed by the Old Wagon Road. Since it was less than thirty five acres in size. Old Wagon Road was not a county road and did not provide legal access to Heath's property. Old Wagon Road was a public road.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2002/00-15964.opn.html">AM. TOWER L.P. V. CITY OF HUNTSVILLE (6/25/2002, NO. 00-15964)<BR></A><BR>
Chief Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1107.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C.</U> were on brief. Burling</U> were on brief. Flom LLP</U> were on brief. Was on brief. Were on brief. <U>Chief Judge</U>.</STRONG></FONT><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="514"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2002/00-15964.opn.html">AM. TOWER L.P. V. CITY OF HUNTSVILLE (6/25/2002, NO. 00-15964)<BR></A><BR>
Chief Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/02-1333.htm">02-1333 -- CROWN POINT LLC V. INERMOUNTAIN RURAL ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION -- 02/10/2003<BR></A><BR>
The District Court dismissed plaintiff's claims on the grounds that (1) Crown Point did not have a protected property interest sufficient to sustain a due process claim. (2) Crown Point's due process claims were not ripe for adjudication. We conclude that Crown Point did not have a protected property interest and therefore we affirm the decision of the District Court. <p align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011931.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because TCP was not deprived of a property interest without due process of law. Because the County's actions were rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Leonard Jordan also informed the County Planner that TCP was applying to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/11/01-2096.htm">01-2096 -- COUNTY OF SANTA FE V. PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW MEXICO -- 11/26/2002<BR></A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/04/962886P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Land owned by the McKenzies was platted into a subdivision of fourteen one acre lots along both sides of a public roadway land to named the Michealann north was Drive. At the and north the end of the was subdivision. The McKenzies retained a rectangular shaped parcel measuring ten feet by fifty feet as a privacy buffer. annexed the subdivision in 1977. lots in the subdivision was offered owned for Administration by the As Federal former The City Aviation the Eight years later. Because there was no public In 1989. Eight other planned homes were not started because the City withheld approval of the redivision and building permits pending the McKenzies' surrender of the privacy buffer. the City continued to deny the McKenzies' zoning requests.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/96DB0E84FBE9E0FE88256D6F0006B8FE/$file/0016858.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Weston was on the briefs. Were on the briefs. Were also on the briefs. A sexually oriented business is an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2320.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Tax assessment is not an exact science. The outcomes are rarely popular. Local assessors must make difficult judgments based on uncertain valuations with the knowledge that higher tax bills are more likely to produce complaints of unfair treatment than thank you cards. After learning that the Nation purchased the Ranch for $25 million and that Ranch income was largely derived from elk hunting and related activities. The effect was to increase the Nation's property tax bill by over $110. The Nation advances the theory that it is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3562F31D684CBA1A88256DC9007E1060/$file/0216037.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Sierra Club is not a party to this appeal. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Which states that a decision may be set aside
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200515633.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(2) was clearly in error in its finding regarding disparate impact. (3) considered expert testimony that should have been excluded under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. 2 II For many years.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0066p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The order of the district court is affirmed. Novelty item or any other item of an adult nature will not [sic] be sold. City officials notified plaintiffs by letter that their store was operating improperly under Richmond's zoning rules. The letter stated that the store was located in a B 3 business zoning district. That businesses engaged in selling adult materials were only permitted to locate in I 2 industrial zones. Since the time that their business was closed. Plaintiffs have expressed no interest in relocating. Nor have they attempted to appeal their license revocation through the process provided by Richmond's zoning rules. Zoning in Richmond is governed by a Development Ordinance. Principal/primary uses are defined as uses
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2002/004282.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The essence of Nextel's argument is that it is entitled to relief under the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. Because Nextel's claims are not yet ripe. A hearing before the Zoning Board was scheduled and interested property owners were given public notice. This testimony was in accordance with plans submitted to the Zoning Board (and placed on file with the City of Margate) by Nextel. Specifically referring to the equipment cabinet as eight feet by fourteen feet in its Resolution and stating that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="502"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2220.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1993 is amended as follows: On page 4. Gallardo was on brief for appellant. Melendez Albizu were on brief for appellee.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="502"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1998/98a1805p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are asked to determine whether summary judgment was appropriate on TRA's breach of contract claim. Because we agree with the district court that the agreement is unambiguous and that the Government did not breach the agreement by applying the CZMA to TRA. We will affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. We find that the district court erred in treating those claims as a writ of review and therefore will remand for the district court to consider TRA's constitutional claims under its original. I. Great Hans Lollik Island is a 500 acre uninhabited island located approximately two miles off the coast of St. When the Island was owned by Hans Lollik Corporation. The Corporation and the Government of the Virgin Islands entered into an agreement which was enacted into law as Act No. 1145. The parties have not disputed this ruling on appeal. We also will interpret the agreement under basic contract principles. 3 Under the agreement. The agreement states that the initial development objective is to construct a hotel
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2401.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
These cases concern a long running dispute as to whether appellants are the owners of real property located in New Hampshire. The actions were consolidated below and have been consolidated for purposes of appeal. We will discuss the merits of each action in turn.1 I. The district court dismissed the complaints before defendants were served with process. Because appellants were proceeding in forma pauperis this implicates the concerns of Neitzke v. The matters were referred first to a magistrate judge who filed reports and recommendations noting the deficiencies. Only after the objections were filed did the district court dismiss the complaints. This is sufficient under Neitzke. Appellants allege that they were deprived of their property without due process of law. A state action was commenced by private individuals to enjoin appellants from cutting wood on property owned by these individuals. The United States and the bankruptcy court obviously are not proper defendants. Appellants already have received review of the orders of the bankruptcy court.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1966_019.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Its outpatient mental health clinic in central Milwaukee is overcrowded. Because the structure is in a business zone. A new hearing was held. The outcome was the same. Because the Board concluded that WCS could have purchased or leased space elsewhere. More than 785 acres of land within WCS's preferred area for operating the mental health clinic are zoned for medical clinics. No deviation from Milwaukee's normal rules would have been required to use any of these sites. A special use permit was inappropriate because a medical clinic at the site could undermine a redevelopment plan that called for a commercial enterprise to be situated there. There are lots of specific ones. There is a general accommodation rule in Title III. That the legal rules are identical. (b) the building WCS purchased was its leastcost option. WCS is strapped for cash and can do more for its clients if it can situate facilities where the benefit/cost ratio is highest. Getting from that proposition to a legal rule that Milwaukee must permit WCS its preferred location is.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="497"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200015964.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: This appeal is about the plaintiffs' attempt to overturn a local zoning board's decision to deny plaintiffs an exception to build a wireless communications tower in a residential neighborhood. We must determine whether
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="497"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0023p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district judge found that the Telecommunications Act claims were barred by the 30day statute of limitations for instituting suit. That the plaintiff did not have standing to raise the issues asserted in its § 1983 count. Our review of the record and applicable law convinces us that summary judgment for the defendants was appropriately granted and we affirm. No. 02 1713 VoiceStream is a provider of personal communications systems and serves customers in southeastern Michigan. Antenna towers are needed at various locations. This property was located in an area zoned R E Single Family Residential. Which was developed with low rise residential homes. The action of the Council became final when the minutes of the February 26 meeting were approved on April 9. These discussions were ongoing before the final vote of denial by the Council took place. VoiceStream was reluctant to move forward. Because the Martin property was still their first choice and the terms the City proposed as far as lease rental was concerned required a greater financial outlay than was acceptable to VoiceStream.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2326.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Most people are in favor of programs that help drug addicts shake their addictions. Some fear (whether the fear is rational or not is another question). Will bring hoards of drug addicts. Many of whom are embroiled in the criminal justice system. To the addicts who are trying to free themselves from the grip of another. Today's case is about the drug treatment business and a million 2 No. 02 2326 dollar judgment against Indiana's capital city in a dispute that started as a zoning squabble. Inc. is a for profit corporation that operates drug addiction rehabilitation programs. It was told by an employee of the Department of Metropolitan Development that zoning regulations would allow a facility in the site it had chosen. That decision was later challenged by persons opposed to the facility. That the Discovery House facility was not a permitted use for the area. Which was zoned for doctor's offices and hospitals. Which overturned the decision holding that a methadone treatment center was a permitted use under the zoning laws at the requested location.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-7124.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. The tower was to be used by U.S.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/01/061150P.pdf">N:\DOCS\E-DOS\1-29\06-1150 SOUTH DAKOTA V. US DEPT OF INTERIOR OPN 1.24.WPD<BR></A><BR>
One of the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2001/992055.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is a Pennsylvania corporation that operates an art gallery on North Latches Lane in Lower Merion Township. The Indenture provides that the Foundation's purpose is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E28ADDED7F9C051388256FBE0077758F/$file/0135028.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Held that the district court should have dismissed the treaty based claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Thereby breaching its fiduciary responsibilities to the Tribe under the Treaty. [1] These claims are not properly brought under the FTCA. Would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1) (emphasis added).2 The Tribe's claims against the United States are properly characterized not as tort claims. The claims are thus quite different from those in cases like Berkovitz v. Which was rejected on November 20. The Coast Guard acted negligently in its operation of a lighthouse because it did not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/10/993778P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
In which Milligan alleged a taking of his property by the city Complications from an automobile accident have prevented Judge Gibson from reviewing this opinion prior to its being filed. The opinion is consistent with Judge Gibson's vote at conference. Arguing that the proposed taking was not for a public purpose. The city acquired easements over portions of Milligan's land in 1964 when the airport was initially developed. The city determined that the strength of the waste discharged from the farm was in excess of that contemplated by the city in entering the agreement and in excess of the city wastewater treatment plant's capacity. The location of the lagoon was chosen based on DNR setback requirements. Milligan ceased further construction and filed suit in the Iowa district court for Montgomery County requesting a declaratory judgment that his use of his property was exempt from county zoning under Iowa Code § 335.2. The Iowa district court ruled that construction of the lagoon was an agricultural purpose exempt from county zoning ordinances.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-1828_016.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is a small municipality located near Interstate 70 about 18 miles southwest of Terre Haute. It is small in both population (some 3. It is the county seat of Clark County. Because Marshall is so small. Illinois One had an opportunity to seek a permit that would allow its outlet to continue operating what is now a non conforming use. About 12% of the City's area is open to adult uses under the zoning code. Could be devoted to adult uses if Illinois One were to keep 1. The City will just amend its code to send it packing again.). The locations where Marshall allows adult businesses to operate are unattractive to Illinois One not because they are garbage dumps or otherwise undesirable physically. Because they are on the south side of town and thus some distance from the nearest exit to Interstate 70. Highway traffic is the principal source of The Gift Spot's business. The district court concluded after a bench trial that (a) Marshall's zoning law is designed to address the business's secondary effects rather than the content of the materials it offers for sale.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkwNDJfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9042_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The modifications were designed to modernize classrooms and to reduce class size. Were intended specifically for religious exercises. Which would have allowed the application to proceed to the next phase of consideration without requiring the School to submit an Environmental Impact Statement. Alleging that the Board's rescission of the negative declaration was unlawful. Among reasons cited by the Board for denying the permit were: the potential for increased intensity of use due to increased enrollment at WDS. Unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden . . . is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest. . . . [the burden imposed] is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044604np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Maple was prevented from going forward with an anticipated development of the parcel and eventually lost its interest in the property. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will affirm. Who are familiar with the circumstances underlying this case. We will set forth only those facts necessary for our analysis. The parcel was. The application was rejected on April 28. As Maple was preparing and filing its application to develop the property. The Township was preparing and considering a proposal that would prevent the planned development. A renewed proposal to rezone the property to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-5104.html">CIENEGA GARDENS V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041434np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1291. W e will affirm. We recount the facts and procedural history only as they are relevant to the following discussion. Gilpin Township is a municipal corporation formed under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Gilpin Township Ordinance No. 53 was enacted. The Ordinance is commonly referred to as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="483"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-5030d.html">PALM BEACH ISLES ASSOCIATES V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Of counsel were <u>Nancie G. On the brief were <u>Lois J. Of counsel on the brief was <u>Dorothy Boardman</u>. The court invited response from the appellants was filed. </p> <p ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="483"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1164.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
AS HE IS A MEMBER OF AND CONSTITUTE THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF LEICESTER. AS HE IS A MEMBER OF AND CONSTITUTE THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF LEICESTER. AS HE IS A MEMBER OF AND CONSTITUTE THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF LEICESTER. AS SHE IS A MEMBER OF AND CONSTITUTE THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF LEICESTER. AS HE IS A MEMBER OF AND CONSTITUTE THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF LEICESTER. P.C.</U> were on brief. That the Board's decision was not supported by
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1002.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ORP is a Wisconsin corporation licensed by the State to operate community based residential programs. (WCA) is a non profit Wisconsin corporation which provides statewide advocacy and protection for the rights of persons with disabilities. Plaintiff intervenors Janet K. and Valerie D. are residents of Milwaukee County and each has suffered a traumatic brain injury.1 Because Janet K.'s injuries occurred prior to adulthood. Both Janet K. and Valerie D. have been determined to be incompetent. Both Janet K. and Valerie D. are under protective placement orders pursuant to the State of Wisconsin's civil commitment statute for long term placement. Those conditions are as follows: Special Conditions. 1. A
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="481"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/09/973861P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court ruled that the ordinance was preempted by the Federal Mining Act of 1872. Argues that the ordinance is not preempted. The ordinance became law when it was approved by a majority of the voters in Lawrence County. Approximately 90 percent of the area is within the Black Hills National Forest and is under the supervision and control of the United States Department of Agriculture's Forest Service. This public land contains unpatented mining claims or properties which are open to the public for mineral developments. The area is also home to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="476"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0261p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Arguing that the district court erred by: (1) determining that the Warrens' takings claim was ripe. Have owned and operated a Dairy Queen at the northwest corner of the intersection of Columbus Road and Sunset Drive in Athens. The Dairy Queen is the only source of income for Charles and Ruth Warren. It is helpful to describe the Dairy Queen and its immediate surroundings. There are head in parking spaces located in the island created by the arc of the drive thru lane. There is an entrance to the restaurant parking lot from Columbus Road. There is no access around the back of the building from the north side to the west side abutting Sunset Drive. The Sunset Drive exit is only about twenty feet from the Sunset/Columbus intersection. The Dairy Queen's drive thru lane was constructed after the Warren family decided in 1998 that a drive thru would increase business and improve access for customers. Explaining that the proposed drive thru and1part of the existing Dairy Queen building were located on a public rightof way owned by the City.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062531np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is the question of whether this case is ripe for review. We hold that it is not. The maximum permitted height for structures in this zone is 35 feet. § 207.9. It is uncontested that the Township erroneously granted this permit. The tower was completed on July 16. Nextel was required to comply with the specific criteria of § 418A.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200601/05-5206a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Daniel P. With her on the brief was Elizabeth A. With him on the brief were Matthew T. The Tribe was administratively terminated in 1935. When its application for recognition was denied under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961614.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That order was made pursuant to the district court's exercise of jurisdiction following state court proceedings after we ordered abstention according to the doctrine promulgated in Burford v. I. We are very familiar with the factual background underlying this action and will not recite it in full yet again. That were annexed by the Town in 1978 pursuant to the order of a Virginia Annexation Court. The last time IPC was before us. We envisioned that IPC should seek whatever remedy was appropriate under Virginia's Annexation Court scheme as well as whatever other state remedies might be available. § 11 to those who have been unlawfully deprived of their property. Id. at 764 65. 1 IPC's case was consolidated with a companion case filed the same day by Fred and Gladys McLaughlin. Fred McLaughlin was the sole shareholder of IPC. 2 Although we previously labeled the various decisions in this lengthy litigation differently. This is far from a normal case. We believe it is necessary to address whether federal jurisdiction remains given the events and court dispositions that have transpired in the interim. 4 A.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BA73E4E997B9FA5688256DA20059339D/$file/0017508.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He is disabled and can no longer work. Once he was no longer earning a salary. The question in this case is whether the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA). He was earning approximately $36. Was less expensive than the $1. The Branham unit was closer to his mother's home. He was receiving $837 from SSDI per month. Duffus stated that Branham required prospective tenants to have a minimum gross monthly income equaling three times the monthly rent. The minimum required income was $2. After he was informed of his ineligibility. The home was located less than a mile from Branham. Anne Giebeler's income was $3. Stating that Giebeler was disabled and that. The district court held that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/01/961692P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Tribe brought The Tribe also Since this action to enjoin the State from enforcing its hunting and fishing laws over any person within the boundaries of the Reservation. sought declaratory relief that the State is barred from exercising any regulatory authority over hunting or fishing within the Reservation. important decisions relating to this litigation began in 1980. The district court determined that this action is substantially controlled by South Dakota v. This agreement was not a five year cooperation agreement. renewed. Arguing both that there are disputed material facts that make summary judgment inappropriate and that the court erred as a matter of law in determining that the State has exclusive jurisdiction to regulate hunting and fishing on non trust lands within the Reservation. Is contained in Lower Brule I. The Lower Brule Sioux Reservation was established as part of a March 2. Dakota in northeastern The Reservation is situated in central South Lyman County and extends slightly into the The Reservation is bounded on the The original area of the southeastern corner of Stanley County. northeast and east by the Missouri River.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="469"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/02/032825P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which they allege was to be taken for a private use. I. The property which is the subject of the condemnation proceeding is located at the intersection of Hampton and Chippewa Avenues in St. Is a resident of Florida and trustee of the Sylvia H. The trust is a tenant in common with ADTAR. Each owns an undivided fifty percent interest in both the building in which the Target store is located and the ground on which the building is situated. Hampton Village Associates is a New York limited liability company and the successor in interest to the Estate of Louis Feil. Their appeal was docketed as No. 03 2825. Target's appeal from the injunction was filed the same day and was docketed as No. 03 2827. We have jurisdiction over the appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). 2 2 1 Appellees own the building which houses a Target store and the property on which it and the adjoining parking lots are located. The lease covers a store building which was previously leased to Arlans Department Stores. In May 2002 appellees responded that they were not opposed to demolition of the existing store.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="469"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-5313a.html">SHERIDAN KLRMA HIST V. CHRISTOPHER WARREN<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="469"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/36F241E6EF9CAD5988257015004E3218/$file/0135028.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows. Is deleted. Judge Berzon's opinion dissenting in part is amended as follows. Footnote 1 of the dissenting opinion is revised to read as follows:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="469"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-5062.html">ERROL BROWN V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="469"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200506/03-1308a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Perry M. Hahn were on the brief for amicus curiae Airports Council International North America in support of petitioner. Richard Baron was on the brief for amicus curiae Quiet Technologies. Weigel were on the brief for amici curiae City of Naples and Collier County in support of petitioner. 2 John A. With him on the brief was Ellen J. Zimmerman were on the brief of amici curiae Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. Circuit Judge: This is a petition for judicial review of an order of the Associate Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration the FAA disqualifying the City of Naples Airport Authority from receiving grants under the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982. The City of Naples is a southern Florida community. The Naples airport is located within the city's boundaries. No tax or other fiscal revenues are earmarked for the airport. The city is responsible for zoning in the areas surrounding the airport within its municipal boundary. The county is responsible for zoning all other property immediately adjacent to the airport.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="469"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-4119.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Civil Liberties for Urban Believers (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-4124.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I Summit County's zoning scheme is administered by the Board of County Commissioners (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0212p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
To recover for damages he allegedly suffered when his property was contaminated by radioactive scrap metal that he purchased from the United States Air Force. The property is zoned for light industrial use. Nearby is a major electrical substation. Hogan's property is crossed at various points by high voltage power lines and towers. The majority of the land is quite rugged. A unique variant of sandstone is located on the rugged portion of the property. The tract was in fact used as a quarry nearly 100 years ago. One corner of the property is relatively flat. A recycler who had bought several automobiles from Hogan called to inform him that a routine test had revealed that the crushed vehicles purchased from Hogan's yard were emitting radiation. Thorium is a radioactive element that exists naturally in the environment. It is found in the soil and in a number of foods. It is used in many consumer goods. It is not an external radiation hazard. Was overseen by officials from both the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Ohio Department of Health (ODH).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="467"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-2061.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Tucker & Ciandella were on brief for appellant. Will and Devine. P.C. were on brief for appellee. This is an appeal by the Town of Amherst. The background events are generally undisputed. Omnipoint is a major provider of wireless telephone service to the public. The town meeting legislates for the town and the Selectmen are the principal executive body. Amherst is divided into 13 districts. Although those prohibitions may be overcome if a variance is obtained. Towers are allowed only through the grant of a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="464"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july96/94-9215.man_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="464"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0408p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiff Francine James is an individual member of the church and Euclid resident. Euclid is approximately twelve miles northeast of downtown Cleveland. At the time the U R 2 designation was created. All existing churches were zoned U R 2. No other property is so classified. Was zoned U7 Light Industrial Park District. The remainder of the church's property was zoned U4 Local Retail or Wholesale Store Districts. Referendum petitions were submitted to the city's finance director in order to place those ordinances on the ballot at the November 2. The Cuyahoga County Board of Elections was duly directed to submit the ordinances to the electors of the city at the November 2. The ordinances did not become effective and Providence was unable to use its property for the planned worship facility and single family development. Hillandale Committee was not incorporated until October 20. Which were submitted during the litigation before the district court by Hillandale Committee. Rebecca Conway (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="464"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july96/94-9215.man_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="464"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1BD6E45E04A4C20A88256F3B00686CD1/$file/0235668.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
See Portland City Code 29.20.010 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="462"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/05/96-1325.htm">96-1325 -- WILKINSON V. PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMM. -- 05/04/1998<BR></A><BR>
All of which were rejected. In federal district court seeking declarations that its property was a platted subdivision under mining law and. The plaintiff also sought a declaration that various zoning regulations and Pitkin County Land Use Code provisions were invalid because they violated due process and equal protection guarantees under the Colorado and United States Constitutions and exceeded defendants' police powers. <p> In the first state court action. That the individual mining claims owned by plaintiffs were a platted subdivision. The claims were raised under state and federal constitutions and statutes. <p> In three separate orders. As is relevant to the present action. The state district court dismissed the remaining regulatory takings claims as not ripe for determination and decided that each mining claim is not a separate lot or subdivided plat. The court concluded that the imposition of the Land Use Code regulations was a valid exercise of police power by the Board. The Colorado Court of Appeals concluded that plaintiffs' patented mining claims were not exempt from county subdivision regulations.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="462"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200304/01-5373a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="462"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/10/964202P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is a road paving contractor serving Rice County. Which is a question of state law. Is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="460"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug98/97-8207.man.html">GEORGIA MANUFACTURED HOUS. ASS'N, INC. V. SPALDING COUNTY (8/6/1998, NO. 97-8207)<BR></A><BR>
The dormant Commerce Clause and that the 4:12 requirement is preempted by federal law. Two of which are relevant here.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="460"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972667.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 333 36 (1943) (holding that when timely and adequate state court review is available. Under Supreme Court precedent the federal court was obligated to retain jurisdiction. That the Supreme Court has upheld dismissals on Burford abstention grounds when the relief sought was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="460"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/07/954070P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The The United States District Court dismissed the complaint. portion of its surrounding area that included the Goss property. annexed area was classified by default as an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="460"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug98/97-8207.man.html">GEORGIA MANUFACTURED HOUS. ASS'N, INC. V. SPALDING COUNTY (8/6/1998, NO. 97-8207)<BR></A><BR>
The dormant Commerce Clause and that the 4:12 requirement is preempted by federal law. Two of which are relevant here.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="460"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042255p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A house leased and used by CSG to provide caretaker services to three mentally retarded women residing there on the basis that the house was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200516065.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because the district court erred in concluding that prejudgment interest was not available as a matter of law. 000 acres were zoned for agricultural use. 000 of the acres it purchased were zoned for preservation. 000 acres were zoned agricultural. The jury was Although this case has a lengthy procedural history spanning nearly twenty years of litigation in federal court only a brief summary of the salient facts is necessary to dispose of the issue presented in this appeal. 2 1 instructed on damages as follows: Now you should consider the following elements of damages that you find proved by a preponderance of the evidence and no other. That is. Between what you find to have been the value of the subject real property as of the date of the transaction. Which was October 24. What you find to have been the value of the subject real property on the date of the transaction. Which was October 24. As it was in reality zoned under the Gilchrist County. Which was that approximately 6. 000 acres were zoned A 1.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2179.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981499.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. I. Lakewood is a Virginia general partnership. The property was zoned for agricultural use only. The referendum was held on March 7. Army Corps of Engineers (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-3473.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We agree the ordinance is facially content neutral. If the Board's reasonable reliance were not in dispute. It is located just off an exit ramp on I 70. The total population of the unincorporated portions of Dickinson County is small. The store's inventory is almost entirely adult oriented. The only calls for service attributable to The Lion's Den were in connection with demonstrators who gathered to protest the store's opening. <hr> In response. The evidence shows it is unlikely any of the commissioners had those documents at that time. <hr> On July 16. Multiple drafts were prepared and considered by the Board before it settled on a final text. Especially vocal in his support of restricting sexually oriented businesses was Philip Cosby. Was insufficient to force The Lion's Den to move from its current location. Which is approximately 1150 feet from the nearest residence. Relevant provisions of the Second Ordinance are as follows: (1) Owners of stores devoting more than 35 percent of the inventory or floor space to adult materials must obtain a license from the County.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0470p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Arguing that the district court erred in ruling that the plaintiffs were entitled to any costs or fees because they were not prevailing parties. Because the district court was within its discretion in finding that the plaintiffs were prevailing parties. I. BACKGROUND As this is the third time that these parties have come before our court. There is a long history behind this case. DiLaura sent a letter to the zoning official asking whether the plaintiffs' proposed property use under the donation was prohibited by the defendants' zoning ordinance. The zoning official responded that DiLaura was prohibited under the zoning laws from using the property in the way in which he proposed. The First Amended Complaint was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing and that the plaintiffs' claims were not ripe. We concluded that the plaintiffs did have standing and that their claims were ripe for review. We agreed that there was no First Amendment violation. We concluded that the plaintiffs' RFRA claim was still valid.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0445p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that the intrusions at issue are not Fourth Amendment searches. The area immediately surrounding the house was cleared. Which was not enclosed by a fence. Each of which is discussed below in more detail.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="448"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug95/94-4049.opa.html">RESTIGOUCHE, INC. V. TOWN OF JUPITER<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Restigouche. Maplewood was zoned to permit automobile sales by special exception. While approval was pending. Adopted a comprehensive plan for land use along the corridor (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="448"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1469.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On page 4. Bennazar & Colorado were on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellees. *Of the District of Massachusetts. Appellants are Nestor Col n Medina & Sucesores. Cerame Vivas is the president of the board of directors of Sucesores. He is allegedly an outspoken member of Puerto Rico's pro statehood New Progressive Party (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="448"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/12/98-3264.htm">98-3264 -- SOUTHWESTERN BELL WIRELESS INC. V. JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS -- 12/27/1999<BR></A><BR>
Also contends that the court's order is overbroad. We agree with the district court and hold that (1) the BOCC's RFI regulation is impliedly preempted by federal law. (3) the district court's order is not overbroad. Wireless communications are transmitted by radio at a frequency assigned by the FCC. SW Bell is obligated to provide wireless telecommunications services to its customers. <u>remedy the problem or show to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator</u> that the tower or other site equipment is not the cause of the interference or disruption. If the interference . . . causing the functional interruption is not remedied within the 24 hours. Set a hearing to show cause why the applicable Permit shall not be terminated and the site . . . shall not cease operation</u> until the problem is remedied. The BOCC was aware of FCC authority and regulations in the RFI area. SW Bell and other wireless communications providers participated in public hearings and provided written comments about the Interference Regulation and
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="448"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug95/94-4049.opa.html">RESTIGOUCHE, INC. V. TOWN OF JUPITER<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Restigouche. Maplewood was zoned to permit automobile sales by special exception. While approval was pending. Adopted a comprehensive plan for land use along the corridor (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="446"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Apr2002/002502.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. NPI is participating in the creation of a national wireless network to provide
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/964498.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 11
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="441"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct99/98-2651.man.html">MACUBA V. DEBOER (10/29/1999, NO. 98-2651)<BR></A><BR>
They contended that they were immune from suit under the doctrines of absolute and qualified immunity. We reverse.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> Joseph Macuba was. Part of his job was to investigate complaints against builders and the failure of his co workers to enforce county building codes. Questioned DeBoer about the situation.</P> <P> This was not the first time that an investigation conducted by Macuba resulted in inquiries from the media. He was elected in November. Matthew sent an anonymous letter criticizing Macuba to the Board of Commissioners.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="441"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct99/98-2651.man.html">MACUBA V. DEBOER (10/29/1999, NO. 98-2651)<BR></A><BR>
They contended that they were immune from suit under the doctrines of absolute and qualified immunity. We reverse.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> Joseph Macuba was. Part of his job was to investigate complaints against builders and the failure of his co workers to enforce county building codes. Questioned DeBoer about the situation.</P> <P> This was not the first time that an investigation conducted by Macuba resulted in inquiries from the media. He was elected in November. Matthew sent an anonymous letter criticizing Macuba to the Board of Commissioners.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="441"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19982651.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
They contended that they were immune from suit under the doctrines of absolute and qualified immunity. I. Joseph Macuba was. Part of his job was to investigate complaints against builders and the failure of his co workers * Honorable Myron H. This was not the first time that an investigation conducted by Macuba resulted in inquiries from the media. He was elected in November. Matthew sent an anonymous letter criticizing Macuba to the Board of Commissioners.1 Appellant Michael Youseff was elected to the Board of County Commissioners in November 1992. 2 Youseff asked Spatz where he was obtaining the information The letter is apparently not in the record. Neither the record nor the parties' briefs indicate the nature of the criticisms. 2 1 The record is unclear with respect to the date. 2 for his stories. Spatz revealed that Macuba was one of his principle sources. Youseff wrote the county attorney that Macuba was responsible for some of Spatz's criticism of the county government. All four were administered separately.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="441"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/07/99-9543.htm">99-9543 -- CUSTER COUNTY ACTION ASSOCIATION V. GARVEY -- 07/19/2001<BR></A><BR>
Petitioners further claim implementation of the Initiative will violate their property rights under the Third and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution. <p> We exercise jurisdiction over the FAA's final order pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="441"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19982651.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
They contended that they were immune from suit under the doctrines of absolute and qualified immunity. I. Joseph Macuba was. Part of his job was to investigate complaints against builders and the failure of his co workers to enforce county building codes. This was not the first time that an investigation conducted by Macuba resulted in inquiries from the media. He was elected in November. Matthew sent an anonymous letter criticizing Macuba to the Board of Commissioners.1 Appellant Michael Youseff was elected to the Board of County Commissioners in November 1992. 2 Youseff asked Spatz where he was obtaining the information for his stories. Spatz revealed that Macuba was one of his principle sources. Youseff wrote the county attorney that Macuba was responsible for some of Spatz's criticism of the county government. All four were administered separately. This would save resources and provide owners and contractors with
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="436"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2001/001075.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The basis for these claims was the defendants' alleged interference in the plaintiffs' land development plans. Sylvester Pany were owners of Eastgate Land & Development Corp. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1996/96a1353p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiff Richard Homar was suspended without pay from his position as a police officer at East Stroudsburg University after his arrest on drug related charges. The criminal charges against Homar were eventually dismissed. Homar was nonetheless subsequently demoted to the position of groundskeeper. An employee is entitled to a hearing before any further action is taken to demote. The employee is entitled to know the evidence against him and be afforded the opportunity for a meaningful response. We conclude that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether such a hearing was afforded here. I. Plaintiff Richard Homar was employed as a police officer at East Stroudsburg University (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-7178a.html">NOVECON LTD V. BULGARIAN-AMERICAN ENTERPRISE FUND<BR></A><BR>
McFadden argued the cause for appellants. </p> <p>With him on the briefs was John M. With him on the briefs was Gary H. ) are private firms engaged in developing busi </p> <p>ness projects in Bulgaria. Plaintiff Richard Rahn is president of both compa </p> <p>nies. Ronald Utt is their managing director. ) </p> <p>is a not for profit corporation established pursuant to the </p> <p>Support for East European Democracy Act. Defendant Frank </p> <p>Bauer is the Fund's president and defendant Nancy Schiller </p> <p>is the managing director of its Chicago office.</p> <p>A</p> <p>In 1991. The correspondence contemplated </p> <p>that the Batsov family would have a 26 percent stake in the </p> <p>building complex. Was written on May 20. It </p> <p>stated that the Fund was ". This list is not exhaustive </p> <p>[but] should provide an overview of the role that [Novecon] </p> <p>will have.". The Fund was willing to compen </p> <p>sate Novecon with the sum of $200. This document is fairly comprehensive. Undoubtedly </p> <p>there will be some need to clarify certain points now or as we </p> <p>proceed.".
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3735_022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Peters' property is a waterway that empties into a drainage ditch. The tile was parallel to and beneath the waterway. Was then connected to the Village's existing sewage tile
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1444.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for appellees.</P> <P> </P> <BR WP=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0132p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Cities argue that their ordinances are reasonable occupancy 1 Housing Advocates also named the City of Richmond Heights. Although I concur in the majority's ultimate judgment that the ordinances at issue here were reasonable. I. Housing Advocates is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0990n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court dismissed a Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200210216.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case is being decided by a quorum due to the death of Judge Nelson on 17 May 2003. I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY This is the third appeal in this litigation. We concluded the Adult Ordinance and the Alcohol Ordinance were content neutral and subject to the intermediate level of scrutiny established by United States v. We also concluded that the Adult Ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague. Additionally provides in pertinent part: If the City Council has not approved or disapproved an application for a license within forty five (45) days from the date such application was received by the City Clerk. Then on the expiration of the forty fifth (45th) day: (1) the application shall be approved and the City Clerk shall immediately issue the license for which application was made. (2) the applicant shall have the right to begin operating in the manner allowed by the license for which application was made. The district court found Artistic was not entitled to damages for the period during which the City required it to refrain from offering alcoholic beverages in conjunction with nude dancing.4 Agreeing with Artistic that the entire Adult Ordinance was unenforceable.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="429"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2003/024221u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an appeal by plaintiffs. The case has a long and tortuous procedural history with which the parties are intimately familiar and which need not be rescribed here. We think that he was correct in doing so. Ripeness in this context is governed by Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. A claim will not be ripe until the plaintiff has given the local municipality the opportunity to issue a final decision on the application of its zoning ordinance to the property in question. We have recognized that. The ability to render final zoning decisions is vested in the Zoning Hearing Board (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="427"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042975p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Pennsylvania are immune from suits brought against them in their individual capacities relating to their decision to deny an application for a permit for a conditional use. We conclude that they are entitled 2 to absolute quasi judicial immunity. We will reverse the decision of the District Court. Are Salem Township and the three members of its Board of Supervisors (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="427"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-5108.html">DOLORES WALCEK V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="425"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2001/005157.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="425"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2002/013301.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The primary issues presented in this appeal from the District Court's order denying preliminary injunctive relief are whether the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment allow the Borough of Tenafly. Because there is no evidence that the acts in question are expressive. Because the other requirements for injunctive relief are satisfied. In practice they have often done so. House number signs nailed to utility poles in plain view are 1. Our description of the facts is based on our independent review of the record because. Local churches are tacitly allowed to post permanent directional signs bearing crosses on municipal property. Orange ribbons were affixed to utility poles
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="422"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053490np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. We recite only those facts necessary to decide this appeal.1 Plaintiffs are the owners of owner occupied duplex properties2 located in the Borough. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="422"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTk0NTlfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-9459_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Ferrans have made a number of arguments. They have waived their §§ 1985. As they are not raised on appeal. None of the arguments before us have merit. Bearing in mind that we may affirm on any basis for which there is sufficient support in the record. Also named in the complaint were the County of Rensselaer (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="422"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/01/051664P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Koscielski's dealership was grandfathered as a nonconforming use and therefore was permitted to remain even though it was located near both a day care center and a church. Koscielski's lease was canceled as part of a larger private redevelopment project. Claims he was unable to do so. After Koscielski's lease was terminated. The City issued a cease and desist order because he located in a zone where firearms retailers were prohibited and did not obtain a variance or rezoning of the site. Summary judgment is proper when there is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="418"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C92C59E36EE139A088256D4F006E8175/$file/0157218.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Violated his right to equal protection guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment by imposing conditions on the use of his property that were not imposed on similarly situated property owners. Violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process by depriving him of the right to have land use determinations made by a fair and impartial decisionmaker.1 The district court dismissed all of Nesbitt's claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court determined that most of the events relied upon by Nesbitt to support his claims were time barred. As to those events that were not time barred. Which were not ripe for judicial review under Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. With regard to the events which are not time barred. We hold that the claims they allegedly support are not takings claims within the meaning Nesbitt raises only a procedural. Instead are independent § 1983 claims which are ripe for review under Harris v. The individual defendants have impeded his development of the property by engaging in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="418"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2000/993280.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This appeal is a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.S 1983 brought by plaintiff Woodwind Estates. The central issue on appeal is whether the District Court properly granted defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law on Woodwind's S 1983 substantive due process claim. We will reverse and remand for further proceedings. Woodwind is a Pennsylvania limited partnership which at all times relevant to this action sought to build a subdivision development on seventy five acres in Stroud Township. Woodwind was awarded approximately $1.1 million in federal low income housing tax credits by the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="418"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043653p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge This is an insurance coverage dispute arising out of a lightning strike and fire that damaged Keil Hall on the campus of Mercersburg Academy. Is a private secondary and college preparatory boarding school located in Mercersburg. Keil Hall is a building located on the Mercersburg campus that was constructed over a century ago. The fourth floor was designed and constructed for dormitory use as well. That floor was used as attic and storage space. Was cordoned off from students.1 The chimney of Keil Hall was struck by lightning on June 13. While the dormitory rooms on the fourth floor were unoccupied at the time of the fire due to declining enrollment. (2) additional costs to repair the building that were made necessary to bring the building in compliance with applicable laws and various building codes. ] . . . we will pay for loss to the undamaged portion of the building caused by enforcement of any ordinance or law that: (a) requires demolition of parts of the same property not damaged by a Covered Cause of Loss.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="418"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001500.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Manner of speech in a fashion that preserves ample alternative avenues for communication and is supported by the City's substantial aesthetic interests.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="415"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981059A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
CORRECTION MADE ON COVER SHEET *Judge Ervin heard oral argument in this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. Circuit Judge: Stretching in front of the Fairfax County Government Center Complex is a large grassy mall. Surrounding the mall is the street which leads to the Government Center Complex. The entire mall is outdoors. Fairfax County (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="415"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/04/00-1094.htm">00-1094 -- CRIDER V. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FO THE COUNTY OF BOULDER -- 04/18/2001<BR></A><BR>
Are the individual owners and occupants of six residential properties on Paradise Lane in unincorporated Boulder County. This lot is adjacent to and north of StorageTek's industrial campus. <p> In 1996. Paradise Lane Owners hoped to have their land annexed into Louisville so they could get a better price for land and move out. They contacted Louisville officials and indicated that they were interested in annexation. <p> Unbeknownst to Paradise Lane Owners. The City of Louisville was negotiating an intergovernmental agreement (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="415"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2001/99-14762.man.html">PROFILES, INC. V. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE (6/5/2001, NO. 99-14762)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="415"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2001/99-14762.man.html">PROFILES, INC. V. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE (6/5/2001, NO. 99-14762)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="413"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-5111.html">GREENBRIAR V. US<BR></A><BR>
On the brief was <U>R. With him on the brief was <U>David . Because the trial court correctly determined that the United States was not in privity of contract with the Owners and therefore could not be held liable for breach of such contracts. Correctly determined that the Owners takings claim is not ripe for review. The petition for class certification is moot.</P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="413"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-7129a.html">BURKA PAUL S. V. AETNA LIFE INS CO<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="408"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2004/032343np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At the time these cross motions were filed. It noted that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="406"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2647EB.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act provides\ the State with a limited role in determining whether land is taken\ into trust for gaming purposes. </span><span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2708.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The City had informed both HUD and Shaikh that it was considering condemning the property. Or citizenship) more favorably than he was treated nor that the City's stated reason for persuading Shaikh to cancel his contract (the Kennedy King college expansion) was either illegitimate or pretextual. The possibility that the City would seek to take the Lowe apartments by eminent domain is a risk every private property owner bears. It is a risk balanced by 1 Shaikh's original complaint advanced four additional counts under the Fair Housing Act. 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq. (2003). Those claims were previously dismissed by the district court in a ruling that is not challenged here. 4 No. 02 2708 constitutional requirements to take the property only for the public use and then to compensate the owner for the property's fair market value. It was too late: HUD had decided to proceed to auction. The City was powerless to stop the auction sale. Was unconstitutional and unlawful conduct if motivated by discriminatory animus.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQyNjAtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-4260-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We agree with the district court that subject matter jurisdiction over this action is conferred by the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQyNjAtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-4260-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We agree with the district court that subject matter jurisdiction over this action is conferred by the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="401"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/04/973500P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The City intended
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="401"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4E4AC35D7D39C98288256B83001A860D/$file/0055709.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It refused to award nominal damages for Schneider's due process claim. 4616 We must decide whether Schneider is entitled to prejudgment interest as part of the constitutionally required
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/042707P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The deadline for motions to amend the complaint was December 1. For nondispositive motions was January 6. Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Barstads assert that they were denied equal protection of the law because Onken and the County denied them some Planned Unit Development (PUD) approvals and Conditional Use Permits (CUPs). The purpose of a class of one claim is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200113606enb.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity for these particular functions. Defendant Sheriff Peterson is responsible for the operation of the jail in Clinch County. Sheriff Peterson's deputy and chief jailer is Alan Brown. As Manders was escorted into the jail's holding cell. Manders was released from jail. The Manual also details when deadly force is justified. Are responsible for use of force policy at the jail. For ensuring that the policy is followed.3 According to Manders. Manders sought damages against Clinch County and Sheriff Peterson in his official capacity.4 The district court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on Manders's § 1983 damage claims against Clinch County and Sheriff Peterson in his official capacity for the use of force policy at the jail and the training and The parties and the district court litigated this lawsuit against Sheriff Peterson as if all of Manders's § 1983 claims against Clinch County also were made against Sheriff Peterson in his official capacity. Claiming that he is a state actor and that the district court erred in denying him Eleventh Amendment immunity.6 This appeal does not address the individual liability of Sheriff Peterson or his deputies for using excessive force.7 Instead.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Mar2002/012030.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which is located southeast of Pittsburgh. The District Court held that the case was mooted by an amendment of the original zoning ordinance and therefore granted the Township's motion for summary judgement on all claims. Because we hold that this case is not moot. An antenna is located in the approximate center of a cell and the antenna transmits wireless signals to and from cell phone users in that cell. It is typically mounted on a tower or other tall structure. The perimeter of each cell is shaped by the topography surrounding the antenna. Where the terrain is flat. A cell is circular and several miles in diameter. Because each wireless company is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="394"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982123.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The county contends that the moratorium was valid. Was reasonably necessary to permit it to study the effect of erecting the towers on the safety of county residents and the aesthetic aspects of county land. Finding that BAM's claims against the moratorium are moot and its claims against the ordinance are not ripe. Is known for its beautiful natural landscape.1 Currently. It is home to three wireless towers like those at issue here. The moratorium was effective for the shorter of a one year period or the time it took to enact a zoning plan. BAM not only was allowed to participate in those meetings. Also was asked to provide technical assistance to county leaders throughout the summer so that the county might better understand the issues involved. Because the moratorium was still in effect. The ordinance is a comprehensive zoning plan designed to regulate the location and structure of wireless telecommunications towers. The ordinance is designed not only to reflect the safety concerns of county officials.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="392"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D3820D3383720EBA88256E68007C74B5/$file/0215867.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331. Chevron is one of two gasoline refiners and one of six wholesalers in Hawaii. Which are leased to independent dealers. LINGLE amount of gross rent receipts was not satisfactory. The price is unilaterally set by Chevron. These cases teach that application of the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="392"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/44B126EF588A40E188256E76007A294F/$file/0215867.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bronster is hereby deleted as a Defendant in this case as she is no longer the Attorney General of the State of Hawaii. It is ORDERED that the caption in this case is hereby amended to remove Margery S. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331. Chevron is one of two gasoline refiners and one of six wholesalers in Hawaii. Which are leased to independent dealers. After determining that the amount of gross rent receipts was not satisfactory. The price is unilaterally set by Chevron. These cases teach that application of the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/01/01-4134.htm">01-4134 -- TOOL BOX V. OGDEN CITY CORP. -- 01/21/2004<BR></A><BR>
Because the Industrial Park is zoned M 2. The location of the establishment would not violate the requirements of the City's ordinance regulating businesses that are sexually oriented (the BSO Ordinance). The Industrial Park is also subject. Which were adopted by the City as owner of the land within the Industrial Park. The Protective Covenants were adopted in 1995 in anticipation of the sale. The record on appeal does not indicate how the covenants were authorized. The parties have treated them as the equivalent of a municipal ordinance. Which we will do as well. <p> The Protective Covenants recite both permitted and prohibited uses.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="390"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0280p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Although both of these grounds were inapposite. The district court's dismissal is therefore AFFIRMED. Is a tract of land owned by the state and maintained by Eastern Kentucky University as a wildlife refuge and research facility. The Woods are designated a National Natural Landmark as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="387"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19942825.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: The dispute in this case is not grist for the mill of a United States district court. The warring parties are the Town of Oakland. Which is located on the shore of Lake Apopka. Is 255 acres in size. Because the plaintiffs and the defendant were citizens of the same state. A 100 year old house and some out buildings occupied by the Boatmans were on lots 7 through 9. Lot 10 was used for the manufactured home. Or other proper proceeding for redress.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="387"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1538.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C.</U> were on brief for Appellants.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2001/005251.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an extremely complicated motor vehicle dealer franchise termination case marked by disputes over what is known in the industry as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="385"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3750.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The business is licensed only in Mr. Is a municipal corporation with a Board of Trustees. The Village President is Paul Lohmann. Rasche was a principal organizer of a petition drive to require a referendum concerning the purchase of the course. Rasche's interest in this litigation is sufficient to give her standing to appear as a litigant in this action. Rasche was the leader and initiator of the petition drive to obtain a referendum on that proposal. The waterworks bond ordinance was defeated by the Village of Beecher voters in an election held on March 21. The Village Board of Trustees was concerned about the appearance of Route 1. It defines a sign as one that is affixed on land or a structure thus arguably excluding. The signs of the Rasches and seven other businesses were discussed. At the time it was purchased in 1978. The Rasches' sign was portable. A sign is defined as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/09/99-2079.htm">99-2079 -- HYDE PARK CO. V. SANTA FE CITY COUNCIL -- 09/29/2000<BR></A><BR>
Decide in this case is whether Plaintiff Hyde Park Company was entitled as a matter of federal constitutional law . State will not deprive a party of property without engaging fair procedures to reach a . While substantive due process ensures the state will not deprive a party of . J.) (absence of a property interest was . A benefit does not constitute
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="378"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200315593.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We decide whether a billboard company's challenge to a City's zoning ordinance is rendered moot by the subsequent amendment of the ordinance. We are convinced that amendments to the City's zoning code rendered this case moot and we therefore reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. The City of Miami adopted a comprehensive Zoning Ordinance that is the subject matter of this suit. The ordinance was enacted with. National is a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Viacom Outdoor Inc. National is a leader in the outdoor advertising industry. The notices advised the property owners that they were in violation of the City's zoning code and told the owners to correct the violations by May 2001. Was filed on February 21. National I and National II were consolidated in the district court below. The parties were asked to discuss the issues related to the permitting process in its entirety. 4 1 appealed. 2002 the City published notice of its intent to amend the Zoning ordinance and those amendments were adopted on April 11.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="378"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2126.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 and reverse and remand for further proceedings. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. As was necessary to obtain a building permit. The site was allegedly zoned for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="378"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA2LTAzMzUtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/06-0335-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(iii) the law was not an improper or abusive exercise of town's police power. Is unconstitutional. Contending that it was based on inadmissible evidence. We affirm the judgment in all other respects. 3 BACKGROUND Cross Sound is a Connecticut based corporation that provides interstate ferry service transporting passengers. As well as one high speed ferry that carries only passengers and is capable of traveling at greater speeds than vehicular ferries. Cross Sound's challenge to the law is before us in this appeal. I. Geographical Backdrop Long Island is an island in the Atlantic Ocean that comprises the southeasternmost part of New York State. From which it is separated to the north by Long Island Sound. Suffolk County occupies the easternmost portion of Long Island and is bordered to the west by Nassau County. Which are separated by Shelter Island Sound. The Town of Shelter Island is an island located in between 4 the forks. Traffic volumes on the highway during summers are currently at or near capacity. Traffic on other Town roads during the summer months is rising rapidly at an average rate of 8% per year.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="378"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-1169b.html">ALLI COMMTY MEDIA V. FCC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="378"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5103.html">ROSE ACRE FARMS, INC. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel were <u>Thomas A. Argued for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>Peter D. Attorney.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Margaret Breinholt</u>. Et al.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Jason C. Claiming that United States Department of Agriculture ( USDA ) regulations that restricted egg sales from and imposed other requirements on farms that tested positive for the presence of <span style='mso bidi font style:italic'>salmonella</span> bacteria effected a taking requiring compensation under the Fifth Amendment.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The trial court held that Rose Acre was entitled to compensation for a taking of the eggs affected by the regulations. Line height:200%'><span style='mso bidi font family:Arial'>BACKGROUND<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line height:200%'><span style='mso bidi font family: Arial'>I.<span style='mso tab coun
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="376"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2047.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
AS HE IS TRUSTEE OF COLONIAL DRIVE REALTY TRUST. Rossman & Eschelbacher were on brief for appellant. Mahoney & Miller were on brief for appellees Patrick J. Louison and Merrick & Louison were on brief for appellee Joseph Ferruzzi. Vacate the judgment on the pendent state claims and remand so that those claims will be adjudicated. A special permit is analogous to a variance. The town planner wrote to Colonial that Building 3 was seven feet closer to the road than the special permit allowed. Building 3's proximity to the road was discussed in planning board meetings over the following months. Colonial once again argued to the board that there were no discrepancies between the special permit and the project as built. The reasons for the revocation were that the buildings did not conform with the special permit. That Colonial had represented in applying for building permits that the project was in compliance with
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="376"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ED4EEB8B572112F288256ED100749A46/$file/0315066.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Proposed increases exceeding this amount are subject to administrative review. The City was required to place the question of repealing the 1979 Ordinance on the ballot for November 1998. A lawful space vacancy is defined as follows: A vacancy of the mobilehome space occurring because of the termination of the tenancy of the affected mobilehome (1) CASHMAN v. CITY OF COTATI 9343 Vacancy control prevents mobilehome park owners from charging a new base rent or increasing the existing rent for a mobilehome space when ownership of a mobilehome coach is transferred and the coach remains in place. The stated purpose of Ordinance No. 680 is to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="373"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/10/98-2211.htm">98-2211 -- FEDERAL LANDS LEGAL CONSORTIUM V. U.S. -- 10/28/1999<BR></A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="373"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/02/00-1423.htm">00-1423 -- SAVE PALISADE FRUITLANDS V. TODD -- 02/07/2002<BR></A><BR>
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado concluded that there was no denial of equal protection. Subsection 1(2) of the Colorado Constitution provides in part that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="371"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EF998042C56F943C88256ED7004B8690/$file/0217346.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
On the ground that they are entitled to qualified immunity because there is no triable issue of material fact that a constitutional violation had been committed. Because Squaw Valley presented evidence that Singer may have been motivated by personal animus. The resort is naturally traversed by the South Fork of Squaw Creek (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="371"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/058EC3532F25D02588256F1C0052B980/$file/0016531.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Weston was on the briefs. 13936 DREAM PALACE v. Was on the briefs. COUNTY OF MARICOPA 13937 adult oriented businesses were associated with
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july95/94-2577.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/September2004/032707p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will reverse as to the First Amendment retaliation. Have been embroiled in a contentious zoning d ispute with Appellees. That officials are also liable under Pennsylvania state law for damages. 2 David. Which was part of a twenty seven lot subdivision of single family residences approved by the Allegheny County Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors of the Township in 1940 (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032707p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will reverse as to the First Amendment retaliation. Have been embroiled in a contentious zoning d ispute with Appellees. That officials are also liable under Pennsylvania state law for damages. 2 David. Which was part of a twenty seven lot subdivision of single family residences approved by the Allegheny County Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors of the Township in 1940 (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july95/94-2577.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="369"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1780.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Associates</SPAN> were on brief for appellant.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="366"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb96/94-2825.opa.html">BOATMAN V. TOWN OF OAKLAND<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Boatman v. Chief Judge:<p> <p> The dispute in this case is not grist for the mill of a United States district court. We therefore vacate the district court's judgment and direct the court to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.<p> I.<p> <p> A.<p> <p> The warring parties are the Town of Oakland. Because the plaintiffs and the defendant were citizens of the same state. Bringing a claim under 42 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="366"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb96/94-2825.opa.html">BOATMAN V. TOWN OF OAKLAND<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Boatman v. Chief Judge:<p> <p> The dispute in this case is not grist for the mill of a United States district court. We therefore vacate the district court's judgment and direct the court to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.<p> I.<p> <p> A.<p> <p> The warring parties are the Town of Oakland. Because the plaintiffs and the defendant were citizens of the same state. Bringing a claim under 42 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="364"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199909/97-7178a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was John M. With him on the briefs was Gary H. Ltd. and Novecon Management Compa ny (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="364"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D415F1D6386BB99B88256D8F0073C5C5/$file/0216009.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court held it did not have jurisdiction over this action because (i) Citizens failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the Rule threatened their concrete interests as their complaint was directed to neither a site specific project nor a particular forest plan. (ii) Citizens failed to show any imminent injury and thus their claims are not ripe. Reverse and remand to the district court to determine whether injunctive relief is appropriate. Historical Overview Background National forests and grasslands are managed by the United States Forest Service. An agency within the United States Appellants are Citizens for Better Forestry. It is this highest tier type of regulation (hereinafter referred to as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="364"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/51C1FAB499A3657288256E5A00707B0E/$file/0016123.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The prior history of this case is set out in our two earlier decisions. In Baby Tam II we held that the City's licensing scheme was still on its face defective because it set no time limit within which the Director of the Department of Finance and Business Services must act upon application for a license. (C) If the application is denied. (D) In the event that an application is denied. If the district court has not decided the validity of the denial within thirty days after the petition is filed. Whenever a person submits to the City an application of any kind that is necessary in order to operate an adult bookstore. The City shall approve or deny the application within thirty days after it has been filed and the applicable fees have been paid. In conflict herewith are hereby repealed. The district court issued an injunction in compliance with our mandate in Baby Tam II prohibiting the City from denying a business and zoning license to Baby Tam
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="364"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/458CAF76C58F432788256A3A005B2563/$file/0016123.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The prior history of this case is set out in our two earlier decisions. In Baby Tam II we held that the City's licensing scheme was still on its face defective because it set no time limit within which the Director of the Department of Finance and Business Services must act upon application for a license. (C) If the application is denied. (D) In the event that an application is denied. If the district court has not decided the validity of the denial within thirty days after the petition is filed. Whenever a person submits to the City an application of any kind that is necessary in order to operate an adult bookstore. The City shall approve or deny the application within thirty days after it has been filed and the applicable fees have been paid. In conflict herewith are hereby repealed. The district court issued an injunction in compliance with our mandate in Baby Tam II prohibiting the City from denying a business and zoning license to Baby Tam
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="362"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2327.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for appellees Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the United States. Alleging that the City was in violation of the Clean Water Act. The Commonwealth intervened as a party plaintiff and alleged that the City was violating both the state and federal clean water acts. That the City was discharging pollutants into the waters of the United States and the Commonwealth. The decree was amended several times thereafter. It was amended to give the City discretion to use Septic Tank Effluent Pump (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="362"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041934np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
All of their applications were denied. Any decision appealed to the County Zoning Hearing Judge Chertoff resigned after this case was submitted to the panel but before this opinion was filed. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel. Sitting by designation. 2 ** * Board was affirmed. The Frompoviczes and the City of Philadelphia appeal from the District Court's order.1 We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The standard of review of the dismissals pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) is plenary. The dismissal of the state law claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Rooker Feldman does not prevent a district court from hearing a suit in which a party is attempting to litigate in federal court claims previously brought in state court. These claims are waived. Albeit one that denies a legal conclusion that a state court reached in a case to which he was a party ... Then there is jurisdiction and state law determines whether the defendant prevails under principles of preclusion.'
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="362"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051560p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Requires us to decide whether its policy covers claims incurred when a second story exterior wooden deck attached to one of the association's units collapsed and caused injuries to a number of people who were on the deck. The unit was owned by Jeffrey and Gail Alexander. The District Court determined that the Alexanders' loss was indeed covered by the National Fire policy. The District Court held that the coverage provided by National Fire for this loss was primary. That the two policies issued separately to the Alexanders by third party defendants Shelby Insurance Co. and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="355"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2003/014403p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are challenging Municipal Zoning Ordinance 2000 11 (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="355"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2003/023608up.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Although there are several reasons for affirming. We conclude that it was not error to deny the application to intervene because it was not timely. The case was over. The action was settled and the case was marked closed before Appellant filed a petition to intervene. Because we write only for the parties who are familiar with the facts and the proceedings at the trial court level. We will limit our discussion to the controlling legal precept. A person is entitled to intervene if (1) the application for intervention is timely. (4) the interest is not adequately represented by an existing party in the litigation. Although these requirements are 2 intertwined. We superimpose the long standing and well publicized nature of the parties dispute which is summarized in the following section. We are persuaded that Appellant was on notice of the ongoing dispute and failed to file a timely application for intervention. Appellant is extremely interested in issues that are presented to the Board of Supervisors of Summit Township.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/873DECC7DDD1B89088256DFF00005E5E/$file/0215986.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Ordinance prevents mobile home parks from raising the rent on a mobile home
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept96/94-3521.opa.html">GILCHRIST TIMBER CO. V. ITT RAYONIER, INC.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gilchrist Timber Co. v. THE HONORABLE JUSTICES THEREOF:<p> <p> It appears to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit that the above styled case involves a question of state law that is determinative of the cause. Based on the facts recited herein:<p> Whether a party to a transaction who transmits false information which that party did not know was false. Despite the fact that an investigation by the recipient would have revealed the falsity of the information.<p> <p> I. STYLE OF THE CASE<p> <p> The style of the case in which this certification is made is as follows: Gilchrist Timber Co. Who was involved in timber. The appraisal stated that the timberland was zoned for agriculture. Was discussed at length.<p> Immediately after the closing. Plaintiffs learned that the vast majority of the timberland was actually zoned
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2002/014120u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The District Court determined that the claims were not ripe. For the reasons set forth below we will affirm the District Court's dismissal. The school was located in a R 1 residential zone and the proposed senior citizen home would require a variance or rezoning of the area to a R 4 zone. Woodlawn's claims are based on alleged prejudice of the zoning board in denying the rezoning request. While the District Court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over this matter. We have jurisdiction to review the District Court's dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291. There must be a true and ripe case or controversy for a federal court to have jurisdiction over an action. There must be a final judgment on the nature and extent of the zoning ordinance's impact on the land before constitutional claims arising out of land use decisions are ripe. The fact that Woodlawn was denied a rezoning request is not a final decision regarding their use of the land because the unpursued option of seeking a variance remains. Because Woodlawn is still free to formally pursue a variance.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-30486.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The basis of this suit is Pecan Acres's attempts to build low income housing on parcel of land that is partially in the City of Lake Charles and partially in the neighboring Calcasieu Parish. (2) it held there was no violation of Pecan Acres's due process rights when Pecan Acres was denied a hearing before one of its minor conditional use permits (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053927np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The government appeals the District Court's dismissal of counts of an indictment that was returned against Thomas P. Freebery charging them with honest services fraud.1 Gordon is the County Executive for New Castle County. Freebery is that county's County Chief Administrative Officer (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept96/94-3521.opa.html">GILCHRIST TIMBER CO. V. ITT RAYONIER, INC.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gilchrist Timber Co. v. THE HONORABLE JUSTICES THEREOF:<p> <p> It appears to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit that the above styled case involves a question of state law that is determinative of the cause. Based on the facts recited herein:<p> Whether a party to a transaction who transmits false information which that party did not know was false. Despite the fact that an investigation by the recipient would have revealed the falsity of the information.<p> <p> I. STYLE OF THE CASE<p> <p> The style of the case in which this certification is made is as follows: Gilchrist Timber Co. Who was involved in timber. The appraisal stated that the timberland was zoned for agriculture. Was discussed at length.<p> Immediately after the closing. Plaintiffs learned that the vast majority of the timberland was actually zoned
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="352"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2003/022096u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Zoning Board's decision was affirmed by the Court of Common Pleas on December 1. Is the appointed receiver for the Hankin Family Partnership. 1 Hankin then petitioned for the appointment of a Board of View with the Court of Common Pleas. While these state actions were pending. Appellants allege that the District Court erred in determining that the federal and state court actions are parallel proceedings warranting abstention and that the court abused its discretion in abstaining from judicial On June 4. We have jurisdiction to review the District Court's March 22. As the order is final and appealable. Abstention based stay orders of this [Colorado River] ilk are `conclusive' because they are the practical equivalent of an order dismissing the case.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="348"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2001/00-11152.man.html">FLANIGAN'S ENTERPRISES, INC. OF GEORGIA V. FULTON COUNTY (2/20/2001, NO. 00-11152)<BR></A><BR>
The district court held that a 1997 amendment to Section 18 76 of the Fulton County Code (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="348"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034476np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appellant Thornbury Noble (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="348"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2001/00-11152.man.html">FLANIGAN'S ENTERPRISES, INC. OF GEORGIA V. FULTON COUNTY (2/20/2001, NO. 00-11152)<BR></A><BR>
The district court held that a 1997 amendment to Section 18 76 of the Fulton County Code (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="348"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/03/976066P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND The Hatchers are Iowa farmers. They owned farmland which was partly encumbered by a mortgage on which they fell delinquent. A sheriff's sale was set for January 6. Which consisted of 46 acres of land on which their residence and another building were situated. The Hatchers were able to locate yet another buyer.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="348"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8D9B522DE32A804C88256B3B0000C4AB/$file/9915614.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2001 is amended as follows: 1) The opinion's list of counsel for the defendantsappellees. The first three sentences of the first full paragraph should be replaced by the following: 235
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="345"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1588.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sometime after 1962 lighting was added. For consistent usage we refer to the lessee as Whiteco even though the current lessee 2 No. 02 1588 is Lamar Advertising Company.). Whiteco's sign is 1. The building is about 200 feet from the nearest residence. Chicago Municipal Code §17 6.7 1(a) is a grandfather clause deeming any sign
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="343"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1400.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="343"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2003/013644.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: At issue in this case is whether it was reasonable for the National Labor Relations Board (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="341"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-3662.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are not in dispute. The contract was made conditional on the plaintiff's obtaining these legal changes from the City. The authority of the City Council of Greenwood to make such changes is not contested. The vote was 3 3. One was absent. Since there was a tie.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="338"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972118.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Although the case was brought mainly under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The City was required to reimburse Pulaski for certain expenses in operating the incinerator. The WDSA's original term was fifteen years. For the first eleven years the WDSA was in effect. Community opposition was mounting against the operation of any incinerator whether retrofitted or new at the 3 Pulaski site. If it was certified by the Director of Public Works. Replacement or expansion is necessary to serve the public interest in the efficient. Seeking (1) a declaratory judgment that the Moratorium was preempted by state law and (2) damages for the City's alleged breach of the WDSA. The Director certified to the City Council that a replacement incinerator at the Pulaski site was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="338"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DAED665F64D0731A88257101007B887C/$file/0435416.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs appellants (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="338"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTMyODYtY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/04-3286-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled on a motion for summary judgment that the Board's decision was unsupported by substantial evidence (as required by the TCA). Is suing the City of White Plains (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="338"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTMyODYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3286-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled on a motion for summary judgment that the Board's decision was unsupported by substantial evidence (as required by the TCA). Is suing the City of White Plains (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="336"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/06/001869P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We assume that all facts alleged in the complaint are true. Will affirm the dismissal only if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts which would entitle the plaintiff to relief. The Missouri statutory scheme regarding billboards provided that a state commission was responsible for. This statutory scheme left some room for local regulation of the same area when it was zoned for industrial or commercial use and met other requirements of the statute. It was not until July 30 that the board held a special emergency meeting to take up the issue of off premises outdoor advertising and its zoning code. Contending that Fenton's zoning code was invalid and that the city thus was required to issue the permit. Contending instead that this new zoning ordinance is also invalid under state law. The city has stated that it will not act on the permit applications until they comply with the ordinance. Carpenter's primary argument is that because both the moratorium and the original version of the ordinance violated state law.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="331"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/01/061118P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court denied Minnesota Towers summary judgment on its federal claims but granted summary judgment on the ground that the City's denial was untimely and therefore the application must be deemed approved as a matter of state law. The Minnesota Legislature passed a statute providing that a city must approve or deny a request for a zoning permit within sixty days unless the applicant is given written notice that the period has been extended an additional sixty days. 1995 Minn. Subdivision 2 further provided that failure to deny a request within sixty days
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="331"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200412758.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sitting by designation. * At issue in this case is the constitutionality of the City of Neptune Beach's sign code. I. Solantic is a business operating emergency medical care facilities in various locations. A videotape showing the sign was viewed by the district court and is part of the record. Solantic states that the EVMC sign
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="331"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept2000/987611.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was fired from his tenured professorship at Pennsylvania State University following a series of run ins with his new supervisor. He claims that his tenured professorship was a property interest entitled to protection under the substantive component of the Due Process Clause. Because we find that this argument like Nicholas's other grounds for appeal is without merit. We will affirm. Nicholas was named Associate Professor of Physiology at Pennsylvania State University's Noll Human Performance Laboratory. The University claims that Nicholas worked full time in the emergency room and consequently was unable to work regular hours 2 at Noll Lab. Claiming that his emergency room work was only part time. Evans who was now Nicholas's supervisor requested that Nicholas provide him with information about his curriculum vitae and research plans. Evans requested an assurance that Nicholas would maintain a full time presence with regular hours at the Lab a concern he claims was raised by Nicholas's outside work. Nicholas was not forthcoming with this information.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug98/97-2664.man.html">ROBERTS & SCHAEFER CO. V. HARDAWAY CO. (8/31/1998, NO. 97-2664)<BR></A><BR>
We also conclude that the damages award to Hardaway is not in error. We affirm the judgment.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P><CENTER>A.</CENTER> </P> <P> A detailed review of the facts is necessary to understand our holding. Construction was to proceed on a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D0166213044EFCAC882570F9005E377F/$file/0555014.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Shonafelt were on the briefs. 736 SPRINT PCS v. Angelica Arias were on the brief. I Sprint PCS is a wireless telecommunications company seeking to install two wireless telecommunications facilities in the city of La Cañada Flintridge (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B09FA7717F18D78588256AF50001E5AF/$file/9915614.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Insurers allege that MERLO is preempted by the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response. Health & Safety (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug98/97-2664.man.html">ROBERTS & SCHAEFER CO. V. HARDAWAY CO. (8/31/1998, NO. 97-2664)<BR></A><BR>
We also conclude that the damages award to Hardaway is not in error. We affirm the judgment.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P><CENTER>A.</CENTER> </P> <P> A detailed review of the facts is necessary to understand our holding. Construction was to proceed on a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/89905E37452D8DDD88256E5A00707D2E/$file/9915614.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Insurers allege that MERLO is preempted by the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response. Health & Safety (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200612370.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who are state environmental regulators and local political actors. Brought a section 1983 suit against various state and local defendants on the theory that the defendants violated its constitutional right to equal protection by
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="329"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19972664.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We also conclude that the damages award to Hardaway is not in error. A detailed review of the facts is necessary to understand our holding. Construction was to proceed on a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="327"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4270.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
One of the issues before the district court was whether the ordinance was properly supported as targeting the untoward
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="322"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0164a-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
After the moratorium was lifted. (2) the district court erred when it held that the City was not required to apply the zoning ordinances in effect at the time Wireless filed its applications for building permits. At the time each application was filed. 2002.2 The purpose of the moratorium was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="322"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992256.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 333 36 (1943) (holding that when timely and adequate state court review is available. Johnson's claims that sounded in equity was proper.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="322"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0091p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
After the moratorium was lifted. (2) the district court erred when it held that the City was not required to apply the zoning ordinances in effect at the time Wireless filed its applications for building permits. Because we conclude that a § 1983 remedy is available for violations of the TCA. At the time each application was filed. 2002.2 The purpose of the moratorium was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="322"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2647RHR.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sitting by designation.</p>\ </span>' var WPFootnote2 = '<span class=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/994021P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case is before us en banc upon remand from the United States Supreme Court. Believing that it will be helpful in analyzing the issues presented. At issue were the so called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sep1999/971944.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Seitz was a member of the original panel but died before the matter was decided. Asserts that its First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by a township's refusal to allow videotaping of a meeting of the Township Planning Commission. We will affirm. The application was placed on the agenda for the September 25. Said he wanted a video record of all proceedings and Riley informed the Commission that he believed allowing videotaping was required by Pennsylvania's Sunshine Act. The court held the ban was not a violation of the First Amendment because it was a reasonable time. The court also determined that plaintiff 's request for injunctive relief was moot. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. III A The primary issue on appeal is whether there is a federal constitutional right to videotape public meetings of a township planning commission when other effective means of recording the proceedings are available.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1004.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for City of Waltham. Weil and Palmer & Dodge were on brief for Town of Lexington. Was on brief for United States Postal Service. The towns pointed out that the Service must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept96/95-4142.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051055np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
As its appeal was pending in the Pennsylvania courts. We agree and will affirm. We have little difficulty upholding the District Court's determination that none of the facts advanced by Development Group in this case rises to the level of conscience shocking behavior. Development Group's claim is based on three purported examples of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept96/95-4142.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="315"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0008n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Although the plaintiffs' initial attempts to secure a zoning variance were rebuffed by the defendant The Hon. Arguing alternatively that this matter is moot or. That the RLUIPA is inapplicable to this situation or. That the plaintiffs have failed to establish a substantial burden on the exercise of their religion. The defendants' brief also contains an allegation that the Act is unconstitutional. Pointed out at oral argument that the constitutional issue was not raised in the district court and should be considered waived. Counsel for the defendants postulated only that it was unnecessary to reach the constitutional question posed in the brief on appeal. We also agree with the district judge's determination that the plaintiffs were entitled to relief in this case. That the bed andbreakfast regulations require payment by the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="310"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19975091.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court also erred in holding that the remedies they sought including the unusual remedy of ordering a city to annex property into its municipal boundaries were neither available under the Voting Rights Act nor permissible under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I. The historical facts and the procedural history necessary to understand this lawsuit are complex and extensive. The City of Belle Glade is an incorporated municipality located on the western side of Palm Beach County. Was populated by whites and stood at the City's northwest corner. Was populated by blacks and was located to the southwest of the City. These ordinances were repealed. The total population of the City of Belle Glade was 11. 393 (65.6%) were non whites and 3. 880 (34.4%) were whites.2 The following year. The population of the Osceola Center was 46% black. Whereas the population of the Okeechobee Center was 92% black and 8% Hispanic. 4 2 1 BGHA. The City Commission's minutes simply reflect that a meeting was to be arranged between the City Commission and the BGHA to discuss the possibility of annexing the Okeechobee Center.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="310"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6A1B530D534423F488256FE7005C1750/$file/0330010.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The jury also rendered a special verdict that several properties were used to facilitate his crimes or were proceeds of them and should be forfeited to the government pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853. We must decide whether forfeiture was proper where Victor has never held title to the two forfeited properties. Operates in rem against the property itself on the theory that the property itself is guilty of wrongdoing. 1414 n.8 (9th Cir. 1996) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="310"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june99/97-5091.opn.html">BURTON V. CITY OF BELLE GLADE (6/25/1999, NO. 97-5091)<BR></A><BR>
The district court also erred in holding that the remedies they sought including the unusual remedy of ordering a city to annex property into its municipal boundaries were neither available under the Voting Rights Act nor permissible under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Reverse and remand Appellants' cause of action to enforce Title VI's disparate impact regulations for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.</P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="310"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/02-2258.htm">02-2258 -- QWEST CORP. V. CITY OF SANTA FE -- 08/24/2004<BR></A><BR>
Qwest brought suit in federal district court seeking a declaration that the Ordinance is preempted by state and federal law. Qwest argued that it was entitled to attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="310"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june99/97-5091.opn.html">BURTON V. CITY OF BELLE GLADE (6/25/1999, NO. 97-5091)<BR></A><BR>
The district court also erred in holding that the remedies they sought including the unusual remedy of ordering a city to annex property into its municipal boundaries were neither available under the Voting Rights Act nor permissible under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Reverse and remand Appellants' cause of action to enforce Title VI's disparate impact regulations for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.</P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="310"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2003/022977p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jesus is Alive.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="310"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19975091.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court also erred in holding that the remedies they sought including the unusual remedy of ordering a city to annex property into its municipal boundaries were neither available under the Voting Rights Act nor permissible under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I. The historical facts and the procedural history necessary to understand this lawsuit are complex and extensive. The City of Belle Glade is an incorporated municipality located on the western side of Palm Beach County. Was populated by whites and stood at the City's northwest corner. Was populated by blacks and was located to the southwest of the City. These ordinances were repealed. The total population of the City of Belle Glade was 11. 393 (65.6%) were non whites and 3. 880 (34.4%) were whites.2 The following year. The City Commission's minutes simply reflect that a meeting was to be arranged between the City Commission and the BGHA to discuss the possibility of annexing the Okeechobee Center. Of who made the annexation request or whether any meeting was ever held.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="308"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19972664.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We also conclude that the damages award to Hardaway is not in error. A detailed review of the facts is necessary to understand our holding. Construction was to proceed on a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="308"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/10EDE8176B25133988256D730070EB3D/$file/0255475.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
They also maintain that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="308"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/09/022947P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The assessed value of the residence was $21. The appeal hearing was scheduled for a date when Eckles would be out of town and unable to attend. While the appeal was pending. The following examples are illustrative of the messages displayed: ·
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="306"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001141.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court ruled that although the defendants' conduct was wrong. It was nonetheless protected by Noerr Pennington. The first was comprised of citizen associations of Baltimore who opposed the shredder on environmental grounds. Until their role was inadvertently revealed in late March of 1993. The defendants' plan to prevent Baltimore Scrap from building a shredder was a closely guarded secret. Because the Baltimore zoning code does not allow the Board to consider
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="306"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTUwOTktY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5099-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because the award is based on facts that were neither proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury nor admitted by him in his plea allocution. Boccagna argues that HUD was. Not 2 entitled to any restitution because its claimed out of pocket losses were more than offset by the fair market value of the foreclosed collateral that it acquired upon payment of the defaulted loans. Fair market value will generally provide the best measure to ensure restitution in the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/071675p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge Shipping solid waste to Midwestern landfills has become big business particularly in places like New Jersey where capacity at in state landfills is scarce. Railroads are prime beneficiaries of the increased demand for the means of shipping waste across the country. Which often is brought to the loading facility by truck. Transferring solid waste from truck to rail car is not the cleanest of businesses. Is historically the subject of federal regulation. Because we conclude that the District Court's factfinding does not support its conclusion that all of the State's environmental regulations at issue are preempted here. They then paid
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="301"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/04/01-1158.htm">01-1158 -- SIERRA CLUB V. U.S. STATES DEPT. OF ENERGY -- 04/19/2002<BR></A><BR>
Sierra Club contends its procedural claims alleging that the DOE failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prior to issuance of a road easement are ripe for adjudication. We agree and reverse the decision of the district court with respect to those procedural claims. <p> <center>I.</center> <p> The district court found the following background facts were established by the administrative record. The owners of the Rocky Flats subsurface were precluded from accessing their mineral rights. Which operates an existing gravel pit and grading facility directly west of the Buffer Zone . . . <p> The Buffer Zone is not accessible to the general public. The land is relatively untouched and pristine. The proposed mining area is located on a gravel plain that stores water in the spaces between the rocks. Two hundred acres of the Buffer Zone are used by the DOE as a National Wind Technology Center (NWTC). <p> In 1997. The use and occupation of the road were made subject to such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the manager of the Golden.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8EA7421D54702E4F88256C950062ABA0/$file/0016355.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: at slip Opinion page 6. The petition for rehearing and for rehearing en banc is denied. The district court (1) found that the Ordinances were preempted by the Home Owners' Loan Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1430.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ndez was automatically substituted as a party for Flores Galarza\ in his official capacity as Secretary. <span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/31AA3B9E5CF6F68588256C5C007CA718/$file/0016355.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court (1) found that the Ordinances were preempted by the Home Owners' Loan Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/03/99-1284.htm">99-1284 -- KIKUMURA V. HURLEY -- 03/09/2001<BR></A><BR>
Because the district court committed legal error in holding Plaintiff did not have a substantial likelihood of success on his RFRA claim and would not be irreparably harmed absent an injunction. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY</strong> <p> Plaintiff appellant Yu Kikumura is an inmate in the United States Penitentiary. Defendant John Hurley is Warden at the Penitentiary. Gallegos is an Associate Warden at the Penitentiary. Who is originally from Japan. Rickard's request to visit Plaintiff was denied by prison officials. <p> During the next several months Plaintiff. Defendant Hurley then sent letters to Plaintiff and Yasutake explaining that the requests were denied because they did not meet the criteria for pastoral visits established by Bureau of Prisons (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/055221np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will reverse. Based on East Hill's representations that the building was too small for large. 2) that a temporary injunction against all tented events at East Hill was therefore warranted. That the resolution of the Planning Board was legally binding on the parties. Were the Planning Board's resolution found to violate the Constitution or federal law an issue inextricably intertwined with what was before the Planning Board would necessarily void the state court's conclusion. The Rooker Feldman doctrine states that the Supreme Court of the United States is the only federal court that may properly exercise appellate jurisdiction over state court judgments. May be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari where the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States is drawn in question or where the validity of a treaty of a statute of any State is drawn in question on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution. Or immunity is specially set up or claimed under the Constitution or the treaties or statutes of.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1997/97a1702p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are asked to decide whether a highly structured securitization transaction negotiated between Citicorp and an investor in a limited partnership constitutes an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/09/03-6206.htm">03-6206 -- JENNINGS V. CITY OF STILLWATER -- 09/14/2004<BR></A><BR>
Four members of the OSU football team whom we will refer to. Plaintiff claims that she was raped. The football players maintain that the encounter was consensual. The football players were not charged with any crime as a result of these events. <p> In this suit brought under 42 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1998/98a1861p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court ruled that this suit under ERISA was barred under New Jersey's entire controversy doctrine because Fornarotto's previously filed tort action was sufficiently related to the instant action to trigger application of that doctrine. For the reasons that follow we will reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. Fornarotto was employed by the New Jersey American Water Company (a subsidiary of American Waterworks Company. Fornarotto was eligible to participate in the company's pension plan which provided different levels of benefits to eligible employees. The employee becomes disabled and is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0061n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND This case is before this court for the third time. The underlying matter is a civil rights action The Honorable Thomas M. It explained: We are not persuaded that the township's site plan and
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2000/98-2911.opn.html">CHRIS HORTON V. BD. OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF FLAGLER COUNTY (2/1/2000, NO. 98-2911)<BR></A><BR>
The defendants have appealed.</P> <P> This appeal presents us with the question of whether a federal court should remand a federal procedural due process claim to state court on <U>McKinney v. We conclude that the answer is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="299"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2000/98-2911.opn.html">CHRIS HORTON V. BD. OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF FLAGLER COUNTY (2/1/2000, NO. 98-2911)<BR></A><BR>
The defendants have appealed.</P> <P> This appeal presents us with the question of whether a federal court should remand a federal procedural due process claim to state court on <U>McKinney v. We conclude that the answer is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="292"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0418n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs are entitled to compensation in the amount of the diminution in the value of the Richardson Property as a result of the Board's 2 No. 04 3516 J II Enters. Unless plaintiffs have pursued state remedies. Their case is not ripe because
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="287"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1574.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom Twomey and Sisti Law Offices was on brief. Were on brief. Was convicted in the district court on five counts of willful failure to file currency transaction reports (CTRs) as required by law. The offenses were allegedly committed as part of a pattern of illegal activity respecting banking transactions which. Donovan was the president and chief executive officer of Atlantic Trust Company. Was a physician practicing in Lowell. So it was that. These employees tried to discuss their concerns with 1The five deposits were in the amounts of $30. They were made at various times between March 13. INDICTMENT AND TRIAL Donovan was charged with violating 31 U.S.C. 5313(a) (1988) and the regulations thereunder. The statute provides in relevant part: When a domestic financial institution is involved in a transaction for the payment. A participant acting for another person shall make the report as the agent or bailee of the person and identify the person for whom the transaction is being made. 31 U.S.C. 5313(a) (1988).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="285"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/08/063063P.pdf">N:\DOCS\E-DOS\8-31\06-3063 168TH AND DODGE V. RAVE REVIEWS OPN 8.23.WPD<BR></A><BR>
RED is a commercial property development company. Judge Shanahan was assigned to this case when it was filed and decided the motion to dismiss. The case was reassigned to the Honorable Joseph F. Painter expressed his belief that Rave was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="285"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1996/96a1463p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review is plenary. Lot l2 is a 39 acre tract split zoned into two categories: approximately one half is zoned single family residential. The remainder is zoned for office and service facilities. Associates asserts it was forced to accept conditions as part of the developer's agreement which restricted the lot from being developed and foreclosed proper access to the site. Suit was not filed until August 2. Because this action is brought about as a result of the defendant's failure to use its eminent domain powers. We agree with Associates that the standard mode of taking is through a sovereign's use of its eminent domain powers. It is alleged that a governmental body has effectuated a taking without recourse to eminent domain proceedings. Associates also contends the policy underlying statutes of limitations is not advanced by its application to inverse condemnation actions. Federal causes of action are subject to time limitations. The Supreme Court determined that the most appropriate statute of limitations in a § 1983 action is the state personal injury statute.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="285"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7E9D19A55491575988256AD3000B592B/$file/0035041.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Apply 13779 the Pullman doctrine to vacate and remand the claims of the remaining Appellants with instructions to stay further proceedings until the Washington state courts have had the opportunity to consider the merits of the issues raised in the complaint under that state's law. I BACKGROUND Appellants Bernard and Jean Shaw (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="285"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1513.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jr. were on brief for appellee. Challenge decisions of the United States Tax Court which upheld determinations made by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="285"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0173p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Page 2 Plaintiffs' action was not ripe in part. Substantive Facts Plaintiffs are landowners along the old Milan Canal in Erie County. LLC were all parties to a prior state court proceeding in which Erie County Metroparks sought a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs possessed no property interest in a 150 foot wide corridor along the old canal. Metroparks claimed to be the valid assignee of an infinite duration leasehold interest in that corridor and was interested in transforming the corridor into a recreational trail. The only lands owned by the Milan Canal Company at the time the Lease was executed lay within the boundaries of the Kneeland Townsend property and the Ebeneser Merry property. Plaintiff Wikel Farms was not a party to the prior state court proceeding. Wikel Farms is currently involved in an appropriation action brought by Erie County Metroparks against Wikel Farms in state court. Which is Metroparks' estimated valuation of the disputed property. That suit is not yet resolved. Was final in September 2002.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="285"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTM3NzJfc28ucGRm/05-3772_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="285"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/09A4D16644F713028825727C0057465C/$file/0535170.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
000 of the punitive damages were allocated to Oregon's Criminal Injuries Com ENGQUIST v. Contending that the constitutional claims are invalid as a matter of law. Contending that a jury verdict from a coworker's similar trial in state court should have been given preclusive effect. Or that it should have been admitted into evidence. We have jurisdiction over the appeal and cross appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We hold that Engquist's constitutional claims are invalid as a matter of law. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Engquist was hired in 1992 as an international food standards specialist for the Export Service Center (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="285"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051163p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The facility is intended for longer stays. While they are there. Lakeside1 was negotiating to sell a resort property to Greenway. Drug and Plaintiffs/appellants are members of the Gawron family and the various entities they own or control. A mistrial was declared after Lakeside had presented most of its testimony. The District Court decided sua sponte to reconsider its Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 is called the Fair Housing Act. The other claim was under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 4 3 2 denial of the Board's motion for judgment as a matter of law on the FHAA claim. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review is plenary. This issue was not briefed to us. So it is waived. The Fair Housing Act proscribes discrimination in the sale of a dwelling due to a handicap5 of those who are to reside in the dwelling after the sale. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1).6 A We note that at least two other courts have held that recovering alcoholics and drug addicts are handicapped.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="285"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/67547D3475EB792488256E5A00707CEC/$file/0035041.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Apply 13779 the Pullman doctrine to vacate and remand the claims of the remaining Appellants with instructions to stay further proceedings until the Washington state courts have had the opportunity to consider the merits of the issues raised in the complaint under that state's law. I BACKGROUND Appellants Bernard and Jean Shaw (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTYyMDFfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-6201_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
M. Patricia Zimmerman were not entitled to the defense of judicial immunity in connection with the issuance of Vermont Notices Against Trespass broadly limiting the plaintiff's access to Vermont court property. Is a long time critic of the Vermont justice system who has sought to disseminate his message using a wide variety of means and media. Huminski complains that the restrictions are unconstitutional. One is abridgement of the rights that the First Amendment. The other is impairment of the ability of courts 1 Branzburg v. We conclude that Huminski had an individual First Amendment right of access to court proceedings even though he was not a party to and had no other official connection with them. The right created a presumption that he was entitled to access. Or proceedings and if the restrictions on his access were reasonably tailored to meet the legitimate goals of the exclusion. That this individual right was not wellsettled at the time of the events at issue here and that the defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity with respect thereto.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTYyMDFfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-6201_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
M. Patricia Zimmerman were not entitled to the defense of judicial immunity in connection with the issuance of Vermont Notices Against Trespass broadly limiting the plaintiff's access to Vermont court property. Is a long time critic of the Vermont justice system who has sought to disseminate his message using a wide variety of means and media. Huminski complains that the restrictions are unconstitutional. One is abridgement of the rights that the First Amendment. The other is impairment of the ability of courts 1 Branzburg v. We conclude that Huminski had an individual First Amendment right of access to court proceedings even though he was not a party to and had no other official connection with them. The right created a presumption that he was entitled to access. Or proceedings and if the restrictions on his access were reasonably tailored to meet the legitimate goals of the exclusion. That this individual right was not wellsettled at the time of the events at issue here and that the defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity with respect thereto.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0202p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Davet testified at the hearings and was given an opportunity to introduce evidence and to present and cross examine witnesses. Noting that he had failed to show
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/06/98-1342.htm">98-1342 -- COUNTRY WORLD CASINOS V. TOMMYKNOCKER CASINO CORPORATION -- 06/23/1999<BR></A><BR>
The property was acquired by New Allied Development Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0269a-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Davet testified at the hearings and was given an opportunity to introduce evidence and to present and cross examine witnesses. Noting that he had failed to show
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTYyMDEgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/02-6201%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
M. Patricia Zimmerman were not entitled to the defense of judicial immunity in connection with the issuance of Vermont Notices Against Trespass broadly limiting the plaintiff's access to Vermont court property. Is a long time critic of the Vermont justice system who has sought to disseminate his message using a wide variety of means and media. Vermont officials therefore broadly prohibited Huminski's Huminski complains presence in and around certain state courthouses. that the restrictions are unconstitutional. One is abridgement of the rights that the First Amendment. Confers on members of the public and press to attend and report on judicial proceedings and to speak out on public issues. other is impairment of the ability of courts effectively and efficiently to protect their personnel. We conclude that Huminski had an individual First Amendment right of access to court proceedings even though he was not a party to and had no other official connection with them. The right created a We The presumption that he was entitled to access.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2002/013877u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have appellate jurisdiction of a final order granting a motion to dismiss pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court. The non moving party is given the benefit of all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the allegations in the complaint. Plaintiffs must have been deprived of a protected property interest by arbitrary and capricious government action. Because the protected property interests claimed by appellants have not ever been held to have been violated by land use decisions made by a neighboring township. Plaintiffs must have been deprived of a protected property interest by a person acting under the color of the law. Since the District Court held that plaintiffs have suffered no violation of a protected property interest. Plaintiffs must have suffered an injury to their business or property by reason of the alleged violation of 1962 claim. This is an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="278"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/031090np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
61 (3d Cir. 2002) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="275"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDAzLTkzNTlfc28ucGRm/03-9359_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="275"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/04/00-1271.htm">00-1271 -- ESSENCE INC. V. CITY OF FEDERAL HEIGHTS -- 04/08/2002<BR></A><BR>
Plaintiffs are Essence. Inc. because they were younger than twenty one at the time they sought employment. Federal Heights sought to regulate the location and operation of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="275"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/08/97-1330.htm">97-1330 -- DAKOTA RIDGE JOINT VENTURE V. CITY OF BOULDER -- 08/21/1998<BR></A><BR>
Only one of which was a federal claim. Dakota Ridge's first claim for relief was based on 42 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="268"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/09/04-5042.htm">04-5042 -- ALEXANDER V. STATE OF OKLAHOMA -- 09/08/2004<BR></A><BR>
Disarmed the African American men who were defending their community and placed them in
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="268"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012385.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The Development Agreement's purpose was to assure the timely and orderly provision of water and sanitary sewer facilities to support (1) the proposed residential development on the Trustees' land (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/09/99-8098.htm">99-8098 -- YALOWIZER V. TOWN OF RANCHESTER WYOMING -- 09/05/2001<BR></A><BR>
The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiffs David and Joe Yalowizer brought this action pursuant to 42 . We affirm. <p> <center><strong>I.</strong></center> <p> Because the basic facts are relevant to the district court's grant of summary judgment. Owned residential property in Ranchester that was zoned to allow
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="266"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2225_022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="261"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EBB395FAAD69EF7F88256AA000550EAA/$file/9935453.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Clark claims the Ordinance violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the free speech provisions of the Washington Constitution and was passed in violation of the Washington Open Public Meetings Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="261"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/206F28925B84F6D488256E5A00707C53/$file/9935453.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended to include as an appendix Lakewood Municipal Code §§ 5.16.00 5.16.120. Clark claims the Ordinance violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the free speech provisions of the Washington Constitution and was passed in violation of the Washington Open Public Meetings Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="261"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/07/983789P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Rehabilitation Services for the Blind (RSB) is a Missouri state agency which receives federal funding and which developed a policy prohibiting its employees from distributing literature or discussing services offered by consumer groups such as the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) and its local affiliate. I. RSB is a vocational rehabilitation agency serving blind Missourians. It is administered by the Missouri Division of Family Services and receives funding under the Rehabilitation Act. United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 2 1 Denise Cross is the Director of the Division of Family Services of the State of Missouri and in this capacity supervises the RSB. Howard is the Deputy Director and Supervisor of RSB and is responsible for managing the agency's seven district offices throughout Missouri. NFB and NFB Mo are not for profit membership organizations which aim to promote integration of the blind into society on equal terms with the sighted. Their aggressive advocacy and support programs are built on the philosophy that blindness is a characteristic.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="261"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8F43ABB9F94F77EF88256E5A00707C24/$file/9935453.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Clark claims the Ordinance violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the free speech provisions of the Washington Constitution and was passed in violation of the Washington Open Public Meetings Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="261"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8F7826839DF24B0F882571840055B8E8/$file/0455084.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on the briefs. Were on the brief. 6132 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY v. Were on the brief. The stickleback is found chiefly in parts of Santa Barbara. The stickleback prefers to make its nest where there is ample vegetation and a gentle flow of water. The rate of water flow is a key factor in preferred stickleback habitat. Which concluded that the project was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="261"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F7D505D580225D0F88256AA80080E609/$file/9935453.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended to include as an appendix Lakewood Municipal Code §§ 5.16.00 5.16.120. Clark claims the Ordinance violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the free speech provisions of the Washington Constitution and was passed in violation of the Washington Open Public Meetings Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="261"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1340.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Lacovara and Cetrulo & Capone were on brief. Laws ch. 93A is presented by this appeal: May a chapter 93A 11 claimant be awarded attorney's fees where the only
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="261"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1271_021.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="261"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/06/962120P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
After finding that both sets of plaintiffs have standing. We hold that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="261"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1437829DDB6F96ED88256ECF0057BEB5/$file/0216682.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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. § 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. § 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 § 207 and 47 C.F.R. § 1.4000(e). Opera Plaza contends that § 1.4000(e) is the exclusive procedure for testing a restriction such as its satellite policy.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="254"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3536.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Group home environments are highly beneficial for certain developmentally disabled adults. No. 02 3536 3 Good Shepherd extend the water lines on their property to the northern boundary to provide service to a lot that was owned by a Jehovah's Witness Congregation. According to Good Shepherd the lines were to be extended only on the condition that the Congregation would pay for the expense of extending the lines. Good Shepherd and the Congregation were unable to reach an agreement about paying the costs. The lines were never extended to the northern border of Good Shepherd's property. Because there was no water service. Good Shepherd was unable to secure occupancy permits for the homes. These motions were denied. Good Shepherd was seeking liability for discrimination under the theory of discriminatory intent and impact and under a theory that the city failed to provide reasonable accommodations. The district court ruled 4 No. 02 3536 that the reasonable accommodation analysis was not applicable to the facts of the case and thus precluded Good Shepherd from presenting that theory at trial.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="254"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2004/033587np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. The parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history. Which we will not recite except as necessary to the discussion. The Corneals argue that a jury must decide whether their substantive due process rights were violated by the enactment of a moratorium on subdivisions and other actions that allegedly interfered with the plaintiffs' attempts to subdivide. We agree with the district court's discussion of United Artists and will not repeat what was addressed in the decision below. Unless the defendants' actions were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="254"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=12&date=01&year=99">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="254"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2003/022906p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The MSA was entered into 1. This suit is just one in a series attacking the MSA and statutes passed pursuant to it. These suits have been unsuccessful. We note that the Majors are not named defendants in this particular litigation as this court concluded in an earlier decision that the Majors were immune from antitrust liability under the Noerr Pennington doctrine. Lorillard Tobacco. 5 Bedell and will be repeated here only to the extent necessary for the discussion and analysis. The MSA was negotiated after various lawsuits were either brought or threatened against the Majors and other tobacco companies by States seeking to recover Medicaid funds that they spent to treat tobacco related diseases. Pennsylvania filed suit against the Majors in April 1997 and the suit was settled as part of the MSA.3 Under the MSA. Provisions that the Plaintiffs allege were to be funded by the payment by wholesalers and consumers of artificially high prices for cigarettes. Plaintiffs further contend that after the MSA was entered into.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="245"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1019.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The question presented by this appeal is whether the District Court for the District of New Hampshire was correct in dismissing. In their 1983 suit plaintiffs have alleged that the Town effectuated an uncompensated and hence unconstitutional
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="245"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B01FE3391EA9C0EA88256E5A00707BEA/$file/0015080.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Holding that the Tribes did not have standing to challenge the agreement. Because the Tribes have not demonstrated the injury in fact required for Article III standing. ANALYSIS Standing is a question of law. Federal courts are presumed to 9092 lack jurisdiction. Standing is an essential. The first element it must show is that it has
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="245"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992177.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The revised Agreement in Principle was subsequently amended by the South Carolina General Assembly and enacted as the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act (the Settlement Act).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="245"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1035.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C. were on brief for appellant. Carroll and Peabody & Arnold were on brief for appellee. NASCO asserts that the court erred in concluding that a trial was not warranted on its claims for breach of contract and unfair and deceptive trade practices. Its only asset of any value was the Chelsea. This facility was estimated to be worth approximately $4. Is particularly relevant to this litigation: 11. Attorney Dunn responded to Attorney Bennett's letter by informing him that the deposit
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="245"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/ab7a8661c58a8af288256a8b0059ed22/$FILE/0015080.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Holding that the Tribes did not have standing to challenge the agreement. Because the Tribes have not demonstrated the injury in fact required for Article III standing. ANALYSIS Standing is a question of law. Federal courts are presumed to 9092 lack jurisdiction. Standing is an essential. The first element it must show is that it has
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="245"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992459.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
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 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="245"></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-2.gif" ALT="245"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200116723.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is constitutional as enacted by the Florida legislature and as subsequently enforced. Florida courts have defined the term
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="245"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200414759.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The central issue in this case is whether a local zoning board improperly rejected the application of a wireless agent to build a cell phone site on a golf course within a residential community. The Village of Wellington is a municipal corporation and a residential community in Palm Beach County. Inc. is a Florida corporation that serves as an agent to various cellular phone service providers. These cellular sites are integral to the operation of Metro PCS' mobile phone service network. The success or failure of Metro PCS's mobile phone service network is directly tied to its ability to construct cell sites so that its customers are able to utilize their handsets.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="245"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AB7A8661C58A8AF288256A8B0059ED22/$file/0015080.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Holding that the Tribes did not have standing to challenge the agreement. Because the Tribes have not demonstrated the injury in fact required for Article III standing. ANALYSIS Standing is a question of law. Federal courts are presumed to 9092 lack jurisdiction. Standing is an essential. The first element it must show is that it has
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="245"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2017.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Rubenstein and American Civil Liberties Union Foundation were on brief for appellants. Alfaro was on brief for appellee Suarez. Were exempt from liability under the FHA by virtue of the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="231"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2003/00-12295.opn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is a not for profit </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="231"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct98/97-9174.man.html">R. MAYER OF ATLANTA, INC. V. CITY OF ATLANTA (10/23/1998, NO. 97-9174)<BR></A><BR>
The municipal ordinance is valid. The
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="231"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054425p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Appellants are home and business owners who were issued criminal citations by the City of Bradford. 2 which have now been amended. Violate the First Amendment because they are impermissibly content based. Are in fact content neutral and permissible under the First Amendment based in part on our holding in Rappa v. We will affirm the holding of the District Court. Fred Pysher are residents of the City of Bradford. The properties at issue are Riel's residence. Riel's and Thompson's signs were handmade cardboard and plywood signs containing criticisms of City officials. Some of the signs included:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="231"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AABDA49E38EFC9E288256B3B00828173/$file/9915974.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was a provider of aerial advertising on the island of Oahu. The FAA issued Skysign a certificate of waiver good for 1 This group includes aircraft that have been modified for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="231"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct98/97-9174.man.html">R. MAYER OF ATLANTA, INC. V. CITY OF ATLANTA (10/23/1998, NO. 97-9174)<BR></A><BR>
The municipal ordinance is valid. The
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="231"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/04/041568P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold unanimously that the residency restriction is not unconstitutional on its face. Because the appellees have not established by the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="231"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2003/00-12295.opn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is a not for profit </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="221"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4113.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The City allowed public expression on Main Street before it was sold. Main Street was sold to enable the Church to build a Plaza. The Plaza's objective attributes and primary purpose are different from the former Main Street. The entrances are marked by large planters. The Plaza's stated <hr> purpose is to act as an ecclesiastical park. The property was valued at $8.124 million without reduction for the value of the easement. After the Plaza was built. Holding that the easement was a public forum upon which content based restrictions on speech could not be enforced. The settlement agreement and amended deed specifically stated:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="214"></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-2.gif" ALT="212"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July2000/995206.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Alleging that he was discharged because of his race in violation of 42 U.S.C. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court. It alleges that Zubi was discharged by AT&T because of his race on September 28. That
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="212"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june96/95-8227.opa.html">ROZAR V. MULLIS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Rozar v. Denying an injunction and granting summary judgment to the defendants on the ground that the plaintiffs' federal claims were time barred. Which had almost reached capacity and was becoming contaminated. Some of which were readily rejected because of insufficient useable acreage or the owner's unwillingness to sell. The record contains evidence that additional sites were added to the list as others were eliminated.<p> In January 1991 the County Board met to discuss a site at Scotland Road. The Board voted to table any action until alternatives were studied. Plaintiffs say that the site was not pursued because white residents protested. That most of the area residents were African American. Both an African American and a white church were nearby.<p> The list of potential landfill sites was expanded to include Old Macon Road. The record indicates that this site was brought to the County Board's attention when the property owner offered to sell a sizable tract (more than 400 acres).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="212"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTU5NjgtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5968-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That motion was granted. The District Court properly dismissed claims based on plaintiffs' theories that the preliminary agreement is enforceable as to the ultimate contractual goal and that it forms a joint venture. Is CEO of Plaintiff Appellant Jeffrey M. Is owner and President of Defendant Appellee Tracto Equipment. We hold that the grant of summary judgment as to Tracto was premature and therefore vacate that portion of the District Court Order. While the preliminary agreement is not enforceable as to the ultimate contractual goal contemplated in the document. It is enforceable as an obligation between the parties to negotiate in good faith within the framework of the agreement. 04 5968 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 In March 2000 the Jay Street Property was in use as a parking lot and was subject to zoning limitations that made it unsuitable for substantial commercial or residential development. Cara is to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="212"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec97/96-4308.opa.html">DA CUNHA V. STANDARD FIRE INS. CO./AETNA FLOOD INS. PROGRAM<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Da Cunha v. Both cases were filed in the same district court and consolidated for some purposes below. Appellants' homes were damaged by Hurricane Andrew in 1992. We affirm.<p> BACKGROUND<p> <p> The appellants are owners of three story townhouses in a real estate development known as L'Hermitage. The homes are located in Dade County. Was also involved in the design. Including a requirement from the City that some units have break away walls on the ground floor. Adler testified that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="212"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/02/99-3192.htm">99-3192 -- MARTIN V. STITES -- 02/13/2001<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judges. <p> We must decide on appeal whether county established towing policies are preempted by federal law. Holding the sheriff's policies are not preempted by
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="212"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june96/95-8227.opa.html">ROZAR V. MULLIS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Rozar v. Denying an injunction and granting summary judgment to the defendants on the ground that the plaintiffs' federal claims were time barred. Which had almost reached capacity and was becoming contaminated. Some of which were readily rejected because of insufficient useable acreage or the owner's unwillingness to sell. The record contains evidence that additional sites were added to the list as others were eliminated.<p> In January 1991 the County Board met to discuss a site at Scotland Road. The Board voted to table any action until alternatives were studied. Plaintiffs say that the site was not pursued because white residents protested. That most of the area residents were African American. Both an African American and a white church were nearby.<p> The list of potential landfill sites was expanded to include Old Macon Road. The record indicates that this site was brought to the County Board's attention when the property owner offered to sell a sizable tract (more than 400 acres).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="212"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1996/96a1291p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
After he was released. After summary proceedings in which no evidence was heard and virtually no factual record developed. These cross appeals present numerous questions (some of which are quite difficult): (1) Do the registration and notification provisions of Megan's Law constitute
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="212"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6342.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. OSSAA is Oklahoma's state organized school activities association. Christian Heritage is a private religious school in Del City. Since it is not an OSSAA member. Twelve of its members are nonpublic <hr> schools (ten of which are private schools and two are Indian schools). Eight are located in suburban areas. While two are in rural areas. Any secondary school desiring to become a member of the Association is to file with the Executive Secretary a resolution. OSSAA members are provided with. Are subject to. The ballot simply describes the geographic area where students are immediately eligible for athletics in the nonpublic applicant school by reason of residence.(1) (1) Whenever a nonpublic school applies for membership. A student may attend a school district in which a student is not a resident. If a student transfers to a school district in which he is not a resident. Unless the transfer is due to a bona fide change of residence by his parents. At 72. <hr> OSSAA's Rule 8 lists the geographic areas for nonpublic schools that are admitted.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="212"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/02/021504P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which were placed on his proposal to build townhouses on the land. Were out of proportion to the impact this development of the property would have had on the City of Rochester. That the suit was wrongly brought in federal court in the first instance since it was not yet ripe. The claim of taking without just compensation was not ripe for decision in a federal court. All facts alleged in the complaint are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Such is the case here. Kottschade's constitutional claim is brought under the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Kottschade argues that dismissal of his claim by the District Court was improper because. City of Chicago is said to have modified this holding by permitting plaintiffs in takings cases to file claims in federal court first as a matter of course. We have held that these procedures include the filing and prosecution of an action for inverse condemnation in the state courts. What the plaintiff actually asks is that this Court find that the Supreme Court's decision in City of Chicago overrules Williamson in part.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="212"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200401/02-1267a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="212"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/09/00-4036.htm">00-4036 -- STIDHAM V. PEACE OFFICER STANDARDS AND TRAINING -- 09/24/2001<BR></A><BR>
Background</strong> <p> Appellant is a certified peace officer in the state of Utah. The state agency empowered to regulate the certification of peace officers employed in Utah.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="212"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0093p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At stake in this case is the constitutionality of an ordinance promulgated by the City of Brentwood. Because we conclude that the ordinance is a content neutral restriction on the time. The purpose of the ordinance was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="212"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec97/96-4308.opa.html">DA CUNHA V. STANDARD FIRE INS. CO./AETNA FLOOD INS. PROGRAM<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Da Cunha v. Both cases were filed in the same district court and consolidated for some purposes below. Appellants' homes were damaged by Hurricane Andrew in 1992. We affirm.<p> BACKGROUND<p> <p> The appellants are owners of three story townhouses in a real estate development known as L'Hermitage. The homes are located in Dade County. Was also involved in the design. Including a requirement from the City that some units have break away walls on the ground floor. Adler testified that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="191"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/77DCF4F385244CAE88257114005B1893/$file/0435187.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2005 is amended as follows: 1. 2. Footnote six is deleted in its entirety. The first sentence of Part I (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="191"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/12/043198P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="191"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA2LTIzMThfc28ucGRm/06-2318_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="191"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1626_021.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court was unconvinced. HISTORY No. 05 1626 Maulding Development is a real estate development company owned and operated by David Maulding (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="191"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1994/94a0855p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The lawsuit was the result of years of friction between Blanche Road and Township regarding the development of certain parcels of land located in Township. Arguing that the new language added to the exclusion clause is inconsistent with the parties' reasonable expectations. The court imposed a $2000 sanction on Township after finding that it had failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry when it filed a motion to determine the Rule 59(e) motion in the district court while a petition for rehearing was pending on appeal. Township contends that the motion was reasonable under the circumstances because a premature appeal does not divest the district court of jurisdiction to consider a pending Rule 59(e) motion. We will reverse the dismissal of the complaint and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We will also reverse the order imposing a Rule 11 sanction against Township. Township apparently believed it was receiving essentially the same type of insurance policy it had always received from Insurers.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="191"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=04&date=01&year=97">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="191"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F912654A654769BD882570DF007BCE38/$file/0435187.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We conclude that diversity jurisdiction is proper and that Kroske's age discrimination claim under the WLAD was not preempted. Is a federally chartered National Banking Association that was formed in accordance with the National Bank Act. The Bank is governed by a board of directors. Which is empowered by the Bank's bylaws to elect and discharge officers. Kroske was notified that her branch was not meeting the Bank's goals and quotas for business activity. Although Kroske contends that her branch was the smallest in the area with the fewest employees. That she was short staffed. The other branch managers in the region were in their twenties and thirties. While Kroske was fifty one years old. Kroske contended that she was replaced by an employee who was in his mid twenties and possessed less experience than Kroske. Filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Kroske's state discrimination claim was preempted by the National Bank Act. Contending that she was not an officer under § 24(Fifth) and.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="191"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3665_018.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is so rundown that it is a public nuisance. New West is trying to litigate the tenants' rights rather than its own. The district court held that this defensive use is the exclusive remedy. That would be so if defendants were private actors. §1983 allows a suit against state actors when the objective is to obtain a declaration that a rule of federal law supersedes the rules that the state actors are implementing. Dismissing this claim was especially inappropriate. As the suit in which preemption would be offered as a defense is itself in federal court. The condemnation action was removed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and is pending in the Northern District of Illinois as No. 05 C 6746 before the same judge who resolved New West's suit. The condemnation action had been on the judge's docket for more than nine months before New West's suit was dismissed. That the condemnation action is pending in federal court suggests that it is imprudent to resolve the current suit until the condemnation proceeding has been finally resolved.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="191"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1730.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for appellants. Claim that their First Amendment right of free association was violated by the defendants. Are entitled to an interlocutory appeal on the issue of immunity. The new administration determined that the city was in a financial crisis. Was the elimination of approximately 600 positions in the city's civil service. This was accomplished by passage by the Assembly of Ordinance #43. Annexed to the ordinance was a listing of the positions eliminated by title. The plaintiffs in this case are NPP supporters whose positions were eliminated by the operation of Ordinance #43. They claim that the defendants' adoption of Ordinance #43 was a device to eliminate NPP adherents from the civil service and to replace them with members of their own party. It is now well settled that the First and Fourteenth Amendments protect public employees from being discharged solely because of their political affiliations. The defendants claim that Ordinance #43 was a bona fide legislative attempt by the administration to rationalize the city's finances.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="191"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1917.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for appellant. <P> <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="191"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042818np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The application was denied. We will keep referring to the Appellant as Hott. 2 1 have subject matter jurisdiction to review the Planning Board's decision and denied Hott's other applications. (2) the relief Hott sought was within the scope of the settlement agreement between the parties. (3) the District Court should have appointed a Special Master. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and will affirm the judgment of the District Court. Who are familiar with the facts. We will not recite them except as necessary to the discussion. An adjudication of municipal actions or zoning board and planning board decisions are accomplished by actions in lieu of prerogative writs. The proper venue for such actions is the New Jersey Superior Court. We must decide also whether the relief Hott sought was within the scope of the 3 settlement agreement between the parties. Even if the relief was within the scope of the settlement agreement. The District Court could not enforce the settlement against the Planning Board because the Board was never a party to the underlying litigation or the settlement agreement.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="191"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1315.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Associates</SPAN> was on brief for appellant.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="191"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=10&date=01&year=01">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="191"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2003/031231u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1 alleging the Township's enactment of an animal control ordinance violates their constitutional and statutory civil rights because it was motivated by racial animus. I. Facts Shain Koorn (who is African American) and Rafaela Koorn (who is Hispanic) purchased a home and property in the Township of Lacey. They were soon informed by the local code enforcement officer of a Township ordinance limiting property owners to six dogs. Both the Koorns and the Township discovered that what the code enforcement officer had believed was an official ordinance was in fact an informal policy. The defendants will be collectively referred to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="191"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/10/962705P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
28 U.S.C. § 2283. that this relief is improper under both the Eleventh Amendment and the We disagree. Conclude that Construing injunctive relief is proper in the circumstances of this case. relief. On the last occasion during which these parties were before us. We stated that it was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="161"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2196.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C. were on brief for appellant. P.C. were on brief for appellant. Kelly & Murphy was on brief for Marc DeSisto with whom Carroll. Kelly & Murphy was on brief for appellees City of East Providence and its councilmen. appellees City of East Providence and its councilmen. Was on brief for appellee whom James E. Was on brief for appellee Edward R. The federal claims were dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The pendent state law claims were dismissed without prejudice. To introduce a bill whose specific purpose was to prevent appellant from obtaining approval of its application. The bill was enacted into *Commissioner Lynch. Was a defendant in a civil defama *Commissioner Lynch. Was a defendant in a civil defama tion action brought by appellant. tion action brought by appellant. 3 law on July 6. The application was denied on August 22. Appellant took an appeal to the Liquor Control Administrator which was rendered moot as a consequence of King Drug's transfer of the license to another entity.*** II II DISCUSSION DISCUSSION The complaint alleges that the defendants conspired to deprive appellant of its property without due process of law in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985(3) and that the Lynch inspired legislation violates both the United States Constitution **The enacted bill provided.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="161"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2004/032007np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will dispense with a full recitation of the facts and limit our discussion only to those facts necessary to reach our decision. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) only over the denial of the preliminary injunction. Will affirm that denial. 2 I. Is subject to limited exceptions. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) provides that a party may appeal from an interlocutory order
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="161"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/01/991679P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising out of Mary Margaret Martin's difficulties in obtaining a liquor license from the City of Brentwood. This last requirement was particularly onerous because the owner of a business located next to her proposed establishment had publicly announced his opposition. Martin would have to submit new petitions. We have repeatedly taken a very restrictive view as to when state and local land use planning.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="161"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/01/062472U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The likelihood that a favorable decision by the court will redress the alleged injury).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="161"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1279.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on briefs for appellees Marisa Lago. Paul Holtzman and Krokidas & Bluestein were on brief for Robert H. Was on brief for Henry G. The plaintiffs in this case are former residents of Boston's Old West End who were forced to relocate when their homes were taken by eminent domain for urban renewal. That they are being denied this preference in a new development called West End Place because most former West Enders are white. The background facts are undisputed. The plan was approved as required under Massachusetts law. Luxury 1The BRA is an entity established by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to undertake urban renewal projects and to relieve housing shortages. The new buildings were either nonresidential or so expensive that very few of the former West Enders could afford to occupy them. A proposal was submitted by the Lowell Square Cooperative Limited Partnership (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="161"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb95/93-8062_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="161"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971833.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Because the district court's findings of fact are not clearly erroneous and its conclusions of law are correct. Which apparently were to be attached to the three documents under negotiation in the event of an agreement between the parties. Chesapeake's three general partners each signed an affidavit (Partnership Affidavit) stating that the Purchase and Sale Agreement had been
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="161"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb95/93-8062_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="161"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june96/95-8227.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="161"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200413210.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The central issue on appeal is whether Tanner has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the statute as a whole under the overbreadth doctrine. We conclude that Tanner is entitled to overbreadth standing. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Tanner is a Georgia limited liability company in the business of erecting and operating advertising signs to be used for both noncommercial and commercial purposes. Business or solicitation which is not carried out on the premises upon which the sign is 2 located.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="161"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=01&date=01&year=04">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="161"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5070b.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Not mentioned by either side when the case was last <br clear=all style='page break before:always'> before us.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="161"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1010.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Slavitt LLP</SPAN> were on brief. LLP</SPAN> were on brief. That was equipped to operate as a concrete plant. The second and third theories relate to Pavestone's work on the property during the pre closing period a period in which Pavestone was authorized under the purchase and sale agreement to perform work on the property. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="161"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june96/95-8227.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-1.gif" ALT="161"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200110/00-5070b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Not mentioned by either side when the case was last before us. That is. Our focus was on whether the Park Service regulation imposed a
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
<!-- End of real page content -->
<!-- kludgy empty paragraph acts as spacer -->
<P></P>
<!-- This is the place for the lower nav bar and footer -->
<!-- the following is Mason-included: footer.htm -->
<br class="clear" />
</div><!-- close extra div (opened in header.htm) -->
<br class="clear" />
</div><!-- close middle (opened in header.htm) -->
<div id="footer">
<div class="footerNav">
<div><!-- getting ridiculous, i know -->
<ul>
<li><a href="/lii.html" class="nav">about us</a></li>
<li><a href="/tour.html" class="nav" id="liisitemaplink" title="lii sitemap">sitemap</a></li>
<li><a href="/help/" class="nav">help</a></li>
<li><a href="/comments/credits.html" class="nav">terms of use</a></li>
</ul>
<br class="clear" />
</div><!-- close ridiculous div -->
</div><!-- close footerNav -->
</div><!-- close footer -->
<br class="clear" />
</div><!-- close collection (opened in header.htm) -->
<br class="clear" />
</div><!-- close ours (opened in header.htm) -->
<br class="clear" />
</div><!-- close container (opened in header.htm) -->
<!-- end of included footer -->
</BODY>
</HTML>
<!-- end of HTML -->
<!-- code from here on down -->
<!-- input arguments are:
a query (optional)
-->
<!-- to begin with...
This init block sets up and runs the query.
-->
<!-- select correct options based on scope -->
|
