Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to
consider using additional terms to narrow it.
 |
OPINION/ORDER
Appellants argue that the district court erred in its analysis because the advertising conducted pursuant to the Beef Act is
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Line 5 the extra
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Richard Ceballos filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 contending that he was subjected to adverse employ 3448 CEBALLOS v. Qualified immunity was not available to the individual defendants because the law was clearly established that Ceballos's speech addressed a matter of public concern and that his interest in the speech outweighed the public employer's interest in avoiding inefficiency and disruption. Is entitled to such immunity depends on whether he was performing a state or a county function when he took the alleged actions with respect to Ceballos. We hold that in most respects he was acting in the latter capacity. He is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Neither is the County. In 1997 or 1998 he was assigned to the District Attorney's CEBALLOS v. GARCETTI 3449 Office's Pomona Branch and about a year later was promoted to calendar deputy. Told Ceballos that he believed that one of the arresting deputy sheriffs may have lied in a search warrant affidavit. Ceballos was supervising the deputy district attorney assigned to the case.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is amended by inserting the following after
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Line 25 a comma is inserted after the word
|
|
01-4176 -- AXSON-FLYNN V. JOHNSON -- 02/03/2004
Who is Mormon. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants on both claims and found that they were also entitled to qualified immunity. Sandy Shotwell asked Axson Flynn if there was anything she would feel uncomfortable doing or saying as an actor. Although the record is unclear as to whether Axson Flynn explained at the time why she had those objections. The district court summarized her reasons as follows: [H]er refusal to use the words
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The tobacco companies argue that this is a case of compelled subsidization of speech prohibited by the First Amendment. California counters that the advertisements are government speech entirely immune from First Amendment attack. The tobacco companies concede that (1) the imposition of the tax itself is not unconstitutional and (2) the message produced by the government's advertisements creates no First Amendment problem apart from its method of funding. The revenue generated by the surtax is placed in the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
FACE gives aggrieved persons a right of action against whoever by
|
|
ALLI COMMTY MEDIA V. FCC
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
In this case we are required to decide the constitutionality of Tennessee's statute making available the purchase of automobile license plates with a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Alleging that she was demoted from the position of assistant principal to teacher because she spoke out against race discrimination (her free speech claims) and because of her race (her discrimination claims). We conclude that Love Lane has raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she was demoted in retaliation for her speech. We also conclude that Martin is not entitled. I. Love Lane is employed by the Winston Salem/Forsyth County Board of Education. From 1988 until 1998 she was an assistant principal at four middle and elementary schools. She was told that her strongest skills were in the areas of communication and problem solving. Where Martin said
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The American public is very familiar with the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Roe was unmasked when one of his supervisors discovered the videos online and recognized Roe's picture. Non work related activities were protected by the First Amendment and could not be grounds for terminating his employment. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2 Roe was employed as a City of San Diego police officer for more than seven years. He was fired after the San Diego Roe is proceeding under a pseudonym pursuant to a district court order granting him permission to do so. 2 Because this case comes before the court on appeal from a dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). CITY OF SAN DIEGO Police Department discovered that he was selling sexually explicit. The uniform was offered for sale by a person with the eBay username
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Concluding that the policy prohibited no more speech than was already unlawful under federal and state anti discrimination laws. Held that the policy is constitutional and enter ed judgment for the school district. The full text of the Policy is reproduced in the Appendix to this opinion. We will briefly review the most relevant portions here. Nurturing school environment
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Are amended as follows: At slip op. 14. That the Act was not susceptible to a First Amendment compelled subsidy challenge because the assessments funded government speech. He would now remand to the district court pursuant to the Court's statement in Johanns that an as applied challenge might lie
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We are asked to decide whether distasteful comments made by Mitchell before the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was Kimberly Carey Williams. Were on the brief for amicus curiae Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives in No. 04 5315. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Congressman Henry J. With her on the briefs was Toby R. With him on the brief were Douglas B. I. No. 04 5315 is an appeal from a district court order denying a motion to dismiss a complaint alleging that the Office of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson discriminated against Beverly A. No. 045335 is an appeal from a district court order denying a motion to dismiss a complaint alleging that the Office of Senator Mark Dayton discriminated against Brad Hanson because of a perceived disability and violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. 4 The Office of Representative Johnson and the Office of Senator Dayton (collectively. The
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The table displays are set up and stocked entirely by private citizens who are not affiliated in any way with the schools. No one is allowed to enter classrooms to announce the availability of the religious or political material. No school announcement or assembly is allowed to mark the availability of the Bibles or any other religious or political material. School principals are charged with ensuring strict compliance with these guidelines. Westfall or school activity personnel
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\temp21\PlannedParenthoodLetter1.wpd
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Plaintiffs are employees of the City of Altus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. Approximately 29 City employees are Hispanic. All Plaintiffs are Hispanic and bilingual. Received a complaint that because Street Department employees were speaking Spanish. Other employees could not understand what was being said on
the City radio. Sanchez was particularly concerned that his subordinates. The letter informed Nettles that employees had not been given proper notice if this was a new administrative policy and questioned whether Willis and the City had followed proper procedures in implementing the new policy. Sanchez reported that Willis had told him that the reason Hispanics speak Spanish
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We are called upon to navigate between two equally important interests: the church's right to access a government building that is open to other groups. We conclude that the district court erred when it found that the church was likely to succeed on the merits of its First Amendment claim and therefore abused its discretion in granting preliminary injunctive relief. We have FAITH CENTER CHURCH v. I. The relevant facts are not disputed. The County's goal in making these meeting rooms available is
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
These matters are before the court on two separate petitions for rehearing. The petitions were filed separately and correspond to the two opinions issued in these appeals on April 17. The requests for panel rehearing are denied by the original panel which decided these cases. The en banc petitions were transmitted to all of the judges of the court who are in regular active service. A poll was requested. The decisions of the panel will stand. The en banc requests are denied. Judges Lucero and McConnell have filed dissents to the denial. They are attached and incorporated in this order. That response is also incorporated in this order. Because the panel's opinion will leave our circuit unnecessarily entangled in future review of time. It is important to distinguish between transitory and permanent speech. Not unlike most public parks in America in which permanent monuments have been placed. The government must have exercised some control over the form and content of the speech before the fact. 1141 43 (10th Cir. 2001) (holding sign was government speech where the city had
|
 |
ADLER V. DUVAL COUNTY SCH. BD. (3/15/2000, NO. 98-2709)
Circuit Judge: At issue today is whether the Duval County. The total absence of state involvement in deciding whether there will be a graduation message. Who will speak. Is not state sponsored. Nor how autonomous the speaker may be in crafting her message. I. The facts of this case are straightforward. Other religious prayers or messages were traditionally offered. Student led prayer during the graduation ceremony so long as the administration and faculty were not involved in the decision making process. The memorandum was entitled
|
|
ADLER V. DUVAL COUNTY SCH. BD. (3/15/2000, NO. 98-2709)
Circuit Judge: At issue today is whether the Duval County. The total absence of state involvement in deciding whether there will be a graduation message. Who will speak. Is not state sponsored. Nor how autonomous the speaker may be in crafting her message. I. The facts of this case are straightforward. Other religious prayers or messages were traditionally offered. Student led prayer during the graduation ceremony so long as the administration and faculty were not involved in the decision making process. The memorandum was entitled
|
|
01-1512A -- FLEMING V. JEFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT R-1 -- 06/27/2002
Circuit Judges.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
1 an association of law Joining FAIR in its preliminary injunction motion and in this appeal are: the Society for Law Teachers. We hold that FAIR has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its First Amendment claims and that it is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. Background Facts 2 and Procedural Posture Law Schools' Nondiscrimination Policies Law schools have long maintained formal policies of nondiscrimination that withhold career placement services from employers who exclude employees and applicants based on such factors as race. The facts on appeal are not in dispute. Supp. 2d at 277. 7 2 virtually every law school now has a comprehensive policy like the following: [The] School of Law is committed to a policy of equal opportunity for all students and graduates. A servicemember is separated from the military if it is found that he or she
|
|
01-1512 -- FLEMING V. JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT -- 06/27/2002
Holding that the District's guidelines governing a tile painting project at Columbine High School (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The amended opinion is filed concurrently with this order. Concluding that they were not engaged in a constitutionally protected activity because their speech did not involve a matter of public concern. The students' petition and complaints against the coach were protected speech because they could not reasonably have led school officials to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with a school activity. We agree with the district court that the students' refusal to board the bus was not protected by the First Amendment because. Factual and Procedural Background Plaintiffs are eight former members of the 2000 01 Clatskanie High School varsity boys basketball team in Clatskanie. Such a regulation must be upheld
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
A comparable plate with a pro choice message is not available. (PPSC) and Renee Carter have sued three South Caro PLANNED PARENTHOOD v. Sale of the Choose Life plate is expected to generate additional revenue for the State. The fee for the special plate is seventy dollars every two years in addition to the regular fee. Proceeds from the sale of the Choose Life plate are to be placed in a special account administered by the Department of Social Services (DSS). A marketing plan for its sale that is subject to DPS approval. The plate is available only to certified members of the organization. 4 PLANNED PARENTHOOD v. Are authorized for issuance to any vehicle owner. When a bill to authorize the Choose Life plate was being considered at a subcommittee hearing in the South Carolina House of Representatives. A bill to authorize the Choose Life plate was also introduced in the South Carolina Senate in 2001. Consideration of the bill was blocked by parliamentary objections. A bill authorizing a NASCAR specialty license plate was amended to provide for the Choose Life plate.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
A final judgment was entered on May 28. Gazarkiewicz was hired on or about May 13. Harmon was a source of disharmony among town employees. Was to allow the employees to air their grievances. The employees were told. The employees were told that any future complaints regarding a superior were to be addressed in writing to that employee's supervisor. Harmon were to be made to the Council in writing. The parties dispute what the employees were told regarding speaking publicly about grievances. The common consensus was
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Line 2 a comma is inserted at the end of the citation. Line 12 the word
|
|
CHANDLER V. JAMES (7/13/1999, NO. 97-6898)
Because the states are bound by the First Amendment. We shall affirm the judgment of the district court as to the Governor's appeal.
|
|
CHANDLER V. JAMES (7/13/1999, NO. 97-6898)
Because the states are bound by the First Amendment. We shall affirm the judgment of the district court as to the Governor's appeal.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Concluding that they were not engaged in a constitutionally protected activity because their speech did not involve a matter of public concern. The students' petition and complaints against the coach were protected speech because they could not reasonably have led school officials to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with a school activity. We agree with the district court that the students' refusal to board the bus was not protected by the First Amendment because. I. Factual and Procedural Background Plaintiffs are eight former members of the 2000 01 Clatskanie High School varsity boys basketball team in Clatskanie. Oregon.1 The defendants include the Clatskanie School DisChristopher Somes was an original plaintiff in this case. Baughman was verbally abusive and highly intimidating. Baughman had him hold a basketball while Baughman
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Plaintiff's claims for retaliatory discharge following her reports of sexual harassment were dismissed on summary judgment. We conclude that there was sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable factfinder could conclude that there was a causal link between plaintiff's complaint of sexual harassment and her termination. We also conclude that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that plaintiff was discharged as a result of speech protected by the First Amendment. We recognize that most complaints of sexual harassment are likely to have as their primary purpose the vindication of the private rights of the person offended. Are inherently of public concern even if made in a private forum. Unless the employee's interests in speaking out upon matters of public concern are outweighed by the public employer's interests in running an efficient workplace. The speech is protected under the First Amendment. All of the individuals listed below are employees of the County of Allegheny. When she was discharged from her position as marketing coordinator in the Allegheny County Department of Development.
|
|
USA V. ROSTENKOWSKIDANIEL
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Plaintiffs are charities that Indiana's Telephone Privacy Act (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Dep't of Veterans Affairs is corrected to begin
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Both sides moved for summary judgment. 2 No. 03 3956 The district court ruled that (1) the plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief is moot. (3) questions of fact remained for trial as to whether plaintiffs had suffered retaliation for exercising their First Amendment rights and (4) the Inspector General is not entitled to qualified immunity as to either claim. Claiming that he is entitled to qualified immunity. The underlying facts are not disputed.1 The plaintiffs served as Internal Security Investigators II (ISI 2s) in the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in the Illinois Department of Human Services (DHS) at all times relevant to this suit.2 The OIG is responsible for investigating reports of abuse and neglect of the mentally ill and developmentally disabled persons who receive DHS services. Completes investigations by preparing 1 The facts in ths section are taken primarily from the district court's opinion below. Jenny Wernsing was hired as an ISI II in 1998. Charles Bingaman was hired in 1997.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Enough is Enough. In which the Court held that our decision affirming the District Court's grant of a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The question presented is whether California Assembly Bill 1889. Is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act.1 As we explain. The California statute chills employers from exercising their free speech rights that are explicitly protected by Congress under the National Labor Relations Act. That the use of the state spending power is rarely a defense to state interference with the National Labor Relations Act. 290 91 (1986) (emphasizing that Congress would not have intended to allow states to interfere with the NLRA
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Williams was also convicted of possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). Because there was no reversible Booker error. Which was later traced to the defendant Williams. Who LNM claimed was her daughter. When these pictures were not received. The message was followed by a computer hyperlink. The nude children in the photos were approximately five to fifteen years old. Williams was charged with one count of promoting. Or that is intended to cause another to believe. Williams was also charged with one count of possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). Williams filed a motion to dismiss the pandering charge on the grounds that 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. While the motion was pending before the trial court. There are two types of child pornography. Child pornography images of both types are typically circulated through the Internet.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Plaintiffs are former teachers of the Academy. Background The Academy is a K 8 charter school in Longmont. It is chartered by. Dorothy Marlatt was the principal of the Academy
when Plaintiffs were employed there as teachers. Plaintiffs were employed as teachers pursuant to written contracts with the Academy. The Plaintiffs allege that they were told the Academy
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The issue before us is whether this
Clause precludes Plaintiff Rita Bastien's employment discrimination claim brought under the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (the CAA). We hold that suit is not barred because the claim does not question the conduct of official Senate legislative business by Senator Campbell or his aides. Damages are paid from funds appropriated into the OOC's Treasury account. She was transferred to the Senator's Colorado Springs office. Where she was a District Director. She was terminated. Plaintiff responded that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
He claimed that his rights under the First Amendment's Speech Clause were violated when Allred and Harland punished him for silently raising his fist during the daily flag salute instead of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance with the rest of his class. He further claims that his Establishment Clause rights were violated by Allred's daily
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Appellants filed lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington seeking damages for the constitutional rights that were alleged to be violated by the emergency order. Four of the Appellants also filed individual claims in which they alleged that their constitutional rights were infringed by Seattle police officers in the course of the conference. We determine that the emergency order was a constitutional time. We also determine that there are genuine issues of material fact whether the emergency order was constitutional as applied to certain Appellants. Emily Maloney were also named plaintiffs in the lawsuit. They are not parties to this appeal. 1 5952 MENOTTI v. CITY OF SEATTLE All persons who were arrested by the City of Seattle and its police agents or its affiliated police agents on December 1 and 2. Pursuant to the defendants'
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
ORDER The mandate is recalled for the limited purpose of correcting the caption. Is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 11773. We consider the extent to which the First Amendment and due process guarantees are implicated when a graduate student's thesis committee declines to approve a thesis that meets academic and professional standards in all respects except one: The acknowledgments section does not conform to established academic and professional standards. Who are university professors and officials. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff Christopher Brown was a master's degree candidate in the Department of Material Sciences at the University of California at Santa Barbara (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We consider the extent to which the First Amendment and due process guarantees are implicated when a graduate student's thesis committee declines to approve a thesis that meets academic and professional standards in all respects except one: The acknowledgments section does not conform to established academic and professional standards. Who are university professors and officials. LI 11779 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff Christopher Brown was a master's degree candidate in the Department of Material Sciences at the University of California at Santa Barbara (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Guiles also sought to have the disciplinary action taken against him expunged from his record. It further held that the disciplinary action should be expunged because defendants should not have censored the word
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
It concluded certain instances of Deschenie's speech were unprotected. Those which were protected were not causally related to the adverse employment actions taken by the School Board. Background Deschenie was the Director of Indian Education and Bilingual Education for CCSD from August 2000 through June 2003. She was the Bilingual Education Coordinator. CCSD is a school district located mostly within the Navajo Indian Reservation in San Juan County. 6500 of its 7000 students are Navajo. Deschenie was present at this meeting and interpreted these statements as indicating an intent to eliminate the bilingual education program. There is evidence to the contrary. This court assumes the letter was delivered for purposes of this review.
the alleged deficiencies. CCSD was not complying with the state bilingual program requirements of forty five minutes of daily home language instruction. Deschenie also spoke at this meeting and repeated her concerns that the program was not complying with state standards and was not adequately supported within CCSD.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Opinion by Judge Berzon *Brian Sandoval is substituted for his predecessor. Brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all. . . . Were published under fictitious names. It is plain that anonymity has sometimes been assumed for the most constructive purposes. We are asked in this case to rule on the constitutionality of a Nevada statute that requires certain groups or entities publishing
|
|
01-4022 -- SUMMUM V. CITY OF OGDEN -- 07/19/2002
The Ten Commandments Monument is just under five feet tall and three feet wide. The Monument bears an inscription of a version of the Ten Commandments: I AM the LORD thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven images. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. Remember the Sabbath day. Nor anything that is thy neighbor's. Aples' App. at 87. By Utah State Aerie Fraternal Order of Eagles 1966.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Because we conclude that the defendants have failed to produce evidence that justifies the restrictions on commercial speech imposed by the ordinance. Pagan is a resident of Glendale and formerly the owner of a 1970 Mercury Cougar that he wanted to sell. Notified Pagan that the sign was a violation of Glendale Traffic Code § 76.06. Was ultimately unsuccessful in obtaining a satisfactory resolution of his dispute with the Village. Determined that Chief Fruchey was entitled to qualified immunity. Pagan has waived any argument that the district court's decision respecting Chief Fruchey was incorrect. 723 (6th Cir. 2006) (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The issue before us in this appeal is whether Canon 5 of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct. Were narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest in maintaining the independence and impartiality of Minnesota's judiciary. Were not impermissibly vague. I. The Minnesota Constitution provides that judges
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Line 29 the cross reference is corrected to read
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The facts are derived from the plaintiffs' pleadings and the affidavits submitted by the parties. Plaintiff Ronald Marchese is a tenured professor in the University of Minnesota system. He is a professor of humanities. Professor Burnham was the faculty advisor to the Club. 2 conceived an idea for a project that was intended to publicize some of the areas of expertise and interest of the history department's faculty. As well as a quotation to be used along with the above information and their photographs. 2 The Kohns have now graduated from UMD. 2 For his photograph. The Kohns assembled an exhibit that incorporated these photographs along with the written comments submitted by each faculty member. public interest.3 The exhibit was The photographs and the accompanying written material were thought to communicate matters of He listed his specialties as
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
When she was discharged from her position as marketing coordinator in the Allegheny County Department of Development. Azzaro claims that her discharge was in retaliation for her reporting an incident of sexual harassment by an executive assistant to the County Commissioner. We conclude that there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could conclude that there was a causal link between plaintiff's report of sexual harassment and her termination. We also conclude that plaintiff's report of sexual harassment is constitutionally protected speech. We will reverse the district court and remand for a resolution of the remaining factual issues. I. Because we are obligated on summary judgment to view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. We will present Azzaro's version of the events leading up to her discharge. 1991 just over a year before she was discharged when her husband. Who was also employed by the County. Had a verbal confrontation with employees of the County Department of Employee Relations regarding the manner in which the Azzaros' daughters were treated in connection with their applications for jobs as County lifeguards.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This is a civil rights case brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Defendants Appellants have lodged this interlocutory appeal. Shelley Evans Marshall is a certified high school teacher and a former employee of the Board of Education of Tipp City Exempted Village School District (the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Watters' claim arose out of his termination from employment as Manager of the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) for the Philadelphia Police Department following the publication of a newspaper article in which he was quoted criticizing aspects of the EAP. The idea for a coordinated EAP grew out of a study conducted by the Philadelphia Police Study Task Force which Tucker had convened
|
|
98-9518 -- U.S. WEST INC. V. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMM. -- 08/18/1999
222 and are impermissible because they violate the First and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution. It is seductive for us to view this as just another case of reviewing agency action. This case is a harbinger of difficulties encountered in this age of exploding information. Administrative interpretation is at the heart of our responsibility. Which was enacted as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. At issue here are the FCC's regulations clarifying the privacy requirements for CPNI.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
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
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Appellant in this action is a sophomore at Poway High School who was ordered not to wear a T shirt to school that read.
|
|
00-1040 -- WELLS V. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER -- 07/02/2001
The East Steps
|
|
ESTATE OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., INC. V. CBS, INC. (11/5/1999, NO. 98-9079)
Martin Luther King's famous
|
|
ESTATE OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., INC. V. CBS, INC. (11/5/1999, NO. 98-9079)
Martin Luther King's famous
|
|
GARDETO V. MASON
Gardetto claims that the district court committed reversible error by submitting the question of whether her speech was entitled to First Amendment protection to the jury rather than deciding the issue as a matter of law. Gardetto was responsible for developing programs designed to support and provide guidance to adult students. (4) her criticism of Mason for holding himself out as a
|
|
ACTION CHILD TV V. FCC
|
|
96-4191A -- SUMMUM V. CALLAGHAN -- 11/28/1997
In the first line of the slip opinion there is a typographical error. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
|
|
96-4191 -- SUMMUM V. CALLAGHAN -- 11/28/1997
We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Rasheeda Kambra Jones applied for and was denied Supplemental Security Income benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. The denial was based on The Hon. Jones was not disabled because. She did not have the kind of additional impairment necessary to qualify her for the listing claimed. We hold that the Commissioner's decision was not supported by substantial evidence. I. This Court reviews a decision by an ALJ
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With whom Hardy Wood Tabor & Chudacoff was on brief. The House's head doorkeeper.1 The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of House Rule 45 a rule that purports to ban both lobbyists and lobbying from the floor of the House while the House is in session on its face and as applied. Among them was Rule 45 (the full text of which is reproduced in the appendix). Rule 45 banishes all lobbyists from the floor of the House (and the House lounge) while the House is in session. The rule permits members of the public to be on the House floor while the House is in session. The legislator plaintiffs have not appealed and. Government officials who lobby are given considerably more leeway. Are otherwise exempt from the Act's provisions. Neither elected officials nor other public employees are required to wear identification badges. The House provided two galleries overlooking the chamber which were accessible to all members of the public.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
J.) finding in favor of plaintiffappellee as to whether the speech at issue is a matter of public concern. Whether defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. 1 Affirmed. Hynes under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that his demotion within and later firing from the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office was in unlawful retaliation for his exercise of his rights under the First Amendment. The jury returned a special verdict finding that: (1) Reuland had not shown that one of his motives was to address a matter of public concern. (2) Reuland had shown that his statement to New York magazine was a substantial or motivating factor in Hynes's decision to demote him. (3) Hynes had not shown that he would have demoted Reuland in any event because Hynes believed Reuland lied to him. (4) Reuland had not shown that his speech was a substantial or motiviating factor in his termination. Judge Gleeson ruled that the speaker's motive is not dispositive in determining whether speech is a matter of public concern and that Reuland's statement to New York magazine regarding the crime rate in Brooklyn is a matter of public concern.
|
|
SANJOUR WILLIAM V. EPA
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is either a mascot or a symbol of the university. Southern Illinois (Salukis) have nicknames that would make any list of ones that are pretty cool. Small schools in this circuit are no slouches in the cool nickname department. One would have a hard time beating the Hustlin' Quakers of Earlham College (Richmond. Most schools have mundane nicknames. How can one feel unique when your school's nickname is Tigers (43 different colleges or universities). Are pretty generic and pretty boring. There are a few princes. The Judges (we are particularly partial to this one) of Brandeis University. Or the Vixens (will this nickname be changed if the school goes coed?) of Sweet Briar College in Virginia? As wonderful as all these are. One thing is fairly clear although most are not at all controversial. Some are. Even the Banana Slug was born out of controversy. For many 2 3 What in the world is a
|
|
ISKCON OF POTOMAC V. RIDENOUR JAMES M.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Farhat raises four issues on appeal: (1) he was discharged in retaliation for exercise of his First Amendment rights. (2) he was denied due process when the school board refused to grant a post termination hearing in which he could deal directly with the board. (3) an order not to speak to other employees was an invalid prior restraint on his speech. (4) Appellee Hood is liable under a conspiracy theory for The Honorable William O. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Appellant Kenneth Farhat was employed as a custodian by the Troy School District for approximately 15 years. He was discharged on September 18. A fellow custodian who is also a union representative. Appellant's employment history is significant and factors into the asserted justification for the actions of the school district. All of Appellant's responses contained primarily personal opinions and conclusions that were directed against specific individuals with whom he had had a disagreement. The context of such epithets will be addressed later in this opinion in greater detail.
|
|
STANLEY V. CITY OF DALTON (7/26/2000, NO. 99-10593)
Stanley was a Lieutenant in the Narcotics Unit and Chadwick was Deputy Chief in charge of the evidence room. Gene Slade was Chief. A. Stanley testified that he gave the GBI his
|
|
STANLEY V. CITY OF DALTON (7/26/2000, NO. 99-10593)
Stanley was a Lieutenant in the Narcotics Unit and Chadwick was Deputy Chief in charge of the evidence room. Gene Slade was Chief. A. Stanley testified that he gave the GBI his
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Stanley was a Lieutenant in the Narcotics Unit and Chadwick was Deputy Chief in charge of the evidence room. Gene Slade was Chief. Stanley testified that he gave the GBI his
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The district court found that the University's campus was a nonpublic forum and that all the challenged restrictions on speech were reasonable. I. Gary Bowman is a professing Christian who engages in street preaching about his religious beliefs and convictions as a tenet of his faith. Bowman considers the University a uniquely suitable place to communicate his message because of its close proximity to his residence in Oklahoma and the significant number of students that can be found in outdoor areas. 2 The University is the flagship campus of the University of Arkansas System. Bowman is classified as a Non University Entity.2 The Policy places a five day cap per semester per entity on the use of facilities and outdoor space by Non University Entities. A reservation is required regardless of the use that will be made of the space. The Policy further prohibits the use of space by Non University Entities during so called Use of indoor space is governed by individual use policies which are not at issue in this case.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Robert Ramirez is the chief of the Bureau. Sullivan is a management technician in the Training and Education Section. Her immediate supervisor was Sandy Ferega. Blanco is a budget administrator in the Support Services Section. 1 her immediate supervisor was Doug Cunningham. An anonymous letter was directed to the Governor's chief of staff. Blanco sent the 1 2 Doug Cunningham is the son of Richard Cunningham. The matter was referred to the Illinois State Police in March of 1999. He also told employees that he was unhappy with the anonymous letter. That the Bureau had an official timekeeper and that no one else was to keep time. Blanco alleged that time abuse was occurring. The police ultimately concluded that the allegations of time abuse against Richard Cunningham were unsubstantiated. Sullivan testified that she kept time because she wanted to protect herself if she were accused of time abuse. Ramirez unfairly had allowed some to take late lunches or to arrive late and that the police had implied that she should have documentation.
|
|
OLADEINDE V. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM (10/16/2000, NO. 98-6665)
The Rule 50 motions were filed by Chief Deutsch and Captain Walker following the jury's verdict awarding damages to the plaintiffs. that the evidence produced at trial demonstrated that the action should have been dismissed pursuant to the defense of qualified immunity. The City maintains that the injunctive relief ordered by the district court was contrary to the jury's factual findings in its special verdict.
|
|
OLADEINDE V. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM (10/16/2000, NO. 98-6665)
The Rule 50 motions were filed by Chief Deutsch and Captain Walker following the jury's verdict awarding damages to the plaintiffs. that the evidence produced at trial demonstrated that the action should have been dismissed pursuant to the defense of qualified immunity. The City maintains that the injunctive relief ordered by the district court was contrary to the jury's factual findings in its special verdict.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Which made a notable ruling that defendant appellant Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The district court held that enforcement of section 211 a is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. We reverse the grant of summary judgment because we conclude that there are disputed issues of fact. The legislature hereby finds and declares that sound fiscal management requires vigilance to ensure that funds appropriated by the legislature for the purchase of goods and provision of needed services are ultimately expended solely for the purpose for which they were appropriated. The legislature finds and declares that when public funds are appropriated for the purchase of specific goods and/or the provision of needed services. Those funds are instead used to encourage or discourage union organization. The proprietary interests of this state are adversely affected. Which should be utilized solely for the public purpose for which they were appropriated. 2. Or (c) hire employees or pay the salary and other compensation of employees whose principal job duties are to encourage or discourage union organization.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: This appeal gives added credence to the ancient adage that the bearer of bad news has a losing office.1 Such is literally true in this case if plaintiff's allegations are accepted. Cioffi (plaintiff or appellant) claims his job as athletic director/director of physical education was abolished by his employer defendant Averill Park Central School District in retaliation for statements he made about a hazing incident involving high school football players. Holding that Cioffi's statements were not constitutionally protected speech and. Even if they were. The district court also held that defendants McGreevy and Johnson could not be sued in their individual capacities because they were entitled to legislative immunity. BACKGROUND From 1981 to 1999 Cioffi was a part time social studies teacher and part time athletic director for the Averill Park Central School District. Cioffi believed Earl was improperly supervising the players and that he was encouraging the high school athletes to use creatine.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Price and Warren present two principal issues for review: (1) whether the activities they engaged in were protected by the Petition Clause. (2) whether their speech is protected after the Supreme Court's decision in Garcetti v. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court. The unit to which Price and Warren were assigned as instructors during the time period relevant to this case. Price and Warren were long term members of the DSP at 4 the time of the events giving rise to this case. Sergeant Christopher Foraker was the Section Chief of the FTU from August 1. At which point he was moved to another unit. Were specifically concerned with health and safety issues there. The bullet trap was malfunctioning. Officers and students at the range were suffering the physical manifestations of contamination. Warren explained that their objective was to limit their exposure to lead and other unsafe metals. Foraker were not permitted to speak to the press without the approval of superior officers. They were ordered to submit to a hearing examination to determine whether they were fit for duty.
|
|
01-4111 -- FIRST UNITARIAN CHURCH OF SALT LAKE CITY V. SALT LAKE CITY CORP. -- 10/09/2002
We reverse and remand.
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
Do not constitutionally have the complete freedom of action enjoyed by a private employer.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Kolatski and Morales were reassigned to street patrol duties after informing an Assistant District Attorney about allegations that Police Chief Arthur Jones and Deputy Chief Monica Ray had harbored the Deputy Chief 's brother. Who was wanted on felony warrants. Was altering his property to make it suitable for selling drugs. The landlord informed Liebrecht that he knew Vincent Ray was Deputy Chief Ray's brother because of his rental application. She confirmed that Vincent Ray was her brother and that he was a heroin addict. Morales ran a warrants check on Vincent Ray and discovered that he was wanted on two felony warrants. The landlord called Morales and told him that Ray was working on his car around the 3000 block of West Burleigh Street. Link was executing a search warrant in another investigation. Who was a friend of Deputy Chief Ray. Mullarkey told the detectives that two weeks earlier he delivered food to Deputy Chief Ray's house and that Chief Jones was there when a man came out of a back room. He would have been worried that the man might rob him.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: We are called upon to decide whether the University of Montana may impose a dollar limit on what a student may spend on his campaign for student office. That is. When Aaron Flint was a student at the University of Montana. Flint was denied a seat as ASUM Senator. The precise question before us is this: Does the Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibit a public university from imposing a $100 expenditure limit on candidates running for a position in student government? The University of Montana is a public university under the Montana Constitution. It is administered through a Board of Regents. ASUM is the student government at the University of Montana. ASUM is a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: The question before us is whether a state's exercise of its sovereign power to control the use of its funds conflicts with national labor policy as expressed in the National Labor Relations Act (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This action was brought in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Albert Burnham and Ronald Marchese. Plaintiffs sought a declaration that Ianni's actions were unconstitutional. I. Background The underlying facts of this case are generally not in dispute. at 397. Which are at the The Kohns center of this dispute. Were originally part of a visual exhibit conceived of and created by the Kohns while they were students at UMD. faculty advisor. convey to were both members of the UMD history club. For which Burnham was the The Kohns' objective in displaying the exhibit was to the history faculty's diverse interests. The photographs were then juxtaposed with written descriptions of the subject's academic background. Approximately one year before the photographs of Burnham and Marchese were removed from the display case. Sandra Featherman was appointed to the post of UMD vice chancellor. Was circulated through the UMD system and distributed on and around campus. memorandum referred to the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Have since dismissed their claims. 1 17676 ACLU v. The ordinances that are the focus of Plaintiffs' complaint were adopted as part of the City's effort to revitalize the downtown area of Las Vegas: In the early 1990s. Downtown Las Vegas was suffering from an economic downturn. The area was seen as sleazy and unsafe. Downtown casinos were unable to compete with the glitzy Las Vegas Strip. Key economic factors showed that the area was in decline. Were closed off to automotive traffic. The street and sidewalk were torn up. Various underground infrastructure eleFSELLC is a private company charged with operating the Fremont Street Experience in downtown Las Vegas. The Fremont Street Experience is described in detail below. 2 ACLU v. CITY OF LAS VEGAS 17677 ments were installed. The street was decoratively repaved as one large promenade. As the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Violate the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to define clearly when and how much use of nonEnglish will expose educators to personal liability. Plaintiffs request this Court to declare that section 320 is unconstitutionally vague on its face. Is sufficiently clear to withstand Plaintiffs' facial vagueness challenge.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is amended by adding a footnote 4 after the first sentence of the second full paragraph on page 893 of the opinion. Footnote 4 should read as follows: We are aware that California allows federal courts to certify questions of state law to the California Supreme Court. The numbers of all subsequent footnotes are changed accordingly. Violate the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to define clearly when and how much use of nonEnglish will expose educators to personal liability. Plaintiffs request this Court to declare that section 320 is unconstitutionally vague on its face. Is sufficiently clear to withstand Plaintiffs' facial vagueness challenge.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is amended by adding a footnote 4 after the first sentence of the second full paragraph on page 893 of the opinion. Footnote 4 should read as follows: We are aware that California allows federal courts to certify questions of state law to the California Supreme Court. The numbers of all subsequent footnotes are changed accordingly. Violate the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to define clearly when and how much use of nonEnglish will expose educators to personal liability. Plaintiffs request this Court to declare that section 320 is unconstitutionally vague on its face. Is sufficiently clear to withstand Plaintiffs' facial vagueness challenge.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Violate the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to define clearly when and how much use of nonEnglish will expose educators to personal liability. Plaintiffs request this Court to declare that section 320 is unconstitutionally vague on its face. Is sufficiently clear to withstand Plaintiffs' facial vagueness challenge.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
At issue is whether a permanent injunction barring defendant Thurston Paul Bell from promoting and selling unlawful tax advice is permissible under the First Amendment. We will affirm the injunction with modifications. 2 I. Thurston Paul Bell is a professional tax protester who ran a business and a website selling bogus strategies to clients endeavoring to avoid paying taxes. An entity dedicated to the proposition that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Correctional officer Nancy Spiegla's shift schedule and post assignment were changed four days after she had a conversation with the Assistant Superintendent of Westville Correctional Facility (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
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
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The jury found certain instances of Bailey's speech were motivating factors in DESE's decision to terminate Bailey's contract. Holding Bailey's speech was not protected under the First Amendment. Even if it were. Bailey's termination was justified based on the balancing test enunciated in Pickering v. I. BACKGROUND Bailey is a psychologist who was under contract with DESE to provide consultation services for DESE's Social Security Disability Determinations Unit (DDU). DESE was permitted to use Speech and Language Pathologists (SLPs) to help assess speech and language pathologies in child benefits cases. It was common for both an SLP and a mental health consultant to review the same file for separate consideration. The goal was that the allowance rate under the The Honorable Ortrie D. Were being awarded benefits to which they were not entitled. Others testified Bailey's position was a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were Amy Berman Jackson and Gloria B. Zener were on the brief for amici curiae Thomas S. Were on the brief as amici curiae in support of appellant. Dietz were on the brief for amicus curiae Abner J. Poe was on the brief for amici curiae Stanley M. With him on the brief were Jeffrey A. Weismann were on the brief for amicus curiae Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington supporting affirmance. Barber were on the brief for amicus curiae Washington Legal Foundation in support of appellee and urging affirmance. Di Liberto were on the brief for amicus curiae Judicial Watch. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from the denial of a motion. The question on appeal is whether the procedures under which the search was conducted were sufficiently protective of the legislative privilege created by the Speech or Debate Clause. The review of the Congressman's paper files when the search was executed exposed legislative material to the Executive and accordingly violated the Clause. Depends upon a determination of which documents are privileged and then.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: This is a First Amendment student speech case. Students were released from school so that they could FREDERICK v. It was sustained. There was disorder at the torch passing. The uncontradicted evidence is that it had nothing to do with Frederick and his fellow sign holders. So it could not have been caused by it. There was some pro drug graffiti in the high school which the principal thought was
|
|
96-6134 -- CURTIS V. OKLAHOMA CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION -- 06/16/1998
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Who was a secretary at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for a short time in 1972. During several public appearances and on a world wide web site Liddy stated that the burglars' objective during the Watergate break in was to determine whether the Democrats possessed information embarrassing to John Dean.1 More specifically. Liddy asserted that the burglars were seeking a compromising photograph of Dean's fiance that was located in Wells's desk among several photographs that were used to offer prostitution services to outof town guests. The district court determined that Wells was an involuntary public figure who could not prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. Because we determine that Wells is not a public figure for purposes of the ongoing public debate regarding Watergate and we also conclude that Louisiana law does not apply to two of Wells's defamation counts. We reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1 John Dean was legal counsel to President Richard M.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Who are also white. Robb mentioned that there was also a black cat that had disappeared. He told Campbell that the black cat was his
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The Dibles assert that Ronald Dible was a police officer whose rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution were violated when he was terminated for participating in (performing in. Was running a website featuring sexually explicit photographs and videos of his wife. It was as simple as that. A fee was required. He was free to view the website's sexually explicit photographs and videos. The purpose of the bar meets was to have fans of the website meet Megan Dible. Were open to the public. Attendees were free to take photographs. Some of whom were partially nude. The Dibles' photographs from the bar meets were compiled on a CD ROM and were then sold through their website. After establishing that he was. The press reported that the website was run by the Dibles and that he was employed as a city police officer. The result of that publicity was disquieting to say the least. Testified that she was called a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Goldstein alleges that he was suspended and later terminated from Chestnut Ridge based on the substance of his speech. We must first determine whether Chestnut Ridge's decisions to suspend and to terminate him were under color of law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Is a state actor. We do so because Chestnut Ridge is: (1) carrying out functions. Chestnut Ridge is a state actor whose actions must comport with the First Amendment.1 However. Which is protected speech. Goldstein cannot establish that his protected speech was a substantial factor in Chestnut Ridge's decisions to take adverse employment actions against him. Goldstein was suspended from the company on March 15. His suspension was upheld by a vote of the Executive Committee. Goldstein was terminated from the company. Holding that Chestnut Ridge is a state actor for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.2 See Goldstein v. Summary judgment is appropriate only
|
|
ADLER V. DUVAL COUNTY SCH. BD. (5/11/1999, NO. 98-2709)
Challenge the Duval County school system's policy of permitting graduating students to vote on whether to have unrestricted student led messages at the beginning and closing of graduation ceremonies as facially and as applied violative of the Establishment Clause.
|
|
ADLER V. DUVAL COUNTY SCH. BD. (5/11/1999, NO. 98-2709)
Challenge the Duval County school system's policy of permitting graduating students to vote on whether to have unrestricted student led messages at the beginning and closing of graduation ceremonies as facially and as applied violative of the Establishment Clause.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
P.C. were on brief. Burling were on brief. Flom LLP were on brief. Was on brief. Were on brief. Chief Judge.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We are called upon to assess whether various officials of Albany County violated the First Amendment rights of a corrections officer by retaliating against him on the basis of his speech. Hoyt was granted a fulltime leave to fulfill his union responsibilities. Administrative proceedings or other labor matters in which Albany County is a party.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
That the district court's dismissal of this claim was inappropriate. I. Plaintiff was employed by the Pauline Warfield Lewis Center (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Appeals the district court's decision granting Defendants Appellants' (Defendants) motion for summary judgment on Van Compernolle's claim that his discharge was in retaliation for engaging in union related speech protected by the First The Honorable Lawrence P. By all accounts Van Compernolle was an excellent patrol officer. Van Compernolle was active with his union and served as union president. The officers were responsible for keeping track of their work hours on biweekly time sheets. The officers would often submit their time sheets for review on the same morning they were due in the finance department. Was active in his union. These issues were not resolved during the negotiations. Were settled prior to arbitration in 2003. Comp time was more difficult from a management perspective than simply paying overtime wages. Chief Olney felt it should be limited because overtime pay was a more effective use of the department's funds. Van Compernolle was disciplined for submitting inaccurate time sheets on four occasions between September 16.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. BACKGROUND Sexton and Kistler are former Public Safety Officers for the DPS. Immediately below Martin in the department hierarchy were William Bridges and Keith Krumm. The DPS was originally located at 1019 North Ballas Road in the City of Des Peres (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Both these ordinances and Santa Monica's administrative interpretation of them have changed substantially. Appellants' persistent urging and Santa Monica's willingness to change its regulations have together produced a transformation in the applicable permitting scheme that to the credit of all par SANTA MONICA FOOD v. We hold that Santa Monica's Community Events Ordinance is. Is not constitutionally sound and cannot be enforced. The facial challenges to other ordinances either are moot or fail on the merits. We are not to be understood as having reviewed or approved aspects of the ordinances or implementing regulations not here challenged. We have endeavored throughout to be quite specific about the limited nature of the challenges to which we respond. 2 Santa Monica has requested that we take judicial notice of six documents: Staff Report. Santa Monica submits that each document is a certified public record. The first four documents are on file with the City Clerk of the City of Santa Monica. The remainder can be accessed at Santa Monica's official website found at www.santa monica.org/ccs/events and are on file with the Open Space Management Division of the Community and Cultural Services Department of the City of Santa Monica.
|
|
03-1429 -- MAINSTREAM MARKETING SERVICES INC. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION -- 02/17/2004
The primary issue in this case is whether the First Amendment prevents the government from establishing an opt in telemarketing regulation that provides a mechanism for consumers to restrict commercial sales calls but does not provide a similar mechanism to limit charitable or political calls.
|
|
PATRICK J. GRIFFIN V. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Argued for respondent.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
That the First Amendment was not violated because the advertising space at issue did not constitute a public forum and because SEPTA acted reasonably in removing the posters. We have determined that SEPTA intended to create a designated public forum. I. Background SEPTA is an
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
McVey was fired as manager of the Virginia Highlands Airport in Abingdon. Claiming that her termination was in retaliation for her exercise of her First Amendment rights. I The relevant facts alleged in the complaint are taken to be true for purposes of this appeal of an order dismissing the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). McVey was hired in 1985 by the Virginia Highlands Airport Commission a commission consisting of eight commissioners and was appointed Airport Manager of the Virginia Highlands Airport in 1989. 3 successful improvements were made to the airport for which she and the airport received
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: At issue in this appeal is a Kentucky statute imposing reporting requirements upon broadcast media that sell advertising time to Kentucky gubernatorial candidates. We are presented with the question of whether the Kentucky reporting requirements may be applied to the West Virginia Broadcasters within the constraints of the Due Process Clause of the Four2 teenth Amendment and the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Kentucky will match two dollars for every one dollar in private donations raised by a qualifying slate of candidates. Are required to report all expenditures and contributions to the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance (the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Weston was on the briefs. Were on the briefs. Were also on the briefs. A sexually oriented business is an
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
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
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
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
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: The pivotal question in this case is whether a city may. Between Tucson and recipients of Civic Events Fund support is such that Tucson was correct in concluding that the requested funding would have fallen on the Establishment Clause side of that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
District Judge: This matter is before the Court on the Defendants' appeal of the Western District of Virginia's grant of Summary Judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs. At issue is the constitutionality of Va. The District Court's ruling granting summary judgment and striking down the statute is AFFIRMED. Plaintiffs' speech is accessible both within and outWe do not recite here the specifics of how the Internet functions. We note that the general contours of the Internet have been described in various other judicial opinions. Plaintiffs facially challenged the constitutionality of section 18.2 391 and were granted a permanent injunction by the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia enjoining the enforcement of the statute. Of commercial materials that are harmful to juveniles. Several plaintiffs brought suit challenging the 1985 amendment as facially unconstitutional on the grounds that it was impermissibly vague and violated the First Amendment. The statute was eventually upheld by the Fourth Circuit in light of a narrowing construction accorded to the statute by the Supreme Court of Virginia.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: The pivotal question in this case is whether a city may. Between Tucson and recipients of Civic Events Fund support is such that Tucson was correct in concluding that the requested funding would have fallen on the Establishment Clause side of that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
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:
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The sole issue remaining was whether the mandatory fee system 2 No. 01 1912 unconstitutionally granted the student government unbridled discretion for deciding which student organizations to fund. This is the fourth time it is before us. Relevant facts are repeated. The interested reader is referred to our prior opinions. These allocable fees were distributed to various Registered Student Organizations (
|
|
00-4058 -- UTAH LICENSED BEVERAGE ASSOCIATION V. LEAVITT -- 07/24/2001
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Inc. (
|
|
99-3355 -- RUPP V. PHILLIPS -- 07/23/2001
District Judge.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was not appointed to the new position as the Director of Schools for the county system following the publication of a newspaper article which announced that he would be the featured speaker at a convention sponsored by a church with a predominantly homosexual congregation. Scarbrough was elected superintendent of Morgan County Schools. Five candidates were selected by the TSBA for the Board's consideration. Were among these five candidates. Scarbrough was unaware at the time that Metro had a predominantly gay and lesbian congregation. Ultimately he was unable to accept the invitation and so declined. The article further stated that Metro was a predominantly gay and lesbian Christian church. Randy Harlan became concerned that Scarbrough was putting the school's
|
|
01-1356 -- ARNDT V. KOBY -- 10/31/2002
Which we affirm. BACKGROUND Six year old JonBenet Ramsey was murdered inside her home in Boulder. Was one of the first officers to arrive at the crime scene. Was the only officer present when the child's body was found. Arndt was involved in the murder investigation until she was removed from the case in May 1997 by defendant Thomas Koby. Then the Boulder Police Chief. While she was involved in the investigation. Arndt and other officers involved in the Ramsey murder investigation were widely criticized in the media. She asserts that these criticisms were false and harmed her reputation. The letter stated that: [N]o one within the Department has made any effort of which we are aware to stand behind Linda publicly. By a continuous series of statements about one thing or another that she supposedly did that are simply false. Def.'s Ex. Based on the fact that she was prevented by the gag order from publicly responding to the allegedly false and harmful media statements about her.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
At issue is whether the First Amendment precludes imposition of civil damages for the disclosure of portions of a tape recording of an intercepted telephone conversation containing information of public significance when the defendants. Wyoming Valley West School District was in contract negotiations with the Wyoming Valley West School District Teachers' Union (the
|
|
97-6367 -- HORSTKOETTER V. DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY -- 10/28/1998
Even if the signs were placed there by members' spouses. The Horstkoetter property is owned by L.D. and Paula Horstkoetter in joint tenancy. The Dean property is titled in the name of Jeff Dean only. Several days after the wives placed the signs in the yards. To check the homes of other troopers to see whether any campaign signs were visible in members' yards. Members shall not display any partisan political sticker or sign on motor vehicles operated by them or under their control and shall not publicly display any partisan political stickers or signs at their residences. Oklahoma Highway Patrol General Policy Order 78 52 2.16(d) (emphasis added). After Grimes learned that there were signs at the Horstkoetter and Dean residences. Horstkoetter and Dean called their wives and explained that their jobs would be put in jeopardy if the signs were not removed. Horstkoetter was married to a patrolman. Certain restrictions were therefore placed on the residential property. As well as a declaration stating that the policy of the Oklahoma Highway Patrol is unconstitutional.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief. Duncan were on brief. Circuit Judge.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I. The undisputed facts of this case are these. (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
His claim that the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Remmel & Zimmerman were on brief for plaintiffs. Were on brief for defendant. Agency or association.1 Violations of the Act are declared to contravene the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act. Is intended to tangibly benefit or is represented to be for the tangible benefit of any law enforcement officer. Chamberlain all of whom are officers of law enforcement associations. Seeking to enjoin the Act and to have it declared unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. While declaring that the provision for injunctive enforcement was an unconstitutional prior restraint. As the Act was originally enacted in 1977. Its sole exception was for solicitations by or on behalf of law enforcement officers campaigning for election to public office an exception still in existence. The Act was amended to allow game wardens to sell historical publications describing state parks.3 Me. Is intended to benefit or is represented to be for the benefit of any law enforcement officer.
|
|
BOEHNER, JOHN A. V. MCDERMOTT, JAMES A.
With him on the briefs was R. With him on the briefs were Frank W. Assistant Attorney Gener al at the time the briefs were filed. With him on the brief were Christopher Landau and Daryl Joseffer. Theodore J. With him on the brief were Seth M.M. If the person knew it was illegally intercepted. Is it part of
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Union's fire and emergency services (along with those of other neighboring communities) were provided by the neighboring township of Randolph. The resolution establishing a Union fire department was challenged by the plaintiffs via a ballot initiative requiring a referendum. The referendum was preceded by a lively campaign in which the plaintiffs organized a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The printer was not willing to take the risk that it would not be paid (the paper relies on student activity funds). No. 01 4155 3 the editorial staff was unwilling to submit to prior review. Have continued the debate in court. The district court thought that decision limited to papers published by high school students as part of course work and inapplicable to student newspapers edited by college students as extracurricular activities and the judge added that these distinctions are so clearly established that no reasonable person in Carter's position could have thought herself entitled to pull the plug on the Innovator. The threshold question is:
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was R. With him on the briefs were Frank W. Assistant Attorney Gener al at the time the briefs were filed. With him on the brief were Christopher Landau and Daryl Joseffer. With him on the brief were Seth M.M. If the person knew it was illegally intercepted. Is it part of
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Officer Taylor called for emergency assistance and was accidentally sprayed with pepper spray. Shortly after Longmire was subdued. Who was covering for Sergeant Roger White. Sergeant Taylor was informed that Longmire resisted arrest. Longmire was later advised about the procedure for filing a complaint. Taylor's report stated that he could not explain how Longmire's head injury occurred since Longmire was not bleeding when he was left in Szczepanowski's custody. The investigation was closed. They felt that there may have been a problem with Szczepanowski and decided to conduct their own investigation. Szczepanowski was not interviewed. Because he was on medical leave due to injuries sustained in connection with an arrest made on December 17 wherein he broke the suspect's leg. Sergeant Taylor testified that he told Lieutenant Catlett: [S]ince you are a lieutenant. If this boy does have a problem. To get him moved or to get him out of the area he was in. He was working in a high crime area and the impression that I got was that he needed to be moved. . . .
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
I The University of Colorado is comprised of four campuses. One of which is the Health Sciences Center. One of which is the School of Medicine. Was appointed Professor of Medicine in the School of Medicine on or about July 1. He received continuous tenure and was subsequently appointed Head of the Renal Division of the Department of Medicine. The doctor was appointed Chair of the Department of Medicine. Department Chairs are responsible for the organization of their department and for implementing policies initiated by the Chancellor and Dean of their respective units. It is undisputed that the possibility of the transition of the Health Sciences Center from its Ninth Avenue location to Fitzsimons was the subject of extensive debate within the University community. He also maintains that his concerns about whether and how the Health Sciences Center should be migrated to the Fitzsimons site have evolved over time. The University maintains that Dean Krugman was not required to consult with faculty before dismissing Dr.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Something is rotten in the Village of Alsip. The Alsip Chief of Police is Kenneth Wood. David Snooks is the department's Field Operations Commander. At the time this suit was filed. They attempted to remove him from his post on the ground that he was unfit for duty. The events overlap in time and we will describe them separately for clarity. We credit McGreal's version of the facts because he is the party opposing judgment. He was on routine patrol late one night in June 1995 when he noticed a number of cars in the parking lot of the Alsip Elk's Club in apparent violation of the local closing time ordinance. The machines themselves are not illegal but using them to gamble is No. 02 3405 3 prohibited. The video poker machines were owned by a company called
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is hereby ordered amended as follows: Slip Op. at 1627: Delete the paragraph beginning with
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: 1. Patterson was killed by anyone connected with the posters bearing their names. Patterson's murder may have been unrelated to abortion: He was killed in what may have been a robbery attempt five months after his poster was issued. The crime is unsolved and plaintiffs' counsel conceded that no evidence ties his murderer to any anti abortion group. Who is not a defendant in this case participated in the preparation of the poster depicting a physician. After: The activities for which the district court held defendants liable were unquestionably of a political nature. Add: There is no allegation that any of the posters in this case disclosed private information improperly obtained. We must therefore assume that the information in the posters was obtained from public sources. All defendants did was reproduce this public information in a format designed to convey a political viewpoint and to achieve political goals. 5. The joint petition for rehearing en banc before the full court is DENIED.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Accusations he claims were constitutionally protected speech. Taylor and the City moved for summary judgment which was denied. Taylor appeals arguing the district court1 erred in finding she was not entitled to qualified immunity. I The facts viewed most favorably to Lindsey are as follows. As part of his position he was required to attend Council meetings to report about public works issues. Taylor was Lindsey's supervisor. The City is governed by both the mayor and a three member. Lindsey became convinced the City was violating the open meetings law by improperly entering into non public executive sessions and passing city ordinances without public discussion. Lindsey contends he met with then Council member Tom Shrier who warned Lindsey the other Council members were mad at him for raising the sunshine law issue and told him
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Plaintiffs brought suit in federal court after they were dismissed from their high school football team. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' dismissal was permissible under the rule governing student speech set forth in Tinker v. Dillon Spurlock (hereinafter
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is hereby ordered amended as follows: Slip Op. at 1627: Delete the paragraph beginning with
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Prince's club was recognized only as a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was on brief.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
One of the prerequisites for obtaining a concealed handgun permit under the North Carolina Concealed Handgun Statute is completion of
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
He was indicted and convicted of securities fraud under Section 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933. For failing to inform readers of The Next SuperStock newsletter that he was selling his shares in the companies he had been recommending they buy. He was convicted under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. (2) Section 17(b) is unconstitutionally vague. (3) his convictions were against the weight of the evidence presented at trial. Wenger and the SEC entered into a consent decree that stipulated he would disclose the full value of any consideration he was receiving from any issuer about which Penny Stock News was giving advice. According to which Wenger would first state on the air that he was a paid consultant to some of the companies mentioned. The letter then stated that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The court decided that the section was a content neutral ordinance leaving open to the plaintiff ample alternative channels of communication and that it therefore did not violate either the First or Fourteenth Amendments. We conclude that although the standards employed by Chapter 64 are constitutionally permissible. The procedures it employs to effect them are not. Is a resident of the Architectural and Historic District (the
|
|
01-1202 -- BASS V. RICHARDS -- 08/14/2002
Evans are police officials of Archuleta County. BACKGROUND Pagosa Lakes Property Owners Association (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Plaintiffs allege in their complaint and amended complaint that they were transferred from Atkinson to another elementary school in the same district in retaliation for exercising their First Amendment rights and that the last minute hearing violated their right to due process. We now REVERSE the district court's grant of summary judgment to Defendant on Plaintiffs' First Amendment claims because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Plaintiffs' transfers were in retaliation for their protected speech. Factual History Plaintiffs were school teachers at Atkinson. Stating that they were neither dedicated leaders nor supportive of the administration. That they resisted positive change.1 Exacerbating Atkinson's academic woes were its divisive faculty and its glaring student discipline problem. Because the Atkinson faculty was not cohesive. Too many academic decisions were made individually rather than collectively as an institution. Were vocal in their complaints about discipline2 and took action by compiling signatures on a petition that proposed changes to Atkinson's discipline policies.3 Under Principal LaDita Howard's (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The court decided that the section was a content neutral ordinance leaving open to the plaintiff ample alternative channels of communication and that it therefore did not violate either the First or Fourteenth Amendments. We conclude that although the standards employed by Chapter 64 are constitutionally permissible. The procedures it employs to effect them are not. Is a resident of the Architectural and Historic District (the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Finding that Child Evangelism was likely to succeed in showing that Stafford was engaging in viewpoint discrimination and that this discrimination was not required by the Establishment Clause. The principal is authorized to duplicate scheduled memos and send the m home with the children. The following non profit organizations are permitted to distribute 3 See
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Are unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The results of which were similar to those in the other studies. The incidence of major crimes in surrounding areas was 23 percent The Honorable Michael J. Property turnover was substantially higher. Convinced the staff that the downtown area in Minneapolis was best able to
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Berman were on brief for appellant. Goldberg was on brief for appellees. We are asked in this appeal to sort out the constitutional principles at play when a municipality. This is a case of deja vu. 878 F.2d at 513 n.1: An onsite sign carries a message that bears some relationship to the activities conducted on the premises where the sign is located. The onsite/offsite distinction is not a distinction between signs attached to buildings and free standing signs. Or service it advertises is not available at the sign's 2 appreciation for the difficulties faced by municipalities in this complicated area. I. Factual Background Plaintiff Ackerley Communications is a Massachusetts billboard company that has operated an outdoor advertising business for more than 100 years. Such differential protection is location. It is classified as offsite. If a sign advertising the products available at Joe's Hardware is located atop the Parise Cafe building. Joe's sign is offsite. The signs required to be removed are those on rooftops.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The school authorities have offered no lawful justification for banning Harper's t shirt and the district court should therefore have enjoined them from doing so pending the outcome of this case. The district court should have enjoined the policy as well. Which is governed by Hazelwood School District v. It is governed by Bethel School District No. 403 v. All other speech falls into the third category and is governed by Tinker v. Harper's t shirt was clearly not school sponsored. It was a closer question whether Harper's t shirt involved plainly offensive speech. Explaining that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Argued for appellants.
|
|
00-2276 -- FINN V. STATE OF NEW MEXICO -- 05/11/2001
We AFFIRM.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Jurisdiction in the district court was proper based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. Jurisdiction on appeal is proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. For the legal analysis supporting its decision that the amendment was unconstitutional on Article I. The Missouri Amendment orders members of Missouri's congressional delegation to use their authority to amend the United States Constitution Similar initiatives were on the ballot in thirteen other states in November 1996. Missouri have been invalidated in federal and state courts on various state and federal constitutional grounds. Yet another similar initiative was passed in California in June 1998. (2) failure to second it if a second is lacking. (8) failure to ensure that all votes on term limits are recorded and available to the public. It orders that those who do not take the pledge have the label
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Whose efforts have collided with the City of San Francisco's prerogative under its noise ordinance and permitting scheme to ensure that its citizens are not subject to unreasonably loud speech and music. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Appellants claim that city officials implemented a
|
|
DENNO V. SCH. BD. OF VOLUSIA COUNTY (7/20/2000, NO. 98-2718)
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The case is therefore orderedsubmitted without oral argument.
BALDOCK. Plaintiffs Bennie Maestas and Ray Hort are employees of the City of Albuquerque's Solid Waste Management Department (SWMD). Is responsible for maintenance. SWMD is responsible for developing the specifications for VMD's refuse trucks and equipment. Plaintiffs briefs are devoid ofany issue statement relating to municipal liability or argument as to why municipal liability is appropriate in this instance. Pratt called a second meeting with Maestas and Hort:
|
|
LINDA DENNO V. SCH. BD. OF VOLUSIA COUNTY (7/20/2000, NO. 98-2718)
Was vacated and withdrawn and panel rehearing was ordered.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
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
|
|
99-1519 -- CRAVEN V. UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO HOSPITAL AUTHORITY -- 08/13/2001
The others were tried to a jury. Craven was employed by UH as the Manager of Safety and Risk Management. She was responsible for
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was violating his rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We also hold that the public employer was not required to further accommodate Mr. Berry that its policy was that employees in his position were not allowed to talk about religion with clients and the agencies the employees contacted. He initially thought that he was prohibited from talking about religion from the moment he arrived at work until the moment he left. Berry testified that one day his daughter called him on the phone when she was sick at home and he felt that he was prohibited from praying with his daughter. Was uncomfortable with the restriction and requested to be relieved from it. DEP'T OF SOCIAL SERVICES 4883 a counseling memorandum instructing him to
|
|
DENNO V. SCH. BD. OF VOLUSIA COUNTY (7/20/2000, NO. 98-2718)
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
|
|
LINDA DENNO V. SCH. BD. OF VOLUSIA COUNTY (7/20/2000, NO. 98-2718)
Was vacated and withdrawn and panel rehearing was ordered.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Two officers of the Pocahontas Police Department were fired for misconduct. Although Buazard was not present at the incident which led to the firings. Was present when the officers were fired. For which Buazard was present. Meridith approached Buazard to tell him that some of the information in his statements was false and would need to be changed. He was demoted from Assistant Chief to patrolman and felt ostracized by both Meridith and Patrick. Meridith and Patrick maintain that Buazard was demoted because of poor job performance. Buazard also believes he was not given the same training opportunities as the other Pocahontas police officers and was given menial work. Buazard argues that the actions of Meridith and Patrick were taken in retaliation for Buazard's exercising his right to free speech in refusing to change his statements. The District Court determined that the speech in question was not a matter of public 2 The officers were fired for mistreating a prisoner. 2 concern. Was therefore not protected by the First Amendment.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
He seeks declaratory and injunctive relief on two grounds: (1) that the OMIA is a content based regulation that favors commercial over non commercial speech. (2) that the OMIA vests unbridled discretion in state officials and lacks necessary procedural safeguards.1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A magistrate judge recommended that the action be dismissed because the OMIA equally burdens commercial and noncommercial speech and is not content based. Products or services which are not sold. Manufactured or distributed on or from the premises on which the sign is located. (b) Facilities not located on the premises on which the sign is located. Or (c) Activities not conducted on the premises on which the sign is located. The sign may remain provided a permit is obtained by the owner. The OMIA contains an exemption that permits
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The key issue is whether. Did not resolve it because all but one of the claims for relief in that appeal were rendered moot by a repeal of the challenged ordinance. CAMP was unable to apply for a permit because Atlanta imposed a moratorium on the issuance of permits from November 27. That other provisions were constitutional. (2) whether the challenge by CAMP to the moratorium on festival permits is moot because the moratorium has expired. Our review of these issues involving these parties is familiar territory. We also conclude that the complaint of CAMP regarding the denial of its application for a permit during the moratorium is not moot. A
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We must decide whether a professor at a state university who removes handbills publicizing an appearance of a former colleague at a conference to be held on the university campus is entitled to qualified immunity. The subject of the conference was
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The facts giving rise to this case are not in dispute. Pagan is a resident of the Village of Glendale. He was given a blue 1970 Mercury Cougar as partial payment for his work on a case and hoped to sell it for its $3. A Village police officer noted the sign and informed Pagan that it was illegal pursuant to Village ordinance § 76.06 (hereinafter
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We must decide whether a professor at a state university who removes handbills publicizing an appearance of a former colleague at a conference to be held on the university campus is entitled to qualified immunity. The subject of the conference was
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Manner of speech in a fashion that preserves ample alternative avenues for communication and is supported by the City's substantial aesthetic interests.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
That a) The District's censorship of Antonio's assignment was viewpoint neutral. B) the censorship was justified by legitimate pedagogical concerns. Those claims have been abandoned on appeal. 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 We now affirm the district court's determination that no Establishment Clause violation attended The District's actions. Are recounted in the light most favorable to the Pecks. THE POSTER ASSIGNMENT AND THE SCHOOL RESPONSE During the 1999 2000 school year Antonio was a kindergarten student at the Catherine McNamara Elementary School. Part of the kindergarten curriculum taught by Weichert was a two month environmental unit that. In an assignment in which students in the class were instructed to create a poster showing what they had learned about the environment. An annual event to which parents of the students were invited. We are writing to inform you about our environmental program that we will be presenting to the parents on June 11th. . . . We will plant a tree on the school grounds.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
O'Regan were on brief. Were on brief. We affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs appellants (
|
|
97-6110 -- DILL V. CITY OF EDMOND OKLAHOMA -- 08/28/1998
The claims against Defendants Ben Daves and David Preston were tried before a jury. Vetter and the city were tried before the court. Defendants City of Edmond and Vetter argue that the district court erred by (1) finding that Vetter was a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Bednar
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Published opinion filed 2/10/99 is vacated. Circuit Judge: Six professors employed by various public colleges and universities in Virginia brought this action1 challenging the constitutionality of a Virginia law restricting state employees from accessing sexually explicit material on computers that are owned or leased by the state. III was elected Governor and was substituted as a party. As nudity is defined in § 18.2 390. The Act prohibits state employees from accessing sexually explicit materials only when the employees are using computers that are owned or leased by the Commonwealth and permission to access the material has not been given by the appropriate agency head. 3 Section 18.2 390 provides in pertinent part: (2)
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
He was not in the affected classification. Ulrich received notice that he was being investigated by the hospital for professional incompetence. The hospital refused to accept his recission of resignation and filed an adverse action report against him that leaves the impression that he resigned because he was guilty of the charges brought against him. Ulrich did not have a property right in the position from which he resigned. (2) his protest of layoffs was protected speech under the First Amendment. (3) he set forth sufficient facts demonstrating that allegedly defamatory statements were made in the course of a decision not to rehire him for purposes of establishing a liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and (4) further proceedings are warranted on whether Dr. His own higher pay classification was not affected. Objecting that they were
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Concluding that the school officials' acts were necessary to avoid violating the Establishment Clause. Plaintiff was one of two co salutatorians of the Amador Valley High School class of 1999. He was invited to deliver a speech at the school's graduation ceremony that year. Who is a devout Christian. Coupe and the district's counsel advised Plaintiff that references to God as they related to Plaintiff's own beliefs were permissible. That proselytizing comments were not. The three portions of his speech that the school told him to remove were: I urge you to seek out the Lord. Blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob. Whose hope is in the Lord his God. The Lord lifts up those who are bowed down.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 33 2 1 holding that her speech was not protected by the First Amendment and that appellees were entitled to qualified immunity. We hold appellant's speech was not protected by the First Amendment and therefore do not reach appellant's other arguments. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Many of the facts are not disputed. The Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) is the state agency responsible for implementing the Act and receives funds from the federal government. Dawson Educational Service Cooperative (Dawson) is an
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Negative political advertising is nothing new. Where's my pa?
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Claiming that her discharge was in retaliation for the exercise of her First Amendment rights. Contending that the district court should have granted their motions for judgment as a matter of law or. Because Belk's speech was not protected and because the aldermen were entitled to qualified immunity. Belk was a long time employee of the city of Eldon. She was also. As an at will employee. Who was employed by the city on a contractual basis. Belk and Link worked together without incident until Debra Carpenter was hired by the city in 1995. Rumors began to circulate that Carpenter and Link were having an extramarital affair. Belk saw a bill for health insurance that she believed showed that Carpenter was receiving benefits inappropriate to her employment status. Was rebuffed. She told him (1) that rumors were circulating about Link and Carpenter. (2) that she believed Carpenter was receiving benefits to which she was not entitled. Effectively converting him to an at will employee upon the expiration of the contract.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
File Name: 00a0184p.06 University's affirmative action procedures and occurred while he was acting in his official position and consisted only of a letter and memos addressed to the president and other members of the Board of Trustees (of which plaintiff was a member as Vice President of Human Relations). I think that the University had a significant interest in regulating the speech to make certain that it was presented in the most informative and helpful manner. I believe that in this situation the plaintiff's speech is not entitled to First Amendment protections. Who is African American. Was employed by the University of Cincinnati (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Granted defendants' motion for summary judgment after finding that most of the alleged retaliatory acts were not adverse employment actions because they did not constitute
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
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
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The petition for rehearing is denied. The petition for rehearing en banc is also denied. Concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc: At issue here is a South Carolina statute allowing citizens to opt for specialty license plates bearing the message
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The survey itself was designed to be voluntary and anonymous. Survey results were designed to be and actually were released only in the aggregate with no identifying information. We will affirm. The Parties Plaintiffs are Carol Nunn. We will refer to the student Plaintiffs as
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Their applications were ultimately denied on the basis of an
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Because the activity that Mezibov claims subjected him to retaliation is not a constitutionally protected activity. Even if it were. A criminal defense attorney of ordinary firmness would not have been chilled from 1 No. 03 3973 Mezibov v. BACKGROUND Mezibov is an attorney licensed to practice in the state of Ohio. Allen was the Hamilton County Prosecutor during Dr. Mezibov] is a man who doesn't try too many cases and the verdict shows that. If I were Dr. In consumer law we have a saying let the buyer beware. You ought to have a saying. That's something that in all likelihood we would have entertained. Here's a man that now is going to lose his medical license. Who may very well have been able to work with us and escape prosecution. When my ethics are questioned and when I'm called unethical. You're gonna get it back and you're gonna get it back with both barrels because I have to. They try cases from the testimony that comes from the witness stand and the law that is given from the judge. I have to say had this matter been handled in the normal fashion by a defense lawyer who was interested in his client's best interest rather than having a political show trial.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs were John R. With her on the brief were Kenneth L. Concluding that even if all exterior postal properties are public forums. The regulation is a valid restriction on the time. I The appellants are seven individuals and organizations that attempt to place initiatives on state ballots by collecting signatures on petitions. They contend that sidewalks and other exterior areas of post offices are particularly fertile locations for the procurement of such signatures.1 Until relatively recently. Postal Service regulations were silent on the subject of soliciting petition signatures on postal premises. An activity that is also constrained by regulation. Impeding ingress to or egress from post offices are prohibited. 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(h)(1) (emphasis added). They argued that the regulation is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to their specific petitioning activities. On the ground that there were insufficient facts in the record to entitle either party to judgment as a matter of law.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The district court granted qualified immunity after determining that the law regarding constructive discharge and protected speech was not clearly established. We think that it was. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs are former employees of the purchasing department of Fulton County. Debra Blount and Natalie Revell were employed as contracting officers. Defendant Gates is the department's director and ultimate supervisor of all three Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have abandoned their claims against Defendant Vanessa Reynolds and Fulton County. Plaintiffs and some of their coworkers requested and were granted a meeting with Fulton County Commissioner Emma Darnell for the afternoon of August 27. The
|
 |
MAGGIO V. SIPPLE (5/17/2000, NO. 99-12884)
We conclude that the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Maggio's § 1983 claim and reverse. I. THE COMPLAINT Maggio was a Customer Service Specialist employed by DLES from April 15. The six individual Defendants were also DLES employees. Defendant Cathy Sipple was Maggio's immediate supervisor during the relevant time period. The other Defendants held these positions: Yolanda Dennis was a Personnel Technician. Joyce McKenzie was a Human Service Program Specialist. Isabell Davis was a Program Administrator. Jerry Singletary was the Tampa Jobs and Benefits Manager. Renee Benton was the Regional Administrator. Maggio's complaint states that she is legally blind. Her vision is not better than 20/300 in her right eye and is worse in her left eye. to provide special computer equipment to allow her to have full line text in 36 point font. Davis was Maggio's supervisor at DLES prior to Cathy Sipple. Davis was charged with insubordination and filed a grievance.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
1996 is amended as follows: On page 42. Insert
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
JOSEPH is
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The group's fourth demonstration is the centerpiece of this case. Lead plaintiff Sister Bernie Galvin was in contact with the United States Park Police to discuss a permit for RWHP's planned demonstration.1 DefenThe relevant regulations. Are found at 36 C.F.R. § 2.51 and provide in relevant part: (a) Public assemblies. Parades and other public expressions of views are allowed within park areas. Issue a permit on proper application unless: (1) A prior application for a permit for the same time and place has been made that has been or will be granted and the activities authorized by that permit do not reasonably allow multiple occupancy of that particular area. Or (2) It reasonably appears that the event will present a clear and present danger to the public health or safety. Or (3) The event is of such nature or duration that it cannot reasonably be accommodated in the particular location applied for. The building was located some distance away from the Wherry Housing. Reverend Karen Oliveto described the purpose of the protest as being to
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
2004 is amended as follows: Replace the first paragraph at Slip Op. p. 3374.
|
|
MAGGIO V. SIPPLE (5/17/2000, NO. 99-12884)
We conclude that the individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Maggio's § 1983 claim and reverse. I. THE COMPLAINT Maggio was a Customer Service Specialist employed by DLES from April 15. The six individual Defendants were also DLES employees. Defendant Cathy Sipple was Maggio's immediate supervisor during the relevant time period. The other Defendants held these positions: Yolanda Dennis was a Personnel Technician. Joyce McKenzie was a Human Service Program Specialist. Isabell Davis was a Program Administrator. Jerry Singletary was the Tampa Jobs and Benefits Manager. Renee Benton was the Regional Administrator. Maggio's complaint states that she is legally blind. Her vision is not better than 20/300 in her right eye and is worse in her left eye. to provide special computer equipment to allow her to have full line text in 36 point font. Davis was Maggio's supervisor at DLES prior to Cathy Sipple. Davis was charged with insubordination and filed a grievance.
|
|
CANNABIS ACTION NETWORK V. CITY OF GAINESVILLE (10/24/2000, NO. 99-2022)
Plaintiff Cannabis Action Network's (
|
|
COALITION FOR THE ABOLITION OF MARIJUANA PROHIBITION V. CITY OF ATLANTA (7/27/2000, NO. 99-11385)
The appellants appeal the district court's determination that portions of the festival ordinance were constitutional. We AFFIRM the holding of the district court.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Which determined that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. The defendants are: J. These claims are not before us on appeal. The only claims before us are federal claims against the defendants in their individual capacities. 2 2 1 * his discretionary authority3 is eligible for qualified immunity. If a constitutional right was violated under the plaintiff's version of the facts. We must then determine
|
|
COALITION FOR THE ABOLITION OF MARIJUANA PROHIBITION V. CITY OF ATLANTA (7/27/2000, NO. 99-11385)
The appellants appeal the district court's determination that portions of the festival ordinance were constitutional. We AFFIRM the holding of the district court.
|
|
CANNABIS ACTION NETWORK V. CITY OF GAINESVILLE (10/24/2000, NO. 99-2022)
Plaintiff Cannabis Action Network's (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We will reverse the District Court's judgment and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. A district court's dismissal of a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim is subject to de novo review. That Muti was not a part of his inner circle and policymaking team. Complained to Muti that McNair (who was Schmidt's close friend) was not doing any productive work and had not achieved any meaningful results during his involvement with the task force. 1999 that he felt the investigative staff was too large and should not increase in size. Muti believed that expenditures for additional personnel on the investigative staff were not a prudent use of public funds. The purpose of the work session was to discuss the purchase of the Eisenhower Drive building. The letter expressed his objection to the purchase of the Eisenhower Drive building and his belief that the continued expansion of the BCPO investigative and legal staffing was a waste of 5 public resources.
|
|
COALITION FOR THE ABOLITION OF MARIJUANA PROHIBITION V. CITY OF ATLANTA (7/27/2000, NO. 99-11385)
The appellants appeal the district court's determination that portions of the festival ordinance were constitutional. We AFFIRM the holding of the district court.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Rossman & Eschelbacher were on brief for appellant. Ham & Riley were on brief for appellees. Was discharged following an extended feud with Select man Robert Steeves. I I BACKGROUND BACKGROUND Summary judgment is appropriate if no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. All reasonable inferences are to be drawn in favor of the party opposing summary judgment. Just as all disputed facts are viewed in the light most favorable to him. We will not credit
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is in danger of losing his job as a corrections officer because. The threshold test of expressiveness necessary to raise a First Amendment compelled expression claim is no longer as stringent as we previously suggested in Steirer by Steirer v. In such a case the appropriate rubric for a First Amendment claim is simply
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The appellants appeal the district court's determination that portions of the festival ordinance were constitutional. BACKGROUND CAMP is a non profit organization focused primarily on forming alliances and associating with other groups concerned with marijuana issues. It now fell within the 1994 Festival Ordinance's definition of an
|
|
COALITION FOR THE ABOLITION OF MARIJUANA PROHIBITION V. CITY OF ATLANTA (7/27/2000, NO. 99-11385)
The appellants appeal the district court's determination that portions of the festival ordinance were constitutional. We AFFIRM the holding of the district court.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The appellants appeal the district court's determination that portions of the festival ordinance were constitutional. BACKGROUND CAMP is a non profit organization focused primarily on forming alliances and associating with other groups concerned with marijuana issues. Their application was denied because the City determined that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Robert S. Asserting that they are overin clusive or. The Commission is to grant a broadcast license only if the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Defendant Jim Sweeney was hired by the District in August 1994 as Deputy Superintendent of the District. Among these thirteen administrators were plaintiffs Lily Keyser. Although the reassignment was approved by the Board. Two letters were sent to the Board on behalf of the Association. Sweeney was elevated from Deputy Superintendent to Acting Superinten1617 dent. Sweeney was elevated to Interim Superintendent. Sweeney recommended to the Board that Keyser and Robledo be among those administrators who were demoted. Cisneros were members of the Association and therefore could not have retaliated against them for joining it. The district court concluded that Sweeney was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that it was illegal to retaliate against Keyser. II The first issue we must confront is a jurisdictional one: whether the notice of appeal was timely filed. The judgment was entered on October 27. The thirtieth day was Friday. Which was the day after Thanksgiving. The notice of appeal was not filed until Monday.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Chaker was convicted by a jury for filing a knowingly false complaint of peace officer misconduct in violation of California Penal Code section 148.6(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. Chaker alleged that he was strip searched by Detective Bradberry. Two days after Officer Bradberry arrested Chaker for theft of services.2 The court reasoned that the state could use the complaint as evidence of what was
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging she was retaliated against for exercising her First Amendment rights. Plaintiff argues the district court erred by (1) finding her speech was not protected under the First Amendment. (3) holding the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity. Kannensohn told Lewter she was being discharged because of an in court verbal exchange between Lewter and Fayette District Court Judge Kevin M. Lewter encountered the police officer who made the arrest and he complained that the charge was based on police action. That the case was very serious. Misunderstood and thought her motion was granted. Kannensohn was contacted later that day about Lewter's conduct and repeated attempts to convince the judge to alter his ruling. Kannensohn also interviewed several county attorneys who appeared before Judge Horne later that day and who said that the judge was displeased at Lewter's refusal to accept his ruling. 2 Subsequently. Punitive damagesand attorneys fees as she claims she was discharged in retaliation for exercising her First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
|
|
GREG RUGGIERO V. FCC
Argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Robert S. Asserting that they are overin clusive or. The Federal Radio Commission). See 47 U.S.C. s 301. The Commission is to grant a broadcast license only if the ". It was clear to the Commission that action needed to be taken to stop unlicensed broadcast ing. In 1999 the Commission proposed to modify its low power radio rules and sought public comment upon whether it should ". 1999) set out in the Low Power Proposal. Id. at p p 53 54. This licensing condition for broadcast pirates was applicable both to individuals and to corporate applicants. Including the applicant's officers and directors. Id. at p 54. The Commission's proposal conditionally to license former pirates was received with dismay in the Congress. Senator Gregg.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Defendant Jim Sweeney was hired by the District in August 1994 as Deputy Superintendent of the District. Among these thirteen administrators were plaintiffs Lily Keyser. Although the reassignment was approved by the Board. Two letters were sent to the Board on behalf of the Association. Sweeney was elevated from Deputy Superintendent to Acting Superinten1617 dent. Sweeney was elevated to Interim Superintendent. Sweeney recommended to the Board that Keyser and Robledo be among those administrators who were demoted. Cisneros were members of the Association and therefore could not have retaliated against them for joining it. The district court concluded that Sweeney was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that it was illegal to retaliate against Keyser. II The first issue we must confront is a jurisdictional one: whether the notice of appeal was timely filed. The judgment was entered on October 27. The thirtieth day was Friday. Which was the day after Thanksgiving. The notice of appeal was not filed until Monday.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the briefs was Henk Brands. With him on the brief were David W. Albert were on the brief for amici curiae Center for Media Education. At issue is the facial constitutional ity of two provisions of the Cable Television Consumer Pro tection and Competition Act of 1992. Time Warner argues that both provisions facially that is. We conclude that both provisions are facially constitutional. The district court held that the subscrib er limits provision is unconstitutional. The channel occupancy provision is constitutional. The Standard of Review Time Warner argues that the subscriber limits provision is a content based restriction of its ability to communicate with its audience. As such is subject to strict scrutiny. See * The district court at least appears to have found the channel occupancy provision constitutional on its face. Whether or not the regulations ultimately promulgated by the Commission will pass constitutional muster under [intermediate scrutiny] is. The Government denies that the subscriber limits provision is content based.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Specifically they argue (1) that the injunction is overbroad as it relates to a book they sell. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a). I. Background Irwin Schiff has a long history of opposition to the federal income tax laws.1 For over thirty years he has maintained that the federal income tax is voluntary. Co defendant Lawrence Cohen is an employee at Freedom Books. Is sold individually and as part of tax avoidance packages. Which authorizes a district court to enjoin any person from conducting activities that are subject to penalty under 26 See. Including organizing or selling a plan or arrangement and making or furnishing a statement regarding the excludability of income that they know or have reason to know is false or fraudulent as to any material matter. Including organizing or selling a plan or arrangement and making or furnishing a statement regarding the excludability of income that they know or have rea (2) (3) UNITED STATES v. SCHIFF 10821 son to know is false or fraudulent as to any material matter.
|
|
SOUTHLAKE PROPERTY ASSOCS., LTD. V. CITY OF MORROW
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Southlake Property Assocs. (Southlake) is a Georgia limited partnership which owns unimproved real property adjacent to Interstate Highway 75 and State Route 401 in Morrow. Southlake was required to obtain certification from the City of Morrow (Morrow) stating that the signage is consistent with local law. The following types of signs are prohibited:<p> <p> ...<p> <p> (4) Billboard signs. Which is not located. Or sold on the premises upon which such sign is located. Usually found along or near major roadways and of such size as to catch the attention of the motoring public and may sometimes be illuminated or animated.<p> <p>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may97/95-9525.opa.html">SOUTHLAKE PROPERTY ASSOCS., LTD. V. CITY OF MORROW<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Southlake Property Assocs. (Southlake) is a Georgia limited partnership which owns unimproved real property adjacent to Interstate Highway 75 and State Route 401 in Morrow. Southlake was required to obtain certification from the City of Morrow (Morrow) stating that the signage is consistent with local law. The following types of signs are prohibited:<p> <p> ...<p> <p> (4) Billboard signs. Which is not located. Or sold on the premises upon which such sign is located. Usually found along or near major roadways and of such size as to catch the attention of the motoring public and may sometimes be illuminated or animated.<p> <p>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/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-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc5ODVfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7985_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Or demonstrations that are designed to entice children to congregate. That the prohibition is a content based restriction on speech but that it does not violate the First Amendment because it is narrowly tailored to the compelling state interest of protecting children from sexual predators. Hobbs contends principally (a) that the prohibition is not narrowly tailored and hence violates the First Amendment both on its face and as applied to him. That the prohibition is content neutral and nonpunitive. BACKGROUND 19 20 21 22 23 Playland Park (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-2243.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
<U>Senior Circuit Judges</U>.</FONT></P> <BR WP=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="787"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/04/962026P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The issues on which Coplin sought injunctive and declaratory relief were to be presented in a bench trial while the monetary damages and attorney's fees claims were to be heard. I. The FPATV Committee is a regulatory and advisory board created by the Council. The primary responsibility of the FPATV Committee is to supervise. To have the case tried by a United States Magistrate Judge. 2 1 Under FPATV Rule I(A).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/98-1408.htm">98-1408 -- VANDERHURST V. COLORADO MOUNTAIN COLLEGE DISTRICT -- 05/09/2000<BR></A><BR>
</strong>Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/04/02-7076.htm">02-7076 -- BELCHER V. CITY OF MCALESTER -- 04/08/2003<BR></A><BR>
Claims that his First Amendment rights were violated when he was reprimanded for urging members of the McAlester City Council (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982696.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
McGraw and Rodd contend that the district court erred in denying them summary judgment on this claim because they are entitled to qualified immunity. Three of these solicitations are relevant to this case: (1) a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0253p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plaintiffs are a collection of associations and individuals led by the American Civil Liberties Union. Because we cannot find that any of the plaintiffs have standing for any of their claims. Of telephone and email communications where one party to the communication is located outside the United States and the NSA has
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/12/951885P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Rosenstiel and Longley seek a declaration that several provisions of the law are unconstitutional because they allegedly coerce a candidate into participating in Minnesota's public campaign financing program. They further maintain that the provisions are constitutionally infirm The Honorable Richard H. No refund is permitted for a campaign contribution made to a candidate who is not publicly funded. Id. § 290.06(23) (hereinafter referred to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2004/031278p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At issue is whether a city council lawf ully d ismiss ed it s p r i n ci p al policymaking employee who campaigned against winning councilmanic candidates in a primary election. Summary judgment was granted for defendants. We will affirm.1 On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania D.C. Our standard of review is plenary. Dominic Curinga was appointed municipal manager of the City of Clairton. Curinga and all council members were members of the Democratic Party. Curinga was responsible to the city council
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2718.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sullivan</SPAN> was on brief. Was allegedly harassed and forced to quit his job after he broke a code of silence by reporting a fellow officer's misconduct. The jury also found that Hickey was liable for tortious interference with Baron's contractual relationship with the Department but that the specific harassment claims against him were time barred. A jury instruction that did not identify a specific individual as the final policymaker who must have condoned the custom that violated Baron's civil rights. While Baron was on duty. Was playing cards with inmates in violation of the institution's policies. Curtis was suspended for three days as a result. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="783"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3396_011.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Holding that Schad's speech was 2 No. 04 3396 constitutionally protected and that Chief Jones was not entitled to qualified immunity. Which is responsible for locating and arresting people wanted on outstanding warrants. Is a desirable assignment within the MPD for which officers are specially selected. The MPD's Tactical Enforcement Unit was in a 24 hour standoff with a suspect named Lesmes Rivera. Rivera posted bail and was released.1 The same day. Stating that Rivera was wanted on three felony warrants. Schad and the other squad members on duty were instructed to locate and arrest Rivera. They were given Rivera's photograph and possible addresses where he might be found. Were available to follow up 1 It is not clear from the record whether Rivera was released in error. The call ended with Lieutenant Jessup saying
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/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-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021962.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Holding that the plaintiffs' proposed use of the community centers was a not a form of expressive activity protected by the First Amendment. Hold that the plaintiffs' proposed use is afforded First Amendment protection. Is viewpoint neutral and reasonable in light of the purpose of the centers. It is reasonable for the Board to limit use of the community centers to recreational and community enrichment activities. Formal private education is not a use that is consistent with those purposes. The Use Policy states that the purpose of the community centers is to provide a place for: (1) Park and Recreation programs. The Use Policy states that the community centers are available for: (a) recreational uses (birthday parties. (b) any activity that is illegal. Or is in violation of the County's rules and regulations. (c) possession and consumption of alcoholic beverages.2 The four Calvert County community centers are: (1) Northeast Community Center in the town of Chesapeake Beach. (4) Southern Community Center in the town of Lusby. 2 After litigation was commenced in this case.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2000/97-6898.ma2.html">CHANDLER V. SIEGELMAN (10/19/2000, NO. 97-6898)<BR></A><BR>
Remanded the case to us for further consideration in light of </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982583.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FCCA5E5E7F2EBF2088256CD1005B853B/$file/9917551.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on the briefs. Were on the brief for amicus curiae National Rifle Association of America. I Russell Nordyke and Sallie Nordyke (dba TS Trade Shows) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTIyNjQtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2264-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who are unlicensed street vendors of clothing painted with grafitti. (2) its conclusion that remand is unnecessary to determine whether § 20 453 is a reasonable time. Because we hold that New York City's licensing requirement is a valid. We conclude that plaintiffs have not demonstrated a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/03-2001.htm">03-2001 -- HARDEMAN V. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE -- 08/05/2004<BR></A><BR>
Hardeman alleged 1) that she was terminated from her employment as a Department Director of the Albuquerque Convention Center because of her race and/or because she exercised her First Amendment free speech rights. 2) that she was subjected to disparaging public comments and/or denied a post termination contract in retaliation for her association with African American groups. 3) that her due process liberty interests were violated. <p> The district court dismissed Ms. All other claims were submitted to a jury. Except the claim that she was discharged because of her race. Who is African American. Was appointed to the position of Department Director of the Albuquerque Convention Center by the newly elected Mayor Jim Baca. She was a cabinet level. Hardeman was involved in three incidents that led her to criticize or question the actions of the Baca Administration and her supervisor. Hardeman claims that she was later subjected to disparaging public comments and denied a post termination contract that was promised to her because of her perceived association with African American groups. <p> The first speech related incident leading to Ms.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/02-1160.htm">02-1160 -- LANDER V. SUMMIT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT -- 08/13/2004<BR></A><BR>
Senior Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1996/96a1319p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are asked to decide whether a policy adopted by the Black Horse Pike Regional Board of Education that allows a vote of the senior class to determine if prayer will be included in high school graduation ceremonies is constitutional. For the reasons that follow we hold that this policy is inconsistent with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. We will affirm. These prayers have historically been delivered by local clergy on a rotating basis in an attempt to afford different denominations the opportunity to be represented. Two policies were presented to the Board at its May 23. The other proposal would not have allowed
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/09/011048P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Concluding that the letter was not a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/10/013401P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an appeal from the district court's denial of a motion for summary judgment based upon the defense of qualified immunity in a civil rights action alleging unlawful termination of employment in retaliation for exercise of First Amendment rights to free speech. I. Barbara Sparr was employed by the Pulaski County Assessor's office from January. During her tenure with the Assessor's office the County Assessor was B.A. Sparr was working as an administrative assistant to McIntosh and the Chief Deputy Assessor. You have indicated that upon your election to the position of Assessor in the November 2000 [sic]. I have indicated to you my interest in this upgrade and appreciate your confidence in me. As you know I have been with the Assessor's office since January 1991. During this period I have worked under B.A.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="776"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2000/97-6898.ma2.html">CHANDLER V. SIEGELMAN (10/19/2000, NO. 97-6898)<BR></A><BR>
Remanded the case to us for further consideration in light of </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/03/02-6066.htm">02-6066 -- LUNOW V. CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY -- 03/28/2003<BR></A><BR>
Terry Weaver are current and former firefighters with Defendant City of Oklahoma City (City) and activists in the firefighters' union. 1291 and affirm. <p> I. <strong>BACKGROUND</strong> <p> Much is undisputed. Weaver are currently employed by the Department and hold the rank of major. 932 are dues paying members of the International Association of Firefighters. He was a member of the team negotiating the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the City. In which he was often critical of Chief Marrs and others in the Department's administration. <p> All four Plaintiffs also served as union representatives on the Department's Safety and Health Committee. Plaintiffs have worked on various political campaigns endorsed by the union. <p> Plaintiffs contend that they have been subjected to involuntary transfers to less desirable fire stations as a result of their union related speech and activity. Is that they have been denied promotions to the position of district chief because they are union activists. Weaver have each unsuccessfully attempted to become one of the 18 district chiefs in the Department's suppression division.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A4A318E5ACFAA8CB88256FC40081DBBF/$file/0335165.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
PUGH 3257 was convicted is overbroad in violation of the First Amendment. Unless such communication is permitted by the rules of the proceeding. Some of the individuals Turney lobbied were wearing badges that identified them as jurors. Would have heard the following message: Thank you for calling the Fully Informed Jury Association. FIJA is a nonprofit educational association that wants all Americans to know their rights as jurors to judge the law itself as well as the facts regardless of the instructions from the judge because jurors cannot be punished for their verdict. They are the final check and balance on our government. Call 406793 5550 or we will mail you more free information on jury veto power. Was selected for the petit jury in State v. Ellis announced to the other jurors that he had called 1 800 TEL JURY and that he was changing his vote in the case because
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-5178a.html">ACTION FOR CHILDS TV V. FCC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec94/92-4764.html">GOLD COAST PUBLICATIONS V. CORRIGAN<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gold Coast Publications v. A newspaper publisher contends that the Ordinance is a facially invalid abridgment of the newspaper's rights of free speech and free press under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and comparable provisions of the Florida Constitution. The district court concluded that the Ordinance was facially valid except for three provisions that require the use of a particular make and model of newsrack or its
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept97/95-6326.opa.html">LUCERO V. TROSCH<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lucero v. The following issues are raised on appeal: (1) whether the district court abused its discretion in failing to dismiss plaintiffs' state law nuisance claim after the court denied plaintiffs' application for a preliminary injunction on their federal FACE claim. Lucero is a doctor who performed various reproductive health services. The district court specifically found that much of this conduct was disturbing to the Clinic's staff and patients. These residential protests were quite loud and caused him to feel intimidated. We will return.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec94/92-4764.html">GOLD COAST PUBLICATIONS V. CORRIGAN<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gold Coast Publications v. A newspaper publisher contends that the Ordinance is a facially invalid abridgment of the newspaper's rights of free speech and free press under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and comparable provisions of the Florida Constitution. The district court concluded that the Ordinance was facially valid except for three provisions that require the use of a particular make and model of newsrack or its
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept97/95-6326.opa.html">LUCERO V. TROSCH<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lucero v. The following issues are raised on appeal: (1) whether the district court abused its discretion in failing to dismiss plaintiffs' state law nuisance claim after the court denied plaintiffs' application for a preliminary injunction on their federal FACE claim. Lucero is a doctor who performed various reproductive health services. The district court specifically found that much of this conduct was disturbing to the Clinic's staff and patients. These residential protests were quite loud and caused him to feel intimidated. We will return.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042542p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs were arrested for disorderly conduct on the 2 campus of Indiana University of Pennsylvania. At issue in this First Amendment suit is whether the arresting officers are entitled to qualified immunity. Also at issue is whether resolution of a criminal charge under Pennsylvania's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/98-1408.htm">98-1408 -- VANDERHURST V. COLORADO MOUNTAIN COLLEGE DISTRICT -- 04/11/2000<BR></A><BR>
1291. <p> The College's appeal on the First Amendment claim presents the following issues: (1) whether the speech for which Vanderhurst was terminated garnered constitutional protection. (3) whether the district court should have answered that question in favor of the College. He degraded a student by discussing an incident in which she was bitten by a pig. He intimated that students were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/02/951803P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Dinwiddie from further violating FACE and from engaging in a number of other activities whenever she is within 500 feet of a facility that provides reproductive health services. We affirm the District Court's holding that FACE is constitutional and that Mrs. I. Regina Rene Dinwiddie is an opponent of abortion who. A clinic where abortions are performed. Intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been. A physician who is the Medical Director of Planned Parenthood. Gunn [a physician who was killed in 1993 by an opponent of abortion] . . .. He is not in the world anymore . . .. Includes the building or structure in which the facility is located. (2) Interfere with. You have not seen violence yet until you see what we do to you.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="770"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200501/04-5026a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Kirk T. With him on the brief was William H. A magistrate judge concluded that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's defense of the Act was not substantially justified. On appeal we reject the Commission's argument that it should not be held liable for fees because it was obligated to defend the statute. We also conclude that the Commission's defense was a reasonable one on the merits. Makes it unlawful for any commodity trading advisor (CTA)
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200216886.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The plaintiffs in this case are an organization called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0133p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
File Name: 00a0133p.06 raised the matters repeatedly in public fora (although the court noted that Chappel's private speech was also protected). His
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1372.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is unconstitutional under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Arguing the district court erred in granting summary judgment and that the peddling ordinance is unconstitutional. Finding that the ordinance 2 No. 02 1372 is not a proper time. Manner restriction and is an impermissible prior restraint on free speech. As is evident from the title. Weinberg is no stranger to selling his wares outside the United Center and its forerunner. Explaining that he was in violation of the City's peddling ordinance. Then Weinberg sought and obtained a temporary restraining order which permitted him to resume book sales outside the United Center and the parties agreed to have the case transferred to a magistrate judge. Is not a reasonable time. Is void for vagueness. Each of these is addressed in turn.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021266.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Opinion filed 5/30/03 is vacated. Was asked by his employer to remove two Confederate flag stickers from his tool box after an African American co worker complained. Dixon was given a copy of Coburg's policy prohibiting harassment. The policy also warned employees that anyone
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/032042.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Are constitutional because they provide for reasonable restrictions on speech in a non public forum. Point Lookout Confederate Cemetery is administered by the VA and is located near the former Point Lookout Prison Camp. SCV and PLPOW have held formal Confederate memorial ceremonies at the cemetery. Providing as follows: (i) All visitors are expected to observe proper standards of decorum and decency while on VA property. Is prohibited. Sledding and other forms of physical recreation on cemetery grounds is [sic] prohibited. (ii) For the purpose of the prohibition expressed in this paragraph. Unless the oration is part of an authorized service. Unauthorized demonstrations or ceremonies on the premises of a national cemetery are punishable by removal from the premises and a $250 fine.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200411150.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because the statute is a content based restriction which chills speech that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/05/01-1218.htm">01-1218 -- HUNTSINGER V. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE E-470 PUBLIC HIGHWAY AUTHORITY -- 05/06/2002<BR></A><BR>
Alleging that she was terminated from her employment in violation of her First Amendment right to speak on a matter of public concern. The following facts are taken directly from the allegations contained in Ms. Huntsinger is a professionally licensed civil engineer who worked at the Authority as a Special Projects Engineer from February 5. The Authority is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/10/96-6237.htm">96-6237 -- HARAGAN V. CITY OF WAURIKA -- 10/24/1997<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiffs appellants Freddy Dean Haragan and Willard L. Houston appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants on their claims that they were discharged for engaging in speech protected by the First Amendment. Plaintiff Haragan argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on his claims because the evidence was sufficient to show that his speech to the news media involved a matter of public concern. Plaintiff Houston argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on his claims because the evidence was sufficient to show speech on a matter or public concern and a causal connection between the speech and his termination. Defendants have moved to dismiss plaintiffs' appeals as untimely. We conclude we have jurisdiction. Haragan</u> <p> Plaintiff Haragan was employed as Police Chief for the City of Waurika from June 1991 until his termination on August 30. Nolan Combs was appointed as the new City Manager.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031125.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court should have entered a preliminary injunction because he satisfied the test governing preliminary injunctions with regard to his claims that the challenged portion of Jouett's 2002 2003 dress code is both unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. I A Students at Jouett and their parents are provided each year with a student/parent handbook that is updated every summer. Who at the time was a twelve year old student in the sixth grade at Jouett. Sitting at a table on the opposite side of the cafeteria with his back towards her.1 Pitt's attention was drawn to Newsom by his purple t shirt. Over 500 students were enrolled in the sixth. She had the immediate impression that the figures were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTUzNDEtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-5341-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
These motions were premised on plaintiffs' lack of standing and defendants' qualified immunity and were made by public officer defendants in their individual capacities. Which was to be held June 78. Field Day was constrained by the provisions of New 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 York's Mass Gathering Law. PUBLIC HEALTH LAW § 225(5)(o) (providing that the Mass Gathering Law is to apply to gatherings that are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/99-4067.htm">99-4067 -- PROCTOR & GAMBLE CO. V. HAUGEN -- 08/23/2000<BR></A><BR>
G is a corporate agent of Satan. Is the manufacturer and distributor of numerous products for personal care. Who in turn follow suit in a cycle that replicates itself. <strong>(<u>Id.</u> at 3079 81.)</strong> There is record evidence that Amway distributors are responsible for inspiring and encouraging distributors to whom they sell. Who in turn are encouraged to emulate those above them in the Amway distribution hierarchy. <strong>(IX App. at 2915:21 2916:20. X App. at 3213:16 3214:15.) </strong> Although Amway distributors are strongly encouraged to purchase. Amway and its distributors have the ability to send messages to. Haugen is a distributor of Amway products and a developer of Amway business in the Amway distribution chain. At the time this action was commenced. Walker International Network (hereinafter
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/99-4067a.htm">99-4067A -- PROCTOR & GAMBLE CO. V. HAUGEN -- 08/23/2000<BR></A><BR>
Which were not intended to be included in the published opinion. A corrected copy of the opinion is attached. <p> Sincerely. G is a corporate agent of Satan. Is the manufacturer and distributor of numerous products for personal care. There is record evidence that Amway distributors are responsible for inspiring and encouraging distributors to whom they sell. Who in turn are encouraged to emulate those above them in the Amway distribution hierarchy. Although Amway distributors are strongly encouraged to purchase. Amway and its distributors have the ability to send messages to. Haugen is a distributor of Amway products and a developer of Amway business in the Amway distribution chain. At the time this action was commenced. Walker International Network (hereinafter
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="763"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1999/981762.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an appeal of the District Court's dismissal under Fed. These rulings are now challenged on cross appeal. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court on all issues. The cases were consolidated in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under 28 U.S.C. 000 individual plaintiffs claim to have suffered physical injuries caused by defective orthopedic bone screw devices affixed to the pedicles of their spines during spinal fusion surgery. Which are intended to stabilize the spine and achieve fusion of the vertebrae. Consist of rods or plates that are screwed into the vertical axis of the lumbar spine. Plaintiffs have undergone surgery to have the devices removed. There are two types of omni actions. 7 The Plaintiffs' Legal Committee (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0135n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part. The case is REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings. Was hired by the Highland Park School Board (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/761F198CBF88F75988256A1D005E8ED1/$file/9935320.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We asked the parties to notify us within 48 hours if negotiations were progressing and more time was needed. We consider whether such speech is protected by the First Amendment. 3928 I During a 1995 meeting called to mark the anniversary of Roe v. The poster was later published in an affiliated magazine. The district court concluded that Horsley was an agent of ACLA and other defendants as well as a co3929 doctors and others who provide or support abortion and called on visitors to supply additional names.2 The website marked the names of those already victimized by anti abortion terrorists. The state law claims were abandoned before trial. The district court submitted to the jury only the FACE and RICO claims. 3930 were harmed by defendants' speech. The district court instructed the jury that defendants could only be liable if their statements were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BD7FAC83AB7E4C4688256E5A00707ABF/$file/9935320.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We asked the parties to notify us within 48 hours if negotiations were progressing and more time was needed. We consider whether such speech is protected by the First Amendment. 3928 I During a 1995 meeting called to mark the anniversary of Roe v. The poster was later published in an affiliated magazine. The district court concluded that Horsley was an agent of ACLA and other defendants as well as a co3929 doctors and others who provide or support abortion and called on visitors to supply additional names.2 The website marked the names of those already victimized by anti abortion terrorists. The state law claims were abandoned before trial. The district court submitted to the jury only the FACE and RICO claims. 3930 were harmed by defendants' speech. The district court instructed the jury that defendants could only be liable if their statements were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-3009a.html">USA V. KOLTERJOSEPH<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199807/97-7129a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom Joanne Royce was on the briefs. Were on the brief. I. Background O'Donnell's account of the events surrounding his transfer and demotion is set out below. Many of the facts he recounts are fiercely contested by the defendants. The facts on the basis of which the district court granted summary judgment are not contested. He was appointed D.C. This was a very senior position. Including the Homicide Branch (a fact whose importance will soon become clear). Soulsby was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/03/01-1530.htm">01-1530 -- HULEN V. YATES -- 03/04/2003<BR></A><BR>
Other co conspirators whose identities are presently unknown</a>. We have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal under the qualification of the final judgment rule of 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19939345.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
90 L.Ed.2d 735 (1986) (plurality opinion) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2064.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
George Kelly was convicted of one count of possession of child pornography. He contends that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to convict him because the child pornography statute was declared unconstitutional in Ashcroft v. Kelly was convicted of possessing traditional child pornography. Kelly was charged by information with eleven counts of possessing child pornography. Kelly was part of a group characterized by the Government as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0331p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Both times Ohio State Highway Patrol (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2389.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. This appeal is the second appearance here of a case challenging a state law regulating speech and activities within a buffer zone around health care facilities which perform abortions. Women who are regular pro life
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012466.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Concluding that she did not have a viable First Amendment claim and that the Commission members were protected by qualified immunity. Is governed by the Virginia Highlands Airport Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/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-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/04/97-6212.htm">97-6212 -- DURRETT V. APFEL -- 04/30/1998<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Claimant Pat E. We have jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19942621.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude that they are without merit and do not discuss them. The August 1 meeting was Appellant expressed particular concern about a the City's paramedic program. Was well attended. When the paramedic proposal was raised. When a citizen in the audience asked when would the public be able to have an input on the proposal. The letter was the city manager Holmquist's idea. The city council voted to fund the PSO program despite the city manager's protest that the pilot program was a failure. 23. Another goal of the PSO program was achieved on October same day the city council upheld Appellant's 1991 the termination when the offices of fire chief and police chief were combined into the office of public safety. Appellant confronted the council with rumors that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E1E63AF950E7D8E488256B3C0075B2FA/$file/0035755.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The plaintiffs are self described
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0175n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sitting by designation. * No. 03 4131 2 Plaintiff also asserts he was deprived of a liberty interest without due process when a memorandum was placed in his personnel file that documented the alleged reasons for the termination of plaintiff's employment as a Lowellville police officer. I. Plaintiff was employed as a part time reserve police officer in the Lowellville Police Department. Rossi was the mayor of Lowellville. Vance was the chief of police. Plaintiff signed an affidavit that was used in support of a motion to disqualify the prosecutor in a criminal case against former U.S. Craig Morford was the Assistant United States Attorney prosecuting the Traficant case. Plaintiff said that he told Morford that a name was missing from 30 federal indictments recently handed down: I mentioned the name and then he became very quiet. Morford asked how I knew him and I proceeded to tell him that in the early 80's I was a Leiutenant [sic] with the Mahoning County Sheriff's Dept. in liquor and vice. I was in charge of investigating this person.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1176.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lori Wiechelt were on brief. P.C. was on brief.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0355p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was in full uniform and working for the ballpark as a security guard. Swiecicki was later charged with and convicted of disorderly conduct and 1 No. 05 4036 Swiecicki v. His convictions were overturned on appeal. That Delgado was entitled to qualified immunity on the remaining federal claims. That he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the state law claim of malicious prosecution. Was working as a security guard and was stationed at a tunnel near the bleachers where Swiecicki and his friends were seated. Delgado was officially off duty. He was wearing his police uniform with his badge and was carrying the weapons issued by the police department. Was assigned to a section near Delgado. Both of these men were hired to provide assistance and to monitor the fans' behavior. Will be asked by Cleveland Indians personnel to cease this conduct. Those involved will be subject to ejection from the ballpark. He also contends that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug96/95-5006.wpd.html">CARDTOONS, L.C. V. MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYERS ASSOC.<BR></A><BR>
Arguing that (1) the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment and (2) Cardtoons does not have a First Amendment right to market its trading cards. Have caricatures of active major league baseball players on the front and humorous commentary about their careers on the back. The balance of the set is comprised of 20
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/02/991168P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jurisdiction Jurisdiction in the district court was proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1343. Jurisdiction in the court of appeals was proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. Background KWMU is a not for profit public broadcast radio station located on the campus of the University of Missouri at St. KWMU is owned and operated by The Curators of the University of Missouri. Is responsible for overseeing KWMU's operation. Contributors of such funds are referred to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/08/964181P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Calvit was a social worker at the Four Winds school. Which is a magnet school emphasizing Native American culture. Under state law he was required to report child abuse within 24 hours of discovery. Which allowed a report only if all members of a child abuse team determined one was necessary. The policy violated state law and was designed specifically to limit reports involving Native American children. Might have been a victim of sexual abuse. Calvit claimed he followed school procedure and that initially he did not have enough information to conclude the child had been abused but that he reported it when he did. Instructing her to investigate the report about R.B. and informing her that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="750"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/99-6127.htm">99-6127 -- BARKER V. CITY OF DEL CITY -- 06/15/2000<BR></A><BR>
There was a contentious municipal election in which two members of the City Council. Were defeated. Four of the five City Council seats were filled by newcomers. Barker was Mr. 1998. <p> The city manager is the highest non elected position in the city and is responsible for implementing the City Council's policies. The city manager's administrative assistant is the manager's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2002/00-15158.opn.html">WEAVER V. BONNER (10/18/2002, NO. 00-15158)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/19784157EEB9654788256D2000566966/$file/0215378.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
When a certain amount of money is spent for the purpose of defeating or passing a voter decided proposition. GETMAN disclosure is needed. CPLC's attack is two fold. CPLC contends that California ambiguously defines which political communications are subject to regulation. We reject CPLC's first claim and hold that California's definition of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200613582OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
As it is permitted in this circumstance. The issue in this appeal is whether the district court erred when it entered judgment as a matter of law against a high school principal who argues that the school board violated the First Amendment when the board terminated him in retaliation for his efforts to convert his school to a charter school. The district court reasoned that D'Angelo's efforts to convert Kathleen High to charter status were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1932_011.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Claims that he was transferred to a less desirable position because of his speech in opposition to actions taken by then Chief of Police Arthur L. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that no material facts were in dispute and that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Jones appeals the district 2 No. 05 1932 court's refusal to grant him qualified immunity arguing that Miller's speech was not protected because it did not address a matter of public concern. I. BACKGROUND The facts of this case are not in dispute. James Miller is a former officer with the Milwaukee Police Department (MPD) who was transferred from the Community Services Division (CSD) to patrol duty on May 27. Miller was assigned to the Community Services Division in 1992 and spent eleven years working with the Police Athletic League (PAL). These activities are staffed by Milwaukee police officers. PAL receives no funding from the Police Department and is organized as a non profit corporation under Wisconsin state law.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-4162.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It questioned whether the sale was supported by adequate consideration and was an arm's length transaction (the mayor of the City was also president of the Lions Club). In whose honor the monument was originally donated. Which they are free to use and dispose of as they wish. The court concluded that because the monument was now private speech on private property. Summum was not entitled <hr> to injunctive relief facilitating the display of its monument in the park. The City was violating Summum's free speech rights. Our review of this legal question is de novo. A party asserting federal jurisdiction must establish three elements to have standing to bring a claim. The party must establish an injury in fact by showing
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2002/00-15158.opn.html">WEAVER V. BONNER (10/18/2002, NO. 00-15158)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200015158.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A. Justices of the Georgia Supreme Court are elected by popular vote.1 Ga. Monitors these judicial elections for compliance with Canon 7(B) of the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct.3 Canon 7(B)(1)(d) provides that candidates for any judicial office that is filled by public election between competing candidates shall not use or participate in the use of any form of public communication which the candidate knows or reasonably should know is false. Or which contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law or omits a fact necessary to make the communication considered as a whole not materially All superior court and state court judges are also elected by popular vote. The JQC was created by constitutional amendment in 1972. It was vested with the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C1D1280003636E6888256BFB0067FF4F/$file/0035997.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(2) her eleventh claim for relief against Defendant Multnomah County for retaliation under Oregon Revised Statutes § 659.030A(1)(f).2 The remaining Defendants are Sheriff Noelle and Multnomah County. Stat. § 659.030 was renumbered § 659A.030 in 2001. 1 10276 POOL v. VANRHEEN We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm. Pool was in charge of records. Her direct and only supervisor was Sheriff Noelle. Pool was the only racial minority. Sheriff Noelle indicated that he selected Commanders
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1999/985061.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Impermissibly restricted Z.H.'s freedom of expression while he was a student in kindergarten and first grade. She also contends that the defendants' actions were so hostile toward religion as to violate the Establishment Clause. We will affirm. I. BACKGROUND Because we are reviewing the District Court's Rule 12(c) judgment on the pleadings. The following facts are affirmatively alleged in the complaint. This case arises from two incidents that occurred while Z.H. was a student at the Haines Elementary School in Medford. The first incident occurred while Z.H. was a kindergarten student. Z.H.'s teacher asked the students to make posters depicting what they were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E5EBCD45A39A569088256F31007B813F/$file/0216989.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
When the circus or the rodeo is playing there. Is owned by the State of California and operated by 1 A District Agricultural Association (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200613582.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The issue in this appeal is whether the district court erred when it entered * Honorable Arthur L. The district court reasoned that D'Angelo's efforts to convert Kathleen High to charter status were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1116.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellee. AAC is a Massachusetts not for profit corporation which includes among its main purposes AIDS education of the general public. The MBTA is a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It is explicitly authorized to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/05/001168P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Kenneth Yackly are employees of the Minnesota Department of Corrections assigned to the correctional facility in Shakopee. Which we will refer to as MCFS. They sought a declaratory judgment that their discipline was illegal and unconstitutional. We will hereafter refer to them collectively as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/03/994021P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We remand to the district court for consideration of whether its disposition of the plaintiffs' claims based on restriction of partisan activities is consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. Except to say that Wersal was a candidate for election to the Minnesota Supreme Court. Asking whether the restrictions were narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. We held that the state had shown the required quantum of evidence that each of those interests was threatened by the Other plaintiffs associated with Wersal were his campaign committee and Republican Party members Cheryl Wersal. Who was also a member of the Minnesota Republican Party. Who was another candidate for judicial office. The affiliated organizations were the Indian Asian American Republicans. The Minnesota African American Republican Council and the Muslim Republicans were later added as plaintiffs. Named as defendants were the Director of the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility and the Chair of the Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2001/98-2709.ma4.html">ADLER V. DUVAL COUNTY SCH. BD. (5/11/2001, NO. 98-2709)<BR></A><BR>
The Court vacated our decision and remanded it for further consideration in light of </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972203.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The court held that the three individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and that. The plaintiffs failed to show that the retaliatory conduct was attributable to a custom or policy of the City. We hold that a reasonable government official would have known that Robinson and Marc's speech was entitled to constitutional protection under clearly established law at the time. Because plaintiffs were called to provide their statements both by federal law enforcement officers and by a governmental board. It should have been apparent that the speech was constitutionally protected. Addison are not entitled to qualified immunity on the basis set forth by the district court. We agree with the district court that the municipal defendant is not liable. I. Plaintiffs Robinson and Marc were employees in the Bureau of Solid Waste (BSW) division of the Baltimore Department of Public Works (DPW). Defendants were high ranking officials in the DPW. Balog was the Director of the DPW and a member of the Board of Estimates of the City of Baltimore.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2000/991324.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Enough is Enough. At issue is COPA's constitutionality. A statute designed to protect minors from
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-3717.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Pugel was enrolled as a graduate student in the physics department at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. Pugel a letter indicating that the University was investigating whether Ms. The submission could not have occurred in 2001 given the dates referenced in other allegations. Pugel indicates that the research was submitted to Nature on October 27. No. 03 3717 3 1) You continued to use a seriously flawed algorithm to analyze your experimental data even after you were informed that the negative probabilities included in the algorithms were nonsensical. Even though you knew that there were questions about the validity of the data. 3) You have not produced a satisfactory explanation of how the points in this graph in Figure 2 of the Nature submission were generated. 4) You were not able to demonstrate the generation of the points in Figure 2 from experimental data to Professor Laura Greene when requested to do so in person. A three member
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/00/00-3341.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Trejo was a nontenured assistant professor of psychology at the University of Illinois Urbana Champaign campus who received three one year appointments to his position in each of the school years between 1994 95 and 1996 97 before he got into trouble necessitating his discharge. Trejo was appointed to teach as a probationary. Trejo's appointment was subject to renewal at the end of each school year. He was eligible to be considered for tenure only if he met the University's expectations for teaching courses. The complaints that Shoben received concerning Trejo were made by several female graduate students who approached Shoben upon their return from an academic conference in Toronto. Trejo and the Illinois students were lodged in the same hotel that was also the site of the academic conference. Trejo vociferously opined that there is a relationship between pregnancy. Trejo claims that his intent was to foster an academic debate over sociobiological theories of mating by asking whether
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200416230.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Beaulieu is a practicing attorney with a law office in the City of Alabaster. Her office building is located in the central business district. Beaulieu was served by the City of Alabaster's code enforcement officer with written notice that she had violated the City's sign ordinance. This is the City's appeal from the district court's judgment in her favor. It was a stand alone. Informing her that the campaign sign was in violation of section 15.2(E)(1) of the City's sign ordinance. Brandenberg was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/12/98-1359.htm">98-1359 -- LEE V. NICHOLL -- 12/01/1999<BR></A><BR>
Finding it was potentially liable for its own actions as well as those of Mr. Hold the district court's refusal to grant summary judgment to the BOCC to be an interlocutory question over which we have no jurisdiction. <p> Mr. He was supervised by Mr. Whether a government official receives qualified immunity is a legal question which we review <em>de novo</em>. <em><strong>Walter v. Thorough <em>de novo</em> review is also compelled by the presence of First Amendment issues in this case. We are guided by a clear framework. Our first step is to determine whether Mr. Then the second step is to determine whether the right violated was clearly established at the time the adverse action was taken against the employee. <p> We turn first to whether Mr. 1993<strong> </strong>memo is protected by the First Amendment. Appear to concede the 1991 memos were protected. Gibbs was only potentially liable for retaliating against the 1993 memo since he was not supervising Mr. Lee when the 1991 memos were written. <p> Under the test established in <em><strong>Connick</strong>.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2001/98-2709.ma4.html">ADLER V. DUVAL COUNTY SCH. BD. (5/11/2001, NO. 98-2709)<BR></A><BR>
The Court vacated our decision and remanded it for further consideration in light of </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2110.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <hr> Plaintiff Karen Howden Weaver claimed she was discharged from her employment with the Albuquerque City Attorney's Office in violation of her rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. An election that was won by Martin Chavez. Upon learning that she was pregnant. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> Following the 2001 election. Were political hires. She also commented that the promotion of one of the line attorneys in the office was politically motivated. To hire Chavez even though he was not the best qualified applicant. She spoke by telephone with the attorney who was Chavez's supervisor at his previous place of employment. Weaver was not a member of the office's hiring committee nor did the City Attorney authorize her conversations with Chavez's employer. `They have just hired Ben Chavez. Her employment was terminated on July 30. Alleging that she was discharged in retaliation for exercising her First Amendment right to speak on matters of public concern by supporting a mayoral candidate other than Martin Chavez and by voicing her concerns about hiring improprieties.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/03/98-1003.htm">98-1003 -- HAWKINS V. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER -- 03/10/1999<BR></A><BR>
The Galleria is an open air. Which was formerly a public street. Is bounded on one side by two large theaters. Which have a combined seating capacity of approximately 9. When patrons are arriving or departing from DPAC events. Particularly when multiple events are scheduled. Such as a fire. <p> Although the DPAC's primary function is to showcase artistic performances. The record shows that at least one of these establishments opens only in conjunction with performances because it is not profitable in the absence of DPAC patron traffic. We will now recount the facts giving rise to this appeal. The Colorado Ballet was. Determined that the Galleria was not a public forum and that Denver's restrictions were reasonable. An examination of plaintiffs' complaint demonstrates that plaintiffs' claim is more appropriately characterized as an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0051p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Holding that Robinson was entitled to qualified immunity on claims for wrongful arrest and that Leonard could not make out a prima facie case on his claim for First Amendment retaliation in violation of his civil rights. The district court's application of state law to Leonard's conduct overlooked the First Amendment and its evaluation of Leonard's retaliation claim ignored evidence indicating that Robinson did have an improper motive. We hold that 1) no reasonable officer would have found probable cause to arrest Leonard solely for uttering
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2003/022442u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We dispense with a full recitation of the underlying facts and invoke them only when it is necessary to our analysis. Which was granted. We have jurisdiction over his appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will affirm in part and reverse in part. Our review is plenary. That summary judgment was improvidently granted on his First Amendment/retaliation claim because the District Court improperly found that his speech. Which was critical of the Milan administration for whom he worked. Was unprotected. This finding was essentially based on 2 two fundamental misunderstandings the blame for which. The District Court appeared to believe that Walker's speech was public speech. When it was not. That Walker was a high ranking official of the administration and. When he was not. Walker was a temporary employee and but one of three Assistant Business Administrators whose access to the public was limited to the very occasional release of predetermined information at the behest of his supervisors. The briefs of the parties before us would have caused us to come to the same mistaken conclusions as the District Court.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3239_032.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The benefits of recognition are several. If an organization is officially recognized by the law school. The upside is even more benefits. Groups that register with the No. 05 3239 3 university also get university money (it is not clear how much) and access to meeting space at the SIU student center. CLS is a nationwide association of legal professionals and law students who share (broadly speaking) a common faith Christianity. Members are expected to subscribe to a statement of faith and agree to live by certain moral principles. Is that sexual activity outside of a traditional (one man. One woman) marriage is forbidden. It explained that while
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2122.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Circuit Judge. that lawyers have an absolute right. Is an associate justice of the Maine Superior Court. Berner was seated in the gallery of Judge Delahanty's courtroom. The button was approximately two inches in diameter and bore the words
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/04/02-8057.htm">02-8057 -- BURLEY V. WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES -- 04/16/2003<BR></A><BR>
Plaintiff claimed she was unlawfully terminated because of her work related speech. Arguing her statement was made in private. Burley urges the district court erred because her speech was a matter of public concern. She was promoted to case work specialist. Plaintiff was the first contact. Other issues regarding DFS supervision and control. <p> Representatives of the Laramie County District Attorney's Office (D.A.) have assumed a role in this process. Plaintiff was assigned to the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2146108727163D5288256CDB000B4721/$file/0117364.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that there are no material issues of disputed fact and that. There was neither abridgment of Skaarup's exercise of speech nor retaliation for this lawsuit. Was advised that two of the five inspector positions in his department would be eliminated by the City. One of the two positions was held by a woman. Griego later called Skaarup in distress that she was being transferred to Planning with what she thought was a substantial loss of salary. To find out what was going on. Massey told him that he
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0340p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Park or public area of the city of Dearborn unless such activity is granted approval by resolution by the City Council. No permit shall be issued for a special event unless application is made not less than 30 days before the date the special event is sought to be held. If the City Council finds that the special event is to be held for a lawful purpose and will not in any manner act so as to breach the peace or unnecessarily interfere with the public use of the streets. Place and manner restrictions as a condition to granting such permit if said restrictions are reasonable and necessary for the protection of the public health. There is no exception to the thirty day advance notice requirement contained in the Ordinance itself. Although Chammout claimed that he did not organize the march and was not aware that it lacked a permit. Was labeled simply as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/03/01-8082.htm">01-8082 -- BROWN V. LABARGE -- 03/01/2004<BR></A><BR>
</strong> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/11/98-2254.htm">98-2254 -- MESA V. WHITE -- 11/23/1999<BR></A><BR>
The de novo standard is appropriate . . . for the further reason that . . Mesa is a former county commissioner of Grant County. While he was a commissioner. Mesa voted for and was strongly in favor of Cardoza's termination. Who was no longer a commissioner. He was placed on the meeting agenda. They discussed whether Mesa's request to speak was too broad and vague under County Resolution No. 93 11 18. Amland concluded that Mesa's request was too vague and broad. He also concluded that the subject Mesa wished to discuss could potentially fall under the categories of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/10/984112P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an appeal from a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of an ordinance of the City of Lincoln. The District Court1 held that the ordinance was facially invalid because it violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. I. The plaintiffs are four individuals who have engaged in demonstrations opposing abortion in the vicinity of Westminster Presbyterian Church in Lincoln. The plaintiffs believe that abortion is wrong. The plaintiffs have engaged in protests and demonstrations on the public sidewalk that adjoins the church. Crabb is Unfit to be an Elder. Other protesters (not the plaintiffs) have demonstrated near the church with other kinds of signs. The opinion of the District Court is reported at 23 F. Legislative Intent and Findings. (a) It is the intent of this ordinance to preserve the peace at religious premises in order to protect and secure several significant and compelling interests of this city. Focused picketing disrupts and endangers or outright destroys individual freedom of religion. (e) The mechanism of such injury to individual freedom of religion operates as follows: infants and young children are emotionally vulnerable to focused picketing in close proximity to them.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2003/022384p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Procedural due process and equal protection by suspending him from school for uttering the statement
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/03/96-3197.htm">96-3197 -- LYTLE V. CITY OF HAYSVILLE KANSAS -- 03/11/1998<BR></A><BR>
Lytle was employed as a police officer by the City of Haysville. When he was discharged after alleging that fellow Haysville officers committed second degree murder by failing to render emergency aid to the victim of a police shooting. Because the important factual issues in this case are in reality undisputed and because the district court's decision involves questions of law under the appropriate balancing tests. We believe that this case is suited for summary judgment. The officers had received instruction in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) as part of their law enforcement training and had learned that they should not move or perform CPR on critically injured persons who are still breathing. Wilson was. Where he was pronounced dead a short time later. <p> Approximately an hour after the shooting. Wilson was. Berg was demanding a grand jury investigation of the shooting and threatening to sue the City. Lytle explained that it was his wife who had first contacted Mr. Which was interview Mrs. He was going to die anyway.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2002/011085.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Robert Swartzwelder is a police officer who is employed by the Pittsburgh Police Bureau (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/09/032956P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Good News Club (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0419p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court held that the Rule was constitutional and that the defendants enjoyed qualified immunity. Plaintiffs now appeal the holdings that the Rule was not contrary to the freedom of association guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments and that the defendants enjoyed qualified immunity. Rule 12 was repromulgated as Rule 24. Rule 24 was replaced by a substantially identical Rule 46. Rule 46 was revised to clarify the definitions of family member and visitor and recognize the power of the MDOC to grant individual employees limited exemptions to the Rule. An employee would have to submit a misleadingly titled
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july97/96-2068.opa.html">MILLER V. STUART<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Miller v. The State's regulatory scheme prevents Miller from disclosing his CPA license to the public while performing accounting and tax services because he is employed by American Express. After discovery was completed. American Express cross appeals its dismissal.<p> B. <i>Factual Background</i><p> <p> Appellee Miller holds an active CPA license in the State of Florida and is the Managing Director of American Express in Tampa. As American Express is a wholly owned subsidiary of the publicly traded American Express Company. It is neither a professional service corporation nor owned entirely by CPAs (hereinafter
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0373p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The injunction ordered by the district court is overly broad in that it eliminates funding for programs that are constitutional. Are immune from First Amendment scrutiny. The assessments are not compelled speech. Is a lawful restraint on commercial speech. The purpose of the Pork Act is to: [A]uthorize the establishment of an orderly procedure for financing. Who are nominated by the state pork producers associations and appointed by the Secretary. Who are appointed by the Secretary based on the amount of assessments collected from importers. 7 U.S.C. § 4806(b)(1). Whose nominees are chosen by the Delegate Body and appointed by the Secretary. The Board is to develop and implement programs that fulfill the statutory mandates of promotion. Nos. 02 2337/2338 noted that it
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19962068.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The State's regulatory scheme prevents Miller from disclosing his CPA license to the public while performing accounting and tax services because he is employed by American Express. After discovery was completed. B. Factual Background Appellee Miller holds an active CPA license in the State of Florida and is the Managing Director of American Express in Tampa. As American Express is a wholly owned subsidiary of the publicly traded American Express Company. It is neither a professional service corporation nor owned entirely by CPAs (hereinafter
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/08/053847P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Business owners who violate the statute are subject to criminal prosecution. § 226.531.4. The material facts in these appeals are not in dispute. All appellants are located within one mile of a state highway. The appellants have all erected. Inc.1 was a nightclub classified as an adult cabaret. A declaration that section 226.531 was unconstitutional. Appellee is the named defendant in his official role as Missouri State Attorney General. 32 1 oriented business. The Steele Retail suit was assigned to the same district court judge that presided over the Passions Video suit. Steele Retail filed this appeal which was subsequently consolidated with Passions Video's earlier appeal. A party is entitled to summary judgment
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0B32E0913B3FFBB188256E5A00707A32/$file/9917424.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The providers are exempted from the standard drug approval requirements imposed by the Food and Drug Administration. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I Plaintiffs are a group of licensed pharmacies. They have prepared written promotional materials that they distribute by mail and at medical conferences to inform patients and physicians of the uses and effectiveness of specific compounded drugs.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july97/96-2068.opa.html">MILLER V. STUART<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Miller v. The State's regulatory scheme prevents Miller from disclosing his CPA license to the public while performing accounting and tax services because he is employed by American Express. After discovery was completed. American Express cross appeals its dismissal.<p> B. <i>Factual Background</i><p> <p> Appellee Miller holds an active CPA license in the State of Florida and is the Managing Director of American Express in Tampa. As American Express is a wholly owned subsidiary of the publicly traded American Express Company. It is neither a professional service corporation nor owned entirely by CPAs (hereinafter
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0280n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
As well as its alternative holding that the Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. He was assigned to the Madison Correctional Institution (MCI). Where he was the full time chaplain until being transferred after the events giving rise to this case. Was employed as a Protestant minister. Defendant Reginald Wilkinson was the director of the ODRC. Defendant Alan Lazaroff was the warden at MCI. Jr. was the deputy warden of special services at MCI. Bogan was Akridge's immediate supervisor. Akridge alleges that defendants Lazaroff and Bogan unconstitutionally retaliated against him for refusing to allow an openly gay inmate to lead a choir or praise band that was scheduled to participate in Protestant services at MCI. He further alleges that the disciplinary action constituting the retaliation (a fine of two days' pay) was a due process violation because the regulations on which it was allegedly based were unconstitutionally vague. Akridge was assigned to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F48E2BCB53CC88FD882569EB0062542F/$file/9917424.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The providers are exempted from the standard drug approval requirements imposed by the Food and Drug Administration. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I Plaintiffs are a group of licensed pharmacies. They have prepared written promotional materials that they distribute by mail and at medical conferences to inform patients and physicians of the uses and effectiveness of specific compounded drugs.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/12/001217P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
While Blaise Riggs was a member of the Banner County. Who were also road crew members. Riggs and the secretary were placed on paid leave pending the completion of an investigation. Riggs was eventually fired. The other road crew members were advised by letter that they would be subject to discipline. There were no restrictions on what the road crew members could say on their own time and away from county property. They were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july95/94-2621.opa.html">BECKWITH V. CITY OF DAYTONA BEACH SHORES<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Beckwith v. The August 1 meeting was poorly attended. Was well attended. When the paramedic proposal was raised. When a citizen in the audience asked when would the public be able to have an input on the proposal. The city council voted to fund the PSO program despite the city manager's protest that the pilot program was a failure. Another goal of the PSO program was achieved on October 23. When the offices of fire chief and police chief were combined into the office of public safety.<p> Considerable friction had developed between Appellant and a majority of the city council<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1571.html">ERICSSON, INC., ET AL. V. HARRIS CORP., ET AL.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiffs/counterclaim defendants appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Theodore Stevenson. Snider</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Donald L. Argued for defendants/counterclaimants cross appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Robert C. California.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel were <u>Lloyd A. Which is directed to an apparatus for supplying power to a telephone set in a telecommunications system.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The patent discloses a subscriber line interface circuit ( SLIC ). Which acts as an interface between a telephone exchange and individual subscriber telephone sets.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The claimed invention is designed to reduce the idling power that is dissipated by the amplifiers that transmit speech signals across the subscriber line.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The device thus conserves power by switching between an active mode.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19948992.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Smith is the Sheriff of Camden County. Cooper was one of his deputies. Reviewing we in the most district court's denial of summary This appeal followed. qualified immunity interlocutory appeals accept the facts which the district court assumed for purposes of its decision about whether the applicable law was clearly established.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july96/94-8992.opa.html">COOPER V. SMITH<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Cooper v. Smith is the Sheriff of Camden County. Cooper was one of his deputies. Accept the facts which the district court assumed for purposes of its decision about whether the applicable law was clearly established.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/84DE37D15EF98DC888256D8000518932/$file/0135666.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
These new restrictions have been hotly contested in both state and federal courts. Although the term
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/032035.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3B44E697564FA0F688256D2D006C038F/$file/0117518.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Permitted brochures are either made available for students to pick up or placed in teachers' in house mailboxes and then distributed by the teachers to their students. Material from community organizations or of a general nature that is not of a commercial.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may97/95-3306.man.html">MORRIS V. CROW<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Morris v. The dispositive issue in the case is whether the speech for which Cynthia Morris was allegedly disciplined is sufficiently protected by the First Amendment to prohibit her employer from taking action in response to it. Her interest in engaging in that speech is outweighed by her employer's interest in promoting the efficient administration of the Polk County Sheriff's Office. Louie Mims was Sheriff. Morris was initially hired as a clerk and typist. Still later was promoted to detective. Morris was transferred to patrol duty. In which Morris alleged that the transfer was in response to her exercise of her First Amendment right to endorse former Sheriff Mims in the 1992 elections. Though her work history with the Sheriff's office was not problem free. Morris does not contend that her husband's firing was related in any way to his or her support of Sheriff Crow's opponent.<p> At trial. Testimony was presented to the effect that.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may97/95-3306.man.html">MORRIS V. CROW<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Morris v. The dispositive issue in the case is whether the speech for which Cynthia Morris was allegedly disciplined is sufficiently protected by the First Amendment to prohibit her employer from taking action in response to it. Her interest in engaging in that speech is outweighed by her employer's interest in promoting the efficient administration of the Polk County Sheriff's Office. Louie Mims was Sheriff. Morris was initially hired as a clerk and typist. Still later was promoted to detective. Morris was transferred to patrol duty. In which Morris alleged that the transfer was in response to her exercise of her First Amendment right to endorse former Sheriff Mims in the 1992 elections. Though her work history with the Sheriff's office was not problem free. Morris does not contend that her husband's firing was related in any way to his or her support of Sheriff Crow's opponent.<p> At trial. Testimony was presented to the effect that.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0704n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which we will refer to collectively as the Department. The district court reasoned that while some of the deputies' activities were protected and at least a motivating factor in the adverse actions taken against them. The Department had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have taken the same actions in the absence of the protected activities. Cherry worked for a year and a half as a corrections officer and then was transferred to the paramedics division. Cherry received a number of disciplinary actions and was removed from the paramedics division at least twice. Was later reinstated as a result of grievance settlements. Cherry was transferred to the courts division to allow new officers to be trained as paramedics. While Cherry was working at the metal detector at the Genesee County circuit courthouse. He and other deputies were discussing their displeasure with the Department's plan to reduce the number of security officers at the courthouse entrance. Circuit Judge Fullerton approached Cherry and asked him what was going on.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1660a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A public school teacher asserts that he was punished because of the principal's belief that he had called the press about a matter of public interest at the school. We will affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of the principal. Is an English teacher at Truman High School in Bristol Township. Who at that time was en route to the school. Plaintiff denied that he had called him or was even acquainted with him. Was unable to identify the caller. The complaint in the district court alleged that the removal from extracurricular positions was a retaliatory action by defendant pursuant to his belief that plaintiff had exercised his First Amendment rights. You did not call the Courier Times? 3 Answer: That is correct. * * * * * * * * * * Question: Have you at any time. Answer: No. * * * * * * * * * * Question: Have [your fellow teachers] .. . in the last five years. The district court concluded that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1660p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A public school teacher asserts that he was punished because of the principal's belief that he had called the press about a matter of public interest at the school. We will affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of the principal. Is an English teacher at Truman High School in Bristol Township. Who at that time was en route to the school. Plaintiff denied that he had called him or was even acquainted with him. Was unable to identify the caller.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july95/94-2621.opa.html">BECKWITH V. CITY OF DAYTONA BEACH SHORES<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Beckwith v. The August 1 meeting was poorly attended. Was well attended. When the paramedic proposal was raised. When a citizen in the audience asked when would the public be able to have an input on the proposal. The city council voted to fund the PSO program despite the city manager's protest that the pilot program was a failure. Another goal of the PSO program was achieved on October 23. When the offices of fire chief and police chief were combined into the office of public safety.<p> Considerable friction had developed between Appellant and a majority of the city council<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july96/94-8992.opa.html">COOPER V. SMITH<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Cooper v. Smith is the Sheriff of Camden County. Cooper was one of his deputies. Accept the facts which the district court assumed for purposes of its decision about whether the applicable law was clearly established.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2000/99-2138.opn.html">MASON V. FLORIDA BAR (4/6/2000, NO. 99-2138)<BR></A><BR>
Which prohibits statements made by lawyers in advertisements or written communications that are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2000/99-2138.opn.html">MASON V. FLORIDA BAR (4/6/2000, NO. 99-2138)<BR></A><BR>
Which prohibits statements made by lawyers in advertisements or written communications that are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0040p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which is held along the riverfront in downtown Columbus. Civic Center Drive is the closest road running parallel to the river. Barricades are placed at several intersections of Civic Center Drive and its perpendicular streets to prevent automobiles from traveling down Civic Center Drive. Civic Center Drive is open to pedestrians and vendors who set up along side the road. Block party permits are issued for the non exclusive use of the permitted area. The stated purpose of the Arts Festival is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="722"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4010.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of showing that two provisions of the ordinance requiring solicitors to provide their fingerprints and post a $1. Inc. is a distributor of Kirby vacuum cleaners. Seven of those who were arrested (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2600.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Entered summary judgment for the City on the ground that the restrictions were narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest. O is located at 599 Thames Street in Newport. The property is zoned
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr2001/001587.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
What is unusual her e is the setting a public university. A tenured professor alleged that he was suspended from teaching a class after he refused the university president's instruction to change a student's grade and that he was discharged after submitting a written criticism of the president to be presented to the university board of trustees. We conclude that the amended complaint did not allege deprivations of constitutional rights and that summary judgment should have been granted. We ther efore will 2 reverse the portion of the District Court's judgment that dealt with these issues and remand for the District Court to enter summary judgment for the defendant university president.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1025.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Wendy Faustin is an abortion protester. Denver points to what it asserts is its unwritten. The policy is broader and unconstitutionally bans all expression on all overpasses. Both sides originally filed motions for summary judgment below and argue summary judgment is the proper vehicle for deciding this case. This is the second appeal in this case. Before us now are Faustin's facial challenges to the city's policy as overly broad and vague. This factual dispute is not material and so will not preclude summary judgment. Even giving the policy the broadest interpretation the record will allow. Is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. As they were stated in our prior panel decision. The police officers were unable to cite a specific law proscribing Faustin's display. A Denver police officer did inform Faustin she could not display the banner because to do so was a violation of a Denver posting ordinance. Faustin was cited by Sergeant W.P. This charge was dismissed in open court when the Denver city prosecutor realized that.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0098p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The City's Director of Public Service had advised him that the City was granting permits on a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/12/98-8025.htm">98-8025 -- GARDETTO V. MASON -- 12/14/1999<BR></A><BR>
She contends evidence concerning her acts of rude and abrasive behavior was improperly admitted in her suit against the college for the violation of her First Amendment rights of free speech and free association. <p> This appeal arises out of a judgment rendered after retrial pursuant to a reversal by this court in <em>Gardetto v. She claimed she was demoted and suspended for eleven days with pay in retaliation for her constitutionally protected public criticism of Mr. This court concluded the jury instructions were improper because they allowed the jury to determine whether the speech in question was protected by the First Amendment. Gardetto filed a motion in limine to exclude testimony concerning alleged verbal confrontations with a variety of persons both before and after the original case was tried. Her request was denied. BACKGROUND</center> <p> The background of this case is fully set forth in our prior opinion. The facts pertinent to this appeal are summarized as follows. <p> Ms. She was eventually promoted to Director of Non Traditional Student Services/Special Services.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr97/96-6143.opa.html">GAY LESBIAN BISEXUAL ALLIANCE V. PRYOR<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gay Lesbian Bisexual Alliance v. It shall not apply to any organization or group whose activities are limited solely to the political advocacy of a change in the sodomy and sexual misconduct laws of this state.<p> <p> The statutes referenced in part (a) criminalize sodomy or
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/01/051205P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We reverse the district court's denial of summary judgment to the remaining appellants and remand to the district court to enter judgment in favor of the defendants on the claims that are properly before us in these interlocutory proceedings. I. The Arkansas Local Police and Fire Retirement System (LOPFI) was created to establish a benefit program and retirement system for police officers and firefighters in Arkansas. Was vested in its five member Board of Trustees (Board). She was precluded from being involved with the appointment of Board members. Troy Waters (collectively
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr97/96-6143.opa.html">GAY LESBIAN BISEXUAL ALLIANCE V. PRYOR<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gay Lesbian Bisexual Alliance v. It shall not apply to any organization or group whose activities are limited solely to the political advocacy of a change in the sodomy and sexual misconduct laws of this state.<p> <p> The statutes referenced in part (a) criminalize sodomy or
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1141b.html">TRANS UNION CORPORATION V. FTC<BR></A><BR>
<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2001/99-10127.man.html">ANDERSON V. BURKE COUNTY (1/24/2001, NO. 99-10127)<BR></A><BR>
He was promoted to the rank of Captain in March 1990. Which is a union of the fire fighters and rescue service employees employed with the County EMA.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1231.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Norval Williams was employed by the St. He was fired after he made a comment in the media questioning the guilt of an individual who had been convicted of killing a police officer. Was hired by then St. Williams' responsibilities was to oversee security for the St. An African American youth who was tried before an all white jury for the murder of a white South Bend police officer. At some time during the trial or after the verdict was returned. Williams commented to television and newspaper reporters that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/49768F4A0D67D84188256D56007458B3/$file/0115958.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Plaintiffs appeal the district court's determination that the mall is a nonpublic forum. Its ruling that City ordinances restricting soliciting and tabling were constitutional. The City of Las Vegas cross appeals the district court's determination that City ordinances limiting leafleting and vending were unconstitutional. We reverse the district court's conclusion that it is a nonpublic forum. We hold that the Fremont Street Experience is a public forum. We affirm the district court's conclusion that they are unconstitutional. Downtown Las Vegas was suffering from an economic downturn. The area was seen as sleazy and unsafe. Downtown casinos were unable to compete with the glitzy Las Vegas Strip. Key economic factors showed that the area was in decline. Were closed off to automotive traffic. The street and sidewalk were torn up. Various underground infrastructure elements were installed. The street was decoratively repaved as one large promenade. As the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2001/99-10127.man.html">ANDERSON V. BURKE COUNTY (1/24/2001, NO. 99-10127)<BR></A><BR>
He was promoted to the rank of Captain in March 1990. Which is a union of the fire fighters and rescue service employees employed with the County EMA.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="713"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19966143.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is substituted as a party pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d). 1 * Ala.Code § 16 1 28 provides: (a) No public funds or public facilities shall be used by any college or university to. It shall not apply to any organization or group whose activities are limited solely to the political advocacy of a change in the sodomy and sexual misconduct laws of this state. These organizations are eligible for certain benefits. GLBA is an officially recognized student organization whose purpose. Is to provide a foundation for unification for homosexual and nonhomosexual people of the student population. The Attorney General's opinion did not specify how or why It is clear from the record that USA GLBA violated § 16 1 28. officials made efforts to accommodate GLBA without violating § 16 1 28. It is also clear that USA officials felt compelled. Whether the district court's factual findings are clearly erroneous. STANDARDS OF REVIEW The constitutionality of a statute is a question of law subject to de novo review. 602 (11th Cir.1994).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may97/93-9345.op2.html">SHAHAR V. BOWERS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Shahar v. 90 L.Ed.2d 735 (1986) (plurality opinion) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/nov96/95-4186.wpd.html">ANDERSEN V. MCCOTTER<BR></A><BR>
Claiming that she was fired from her position as an intern with the DOC in retaliation for exercising her First Amendment rights. Arguing that they were protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. The motion was supported by affidavits. Was therefore treated by the district court as a motion for summary judgment under Fed. Was paid for twenty hours of work per week. She was granted permission by the Board of Pardons to work at the Bonneville Community Corrections Center (BCCC). Andersen's work at BCCC was credited by the Board of Pardons toward the wages it paid her. Andersen was interviewed by a Salt Lake City television station. Which was televised on the evening news. Andersen was informed that she was being terminated because she had said
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200110/00-1141b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The same is true here: Trans Union's target marketing lists interest only Trans Union and its target marketing customers. Trans Union's lists are not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1819954AA8E290CA8825701A004C6819/$file/0356135.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The banners are located so that they are visible to customers of businesses that deal with certain contractors who do not have union contracts. While the banners are displayed. Local Union Number 1506 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3624A.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Informing him that he was banned from all public parks under the City's jurisdiction. Children were the victims. Doe was arrested for peeping into the windows of an apartment in West Lafayette. Doe was arrested for public intoxication and resisting law enforcement following a report that he was tapping on the rear window of a female's house. Which was finalized in 1991. Doe was placed on house arrest from January of 1992 to January of 1996. He then was on probation until early January of 2000. They were underage. They were behind the there's a dropoff. They were down in that area. Q. What was your purpose in going to Murdock Park that Saturday evening? As I was going home that night. I was at Columbian Park. I guess I was. I was in the mood of cruising. Q. Were you having those urges that night? What were you thinking about? ... My thoughts were thoughts I had before when I see children. Those thoughts were there. They were just thoughts. Was aware of Mr. Chief Reed explained that he gave this advice
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTQ3MDgtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-4708-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sitting by designation. 1 * The judgment of the District Court is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for entry of judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and for the determination of appropriate relief. Deegan alleged that his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when he was prevented. Ithaca Commons is a two block. Which is also the site of numerous community events. Deegan was approached by an Ithaca police officer who was responding to a noise complaint lodged by an employee of a nearby business. While the officer was away. Deegan heard a singing group 200 feet from his location and heard people talking who were more than 25 feet from him. They were left undisturbed and there is nothing in the record regarding complaints about other people. Never to return to preach because his subsequent request for permission to speak in a voice that is audible at a distance of more than 25 feet was denied by Defendants. 4 Section 240 4 of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code provides in relevant part: § 240 4.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972656.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/02/982147P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
North Dakota and several police officers asserting that they were arrested in violation of their constitutional rights for alleged violation of Fargo's residential picketing ordinance. This matter is now before the court en banc. Certain words and phrases used herein are defined as follows: A. Which is used as a place of residence. Deciding that the ordinance was constitutional on its face but unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs on October 10. The district court concluded that the officers' conduct was not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2002/01-15262.opn.html">BROCHU V. CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH (9/5/2002, NO. 01-15262)<BR></A><BR>
District Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5171a.html">BROWN & WILLIAMSON V. WAXMAN HENRY A.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2001/99-14594.man.html">CHESSER V. SPARKS (4/18/2001, NO. 99-14594)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2001/005263.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The principal issue on appeal is whether the investigator's dismissal violated his First Amendment rights. We will reverse in part. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. This court must make an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1997/97a1586p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appeal is from a grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant. We will affirm as to the Fourteenth Amendment causes of action. Will reverse and remand for fact finding as to the First Amendment claim and the related state law claim. FACTS Defendant New Jersey Racing Commission is a body created by N.J. Defendant Francesco Zanzuccki is the Executive Director of the New Jersey Racing Commission. Defendant Michael Vukcevich is the Deputy Director of the New Jersey Racing Commission. Latessa was licensed by the United States Trotting Association as an Associate Judge with powers to officiate as a judge at harness horse meets. Latessa was first appointed by the Commission as Presiding Judge at Garden State Park in 1988 and was also appointed to that position at the Meadowlands Race Track (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/063098p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was indicted on January 20. Claiming they are unsupported and politically motivated. His trial was scheduled to begin in October 2006. We have stayed it pending disposition of three applications that are before us: (1) Wecht's challenge of Local Rule 83.1 of the U.S. Wecht was indicted on January 20. This feud was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0012p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because Latham's position is properly viewed as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981059.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Published opinion filed 2/19/99 is vacated. The County has refused to issue Warren a permit to erect her displays because she is not within the class of speakers identified in the County's regulation. The issue before this court is whether the County's regulation violates Warren's rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Finding that the County's regulation is viewpoint neutral and reasonable. Who is a devout Christian but is not a member of an organized religion. Warren is not a resident of Fairfax County. Is a resident of Fairfax City.1 The Complex comprises three buildings in which over 2. The largest of the buildings is the Government Center building. Which is the site of county government offices. Is a separate and distinct jurisdiction from Fairfax County. The Memorandum declares that the County's policy is to encourage
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/004600.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Ronald Ellyson was convicted of possessing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). Because the court's instructions were erroneous under Free Speech Coalition. Officers from the Boiling Springs Lake Police Department in North Carolina received information that two larceny suspects were guests at a trailer owned by Ellyson. A woman who was living in Ellyson's trailer at the time. During the time that officers were in the trailer. Ellyson was arrested for possessing child pornography. Burr testified that various officers told her that if law enforcement officers searched the trailer again and
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may97/93-9345.op2.html">SHAHAR V. BOWERS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Shahar v. 90 L.Ed.2d 735 (1986) (plurality opinion) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2001/99-14594.man.html">CHESSER V. SPARKS (4/18/2001, NO. 99-14594)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/11/031369P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Donald Pederson and Bernard Madisonwho were at the relevant times the Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville and the Dean of its College of Arts and Sciences. We affirm the portion of the district court's judgment that is reviewable in this appealthe denial of qualified immunityand we dismiss the remainder of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. I. The following background information is taken from the record and is undisputed for purposes of this appeal. Linda Schilcher was at that time a tenured associate professor in the History Department at Villanova University in Pennsylvania. She was hired. She was evaluated not only to determine whether she should be reappointed for another academic year. Also whether she was making adequate progress toward tenure. The single claim which survived summary judgment is the allegation that Madison and Pederson violated Schilcher's First Amendment rights: that. They were substantially motivated by her previous speech on matters of public concern.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2002/01-15262.opn.html">BROCHU V. CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH (9/5/2002, NO. 01-15262)<BR></A><BR>
District Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6402.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Gilchrist was promoted to forensic chemist supervisor. Gilchrist was responsible for the administration and operation of OCPD's serology laboratory. She was also responsible for establishing a new DNA laboratory for OCPD. Spencer was Gilchrist's supervisor. She did not want to pursue the matter. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Couch. <hr> The investigation was closed. Boshell claimed the serology lab was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/95/12/952857P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is his official capacity as Missouri Attorney General. Was amended twice in 1994. (4) the requirement that negative campaign advertisements state that they were approved 1 and authorized by the candidate on whose behalf they were disseminated. Stat. § 130.031 is unconstitutional. So that issue is not before us. 22 1 I. We must address the state's contention that summary judgment should not have been granted because genuine issues of material fact remain in dispute. We are satisfied that no genuine issues of material fact remain in dispute. (2) held that the state's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/985061.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were violated on two occasions: once when he was a kindergarten student and once when he was in the first grade.1 The District Court held. This en banc court finds itself equally divided on the issue of whether judgment was properly entered in favor of the defendants other than the Department of Education on the First Amendment claim arising from the first grade episode. We will affirm the District Court's judgments in favor of those defendants on that basis without further explication. While we agree with the District Court that the Department of Education is immune from suit in a federal court under the Eleventh Amendment. We will vacate the judgment in its favor and remand with instructions to dismiss the claims against it for lack of jurisdiction. We will remand. To give C.H. an opportunity to cure the deficiencies we have identified if she is able to do so. I. The following facts are affirmatively alleged in the 1. It is unnecessary for us to distinguish in this opinion between the two theories of liability. 3 complaint.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2479.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The suit against the board members was dismissed. Arguing Wainscott's statements are not protected under the First Amendment and that Wainscott was properly afforded due process. I. BACKGROUND Jack Wainscott is an employee of the City of Marion Streets and Sanitation Department (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAwLTkxNTlfMm5kIEFtZW5kZWQucGRm/00-9159_2nd%20Amended.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A poll on whether to rehear the case in banc was conducted among the active judges of the court upon the request of an active judge of the court. Rehearing in banc was DENIED by order of the court filed on February 11. The petition for rehearing was DENIED. Judges Straub and Pooler are filing a concurring opinion. Judges Sack and Katzmann are filing a concurring opinion. Chief Judge Walker is filing a dissenting opinion. Judge Jacobs is filing a dissenting opinion. Judge Cabranes is filing a dissenting opinion. Other judges of the court have indicated that they expect to file opinions concurring in the denial of in banc rehearing in due course. If further opinions or amended opinions are filed. This order will be amended as necessary to reflect those opinions. In light of the opinions that are being filed dissenting from this view. Is not whether the opinion for the panel majority or the dissent was right. Is indeed thorough and forceful. Assuming that it is as sound as the dissenters say that it is.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAwLTkxNTlMb3JkZXIucGRm/00-9159Lorder.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A poll on whether to rehear the case in banc was conducted among the active judges of the court upon the request of an active judge of the court. Rehearing in banc was DENIED by order of the court filed February 11. The petition for rehearing was DENIED. Chief Judge Walker is filing a dissenting opinion. Judge Jacobs is filing a dissenting opinion. Judge Cabranes is filing a dissenting opinion. Other judges of the court have indicated that they expect to file opinions concurring in the denial of in banc rehearing in due course. If further opinions or amended opinions are filed. This order will be amended as necessary to reflect those opinions. Held that those limits were supported by a compelling interest. The full court should have reheard this case in banc. The panel unanimously upheld the district court's determination that the Vermont statute's limitation on out of state contributions was unconstitutional. The panel was divided. Would have upheld the district court's determination that campaign expenditure limits are unconstitutional under Buckley v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2460.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom <U>Robert Roughsedge</U> and <U>Michael Williams</U> were on brief. LLP</U> were on brief. We affirm: the record shows beyond hope of contradiction that the ban on unattended structures is a content neutral restriction on the time. There is no violation of the Free Exercise Clause because the regulation is a neutral law of general applicability. The regulation was only intended to apply to private parties. There is nothing in the record that shows preferential treatment in respect to any unattended structure erected by such a party.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=
</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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/9_opinions/92-5271b.html">AM LIBRARY ASSO V. RENO JANET<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/97-2952.opn.html">GONZALEZ V. LEE COUNTY HOUS. AUTH. (12/2/1998, NO. 97-2952)<BR></A><BR>
A reasonable person in Moran's position would not have known that Gonzalez's letter of September 28. A reasonable person in Moran's position would have known that her termination of Gonzalez's employment was unlawful. <U>See</U> . Moran told Gonzalez that she did not want a black person placed in a vacant elderly housing unit.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/36CC484A14A2014188256BCE0082A938/$file/0056444.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appearing at 274 F.3d 1262 (9th Cir. 2001) is amended as follows: 1. CITY OF IRVINE The contribution limit in place for the two year election cycle ending with the November 2000 election was $320. A person or committee is subject to civil and criminal prosecution for violation of the Ordinance if it accepts during an election cycle contributions from any person that in the aggregate exceed $320. The Lincoln Club is a nonprofit corporation that participates in the electoral process through two affiliated political action committees [
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199909/98-3017a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the briefs was A. With him on the brief were Wilma A. Arguing that the statute is unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to his conduct. We reverse his conviction on that ground and therefore need not resolve his claim that the statute is unconstitutionally overbroad. I. Background Popa is a political refugee from Romania. In the two calls that were recorded Popa refers to Mr. Popa says: Eric Holder is a negro. Is a negro. Which is a criminal. Popa was charged with violating 47 U.S.C. s 223(a)(1)(C). Popa moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2001/98-6857.man.html">RANCH HOUSE, INC. V. AMERSON (1/17/2001, NO. 98-6857)<BR></A><BR>
We conclude that the wisest course is to remand this case to permit further argument and development of the record on several critical issues. Including Defendants' claim that § 200.11 is intended to combat 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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAwLTkxNTlMb3JkZXIucGRm/00-9159Lorder.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A poll on whether to rehear the case in banc was conducted among the active judges of the court upon the request of an active judge of the court. Rehearing in banc was DENIED by order of the court filed February 11. The petition for rehearing was DENIED. Chief Judge Walker is filing a dissenting opinion. Judge Jacobs is filing a dissenting opinion. Judge Cabranes is filing a dissenting opinion. Other judges of the court have indicated that they expect to file opinions concurring in the denial of in banc rehearing in due course. If further opinions or amended opinions are filed. This order will be amended as necessary to reflect those opinions. Held that those limits were supported by a compelling interest. The full court should have reheard this case in banc. The panel unanimously upheld the district court's determination that the Vermont statute's limitation on out of state contributions was unconstitutional. The panel was divided. Would have upheld the district court's determination that campaign expenditure limits are unconstitutional under Buckley v.
</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/06a0087n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Facts and Procedural History The following facts are undisputed. The jail is divided into two areas: an administrative area and a secure area where inmates are held. Notified her co workers that there was a known moisture problem in the jail. Five or six employeeswith Gowan and Plaintiff Tina Holley (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/08/024135P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The ceremony was scheduled for May 14. The separate prayers were placed on the program schedule after a meeting during which the students voted in favor of the traditional practice. Students were allowed to submit non sectarian and non proselytizing prayers for consideration. One student was ultimately selected to deliver the The Honorable Andrew W. United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 22 1 Invocation and a different student was selected to give the Benediction. Morton explained to the students that they were to remain standing for the Invocation after the playing of the national anthem. The ACLU informed Superintendent Randy Nelson (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2000/99-12951.man.html">RICE-LAMAR V. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE (11/8/2000, NO. 99-12951)<BR></A><BR>
Are seven City Departments: Police. Each Department is comprised of several Divisions. One such Division within each of the Departments is the Personnel Division.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAwLTkxNTlMb3JkZXIucGRm/00-9159Lorder.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A poll on whether to rehear the case in banc was conducted among the active judges of the court upon the request of an active judge of the court. Rehearing in banc was DENIED by order of the court filed February 11. The petition for rehearing was DENIED. Chief Judge Walker is filing a dissenting opinion. Judge Jacobs is filing a dissenting opinion. Judge Cabranes is filing a dissenting opinion. Other judges of the court have indicated that they expect to file opinions concurring in the denial of in banc rehearing in due course. If further opinions or amended opinions are filed. This order will be amended as necessary to reflect those opinions. Held that those limits were supported by a compelling interest. The full court should have reheard this case in banc. The panel unanimously upheld the district court's determination that the Vermont statute's limitation on out of state contributions was unconstitutional. The panel was divided. Would have upheld the district court's determination that campaign expenditure limits are unconstitutional under Buckley v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/06/00-6144.htm">00-6144 -- KENT V. MARTIN -- 06/13/2001<BR></A><BR>
Kent's employment as a deputy clerk was terminated six months after her unsuccessful campaign to unseat Bruce Martin as County Clerk and the publication in a local newspaper of her statements concerning Martin's job performance. We reverse. <p align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199914594.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The sole issue in this interlocutory appeal is whether the defendant county Commissioner. Who is being sued for money damages in his individual capacity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the plaintiff's claims that he terminated her employment in violation of her First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of association. Haralson County is governed by a one person commission. Defendant Amos Sparks was elected Commissioner and Chesser's then husband. Was elected Sheriff. Sparks and Kimball were political enemies. Overtime wages were paid to sheriff's department employees. 2 his stated reason for the termination was that she was insubordinate and demonstrated a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/361C25312535743D88256B280063F926/$file/0056444.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The contribution limit in place for the two year election cycle ending with the November 2000 election was $320. A person or committee is subject to civil and criminal prosecution for violation of the Ordinance if it accepts during an election cycle contributions from any person that in the aggregate exceed $320. The Lincoln Club is a nonprofit corporation that participates in the electoral process through two affiliated political action committees [
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034624p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
McGreevy filed a timely notice of appeal.1 The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and we have jurisdiction to review the District Court's final orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 2 1 I. Facts Linda McGreevy was employed as the school nurse at the Bermudian Springs School District Elementary School beginning in 1994. McGreevy is a licensed professional nurse. She is also qualified to be a school principal. 75 80 is considered
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8940B42E0CD566E288256E5A00707D9B/$file/0056444.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The contribution limit in place for the two year election cycle ending with the November 2000 election was $320. A person or committee is subject to civil and criminal prosecution for violation of the Ordinance if it accepts during an election cycle contributions from any person that in the aggregate exceed $320. The Lincoln Club is a nonprofit corporation that participates in the electoral process through two affiliated political action committees [
</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/00a0063p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are liable for tortious interference with Plaintiffs' economic relations. The Restatement Second of Torts § 766B expressly states that a defendant is liable for intentional interference with prospective contractual relations
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/97-2952.opn.html">GONZALEZ V. LEE COUNTY HOUS. AUTH. (12/2/1998, NO. 97-2952)<BR></A><BR>
A reasonable person in Moran's position would not have known that Gonzalez's letter of September 28. A reasonable person in Moran's position would have known that her termination of Gonzalez's employment was unlawful. <U>See</U> . Moran told Gonzalez that she did not want a black person placed in a vacant elderly housing unit.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/99-4070.htm">99-4070 -- LIGHTON V. UNIVERSITY OF UTAH -- 04/24/2000<BR></A><BR>
At issue is whether the district court properly granted summary judgment to Dr. A subordinate female researcher from South Africa who was visiting his laboratory for two to three months to learn advanced respirometry techniques for insects. Lighten simply stated: <p> The actions of the University of Utah have made it impossible for me to retain my academic post in the Biology Department without compromising my respect for both this institution and myself. <p> Following Dr. Also commented on their fortune in resolving the situation so quickly.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/99-1211.htm">99-1211 -- FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION V. COLORADO REPUBLICAN FEDERAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE -- 05/05/2000<BR></A><BR>
Are subject to FECA's contribution limits. <u>Buckley</u>. The Act sets the following contribution limits: A
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3624.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
John Doe was banned for life from all park property in the City of Lafayette. BACKGROUND No. 01 3624 John Doe is a convicted sex offender. His last conviction was in 1991. Doe's crimes were committed in schools. He claims that his urges are triggered by emotional vulnerability. His psychologist opines that he will likely have these urges for the rest of his life. Doe was driving home from work and began to have sexual thoughts about children. Because he was upset about the incident. Is far from clear. There is no evidence that he got out of his car or even stopped his car at the first park. The thoughts he had while he was there. Although all acknowledge that Doe was no longer serving a sentence or on probation.3 As a result of this conversation. Nor was Doe afforded an opportunity to appeal.4 The ban order is both geographically and temporally broad. The City of Lafayette's extensive park system 2 Doe's psychologist testified that his ability to go to the park and manage his impulses is a positive step in his treatment and helps integrate Doe into a more normal lifestyle.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2000/99-12951.man.html">RICE-LAMAR V. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE (11/8/2000, NO. 99-12951)<BR></A><BR>
Are seven City Departments: Police. Each Department is comprised of several Divisions. One such Division within each of the Departments is the Personnel Division.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2001/98-6857.man.html">RANCH HOUSE, INC. V. AMERSON (1/17/2001, NO. 98-6857)<BR></A><BR>
We conclude that the wisest course is to remand this case to permit further argument and development of the record on several critical issues. Including Defendants' claim that § 200.11 is intended to combat 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.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/03/061922P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which is carried out by city police on behalf of Salute. Arguing that it is not liable as a state actor for its speech restrictions and that the injunction violates its own First Amendment right to be free from compelled speech. Although the airport is owned by the city. The two day event is free and open to the public. During the noontime hour each day there is a ceremony to honor fallen veterans at which the national anthem is played. The names of fallen Boone County service members are read aloud. The air show's honored guests are introduced to the crowd. The stated purpose of the air show is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1741RHR.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. 2004</P> <BR WP=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/12/983439P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Although candidacy was open to all members of the sophomore class. Those seeking to run were required to meet with Mary Stodden. Henerey was informed by Stodden that other candidates had complained that his posters had been posted over theirs and that references to other candidates were demeaning. Stodden was counting the ballots. The rule restricting the types of electioneering materials that could be distributed was constitutional. The court concluded that the student election was a school sponsored activity that took place in a nonpublic forum and that Dr. Cook's decision to disqualify Henerey for his failure to comply with Rule KJ R was reasonably related to the school's legitimate pedagogical goals. Indicates that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The constitutional rights of public school students
</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.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-3017a.html">USA V. POPA ION CORNEL<BR></A><BR>
With her on the briefs was <i></p> <p>A. With him on the brief were <i>Wilma A. </p> <p>Lewis</i>. Arguing that the statute </p> <p>is unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to his </p> <p>conduct. We reverse his conviction on that </p> <p>ground and therefore need not resolve his claim that the </p> <p>statute is unconstitutionally overbroad.</p> <p>I. Background </p> <p>Popa is a political refugee from Romania. In the two calls that were recorded </p> <p>Popa refers to Mr. Popa says:</p> <p>Eric Holder is a negro. Is a negro. Which is a criminal. </p> <p>He make a violent crime against me. Criminal.</p> <p>Popa was charged with violating 47 U.S.C. 223(a)(1)(C). This type of speech directed at a public official ... is entitled </p> <p>to First Amendment protection.". He argued that his deroga </p> <p>tory references to Holder are not punishable as ". The court held that the statute is constitu </p> <p>tional on its face because it ". The court did not respond to Popa's </p> <p>claim that the statute is unconstitutional as applied to his </p> <p>conduct.</p> <p>Popa.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="696"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199914594.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The sole issue in this interlocutory appeal is whether the defendant county Commissioner. Who is being sued for money damages in his individual capacity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the plaintiff's claims that he terminated her employment in violation of her First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of association. Haralson County is governed by a one person commission. Defendant Amos Sparks was elected Commissioner and Chesser's then husband. Was elected Sheriff. Sparks and Kimball were political enemies. 2 So. Overtime wages were paid to sheriff's department employees. 2 his stated reason for the termination was that she was insubordinate and demonstrated a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0438p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
William Leslie were employees of the Kentucky Department of Parks. They were terminated from employment in May 2004 for failing to comply with the Department's dress code. I. The district court set forth the following relevant facts in its opinion granting summary judgment: The Plaintiffs were seasonal workers employed to perform maintenance services at the General Burnside State Park during the summer months. That we are working hard to eliminate the deficit associated with operating the State Parks. . . . [I]t is may [sic] small details that we must pay attention to in order to attract tourists to our Parks and provide them outstanding experience that will make them want to come back and visit with us. We have implemented a new professional appearance policy that ALL employees must adhere to at each Park location. Or wrist bands are approved ways to cover). Please be advised that there are no exceptions to this policy. . . . Failure to comply with the new policy is clearly insubordination. It is your role as park managers to ensure that ALL employees comply with Park policies.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1883.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for plaintiff Toby Klang Ward. Were on brief for defendants Carol A. Were on brief for the School Committee of the Town of Belmont. We affirm part of the attorneys' fees judgment and remand the rest for a determination of whether any of Ward's litigation was frivolous. A favorable vote would have granted Ward tenure. The jury found that none of the defendants' votes were motivated by that discussion. Ward had a constitutional right to notice that her discussion was prohibited before the School Board could retaliate against her for that discussion. That Hickey and Gibson were not so motivated. To conclude that Tinkham's disagreement with Ward's views was an essential element of Ward's 2 See the jury's special verdict forms in the appendix. 3 The jury's response to question six contradicts its response to the other questions regarding Gibson and Hickey. The contradiction was unexplained on the record. The issue is moot. 5 First Amendment claim.4 Since the jury found no disagreement. Tinkham was entitled to qualified immunity.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0086a-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Factual Background after they were prohibited from soliciting signatures for a referendum petition outside six polling places on election day in Sidney. Members of Local 1099 attempted to solicit signatures in areas on school or private property that were outside of the areas that had been designated as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0065p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Brought suit under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 against defendants appellees after they were prohibited from soliciting signatures for a referendum petition outside six polling places on election day 1 No. 02 3415 United Food & Commercial Workers Local 1099. Members of Local 1099 attempted to solicit signatures in areas on school or private property that were outside of the areas that had been designated as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2673.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Weizenbaum Ltd.</SPAN> were on brief. Some of which (such as a nativity scene) were overtly religious. We reverse.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9C0D094EF0733F3988256B6B007C2FF7/$file/0115700.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I Jerry Dean McCoy was indicted in Arizona Superior Court on one count of participating in a criminal street gang in violation of A.R.S. § 13 2308. Citing as aggravating circumstances his criminal history and that he was on parole at the time of the offense. 1 At the time of McCoy's alleged advising. Is guilty of a class 2 felony.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr98/95-4996.man.html">GOLD V. CITY OF MIAMI (4/7/1998, NO. 95-4996)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judges.</P> <P> PER CURIAM:</P> <P> The Court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor of it (Rule 35. Rehearing en banc is DENIED.</P> <P> BARKETT. The panel held that the police officers who arrested Gold for disorderly conduct based solely on his comments to them were entitled to qualified immunity on Gold's false arrest claim. The panel held that Gold's First Amendment rights were not clearly established. We should rehear this case <EM>en banc.</EM></P> <P> The disorderly conduct for which Gold was arrested consisted of Gold yelling from his car to a police officer.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/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-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200512540.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ruling that the County ordinance was constitutional on its face and that the City's enforcement provisions also passed constitutional muster. We note several developments that have affected the issues on appeal and the manner in which we will structure our analysis. The City adopted comprehensive amendments to its noise ordinance that have mooted at least one of the five claims on appeal.3 In count IV of their complaint. Were null and void and to enjoin their use. Since the County noise ordinance is now officially a municipal ordinance. At oral argument on the motions for summary judgment the plaintiffs conceded that the City could cure the constitutional infirmity in its alternate code enforcement provisions if it adopted the County ordinance.4 A change in statute will not always moot a constitutional claim. Stated
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-2278.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 and AFFIRM. I. Plaintiffs are police officer employees of the City's Department of Public Safety (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C3690C26EE778E288825721A007B5E85/$file/0316702.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is hereby amended as follows: 1. 2. Attempted to address the conduct of only one of the 20 inmates who were responsible for 56 incidents of exhibitionist masturbation in the security housing unit. The jury heard the Inspector General's findings that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011151.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Line 25 the reference to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAwLTkxNTlfTF9vcmRlci5wZGY=/00-9159_L_order.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A poll on whether to rehear the case in banc was conducted among the active judges of the court upon the request of an active judge of the court. Rehearing in banc was DENIED by order of the court filed February 11. The petition for rehearing was DENIED. Chief Judge Walker is filing a dissenting opinion. Judge Jacobs is filing a dissenting opinion. Judge Cabranes is filing a dissenting opinion. Other judges of the court have indicated that they expect to file opinions concurring in the denial of in banc rehearing in due course. If further opinions or amended opinions are filed. This order will be amended as necessary to reflect those opinions. Held that those limits were supported by a compelling interest. The full court should have reheard this case in banc. The panel unanimously upheld the district court's determination that the Vermont statute's limitation on out of state contributions was unconstitutional. The panel was divided. Would have upheld the district court's determination that campaign expenditure limits are unconstitutional under Buckley v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/421EF751DD8E498A88256C55005A6DE9/$file/0156091.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Overview We are asked to decide whether the City of Santa Monica's refusal to permit a candidate for the City Council to designate his occupation as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/07/032134P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appellants argue that the district court erred in holding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. There was a grocery store on one corner.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DF356BE847BD9E6288256AA1005C3AED/$file/0010283.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were called to the scene to assist. Ranger Lober testified that when he arrived at the Lodge members of the crowd were expressing hostility toward the officers. This is fucked. Lober attempted to get the crowd to back away from the officers who were struggling with Hadley by issuing general orders to the crowd to back up and to disperse. A small group of eight to ten individuals near Lober was particularly angry and emotional. Who was standing approximately five feet away. Poocha's response was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6195.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Consumable materials for classroom experiments and observation activities. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Greenshields felt the modules were inferior to the methods and materials she had traditionally used to teach science. The API listed at least five instances when Greenshields did not comply with instructions issued by school administrators and indicated additional insubordination was unacceptable. Greenshields did not inventory the contents of the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/02/001024P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appellant argues that the district court erred in holding that there is no genuine issue of material fact and appellees are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on (1) her First Amendment free speech claim brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and (2) her state law claims alleging negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Jurisdiction Jurisdiction in the district court was proper based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. Jurisdiction in this court is proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. Background The following summary of background facts is based upon the district court's summary judgment order. Appellant was the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2D045400FB5305A1882571E7007FAA71/$file/0316702.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: May a state department of corrections be held liable for prison officials' failure to correct a hostile work environment that is the result of male prisoners' sexual harassment of female guards? Freitag alleged that the CDCR and Pelican Bay were delinquent in addressing the sexually hostile environment created by prison inmates particularly in confronting the pervasive practice at Pelican Bay of inmate exhibitionist masturbation directed at female officers and that she was retaliated against and ultimately terminated due to her repeated complaints regarding the problem. Inmates in the SHU are subjected to harsher and more restrictive conditions than exist at any other prison in the state system.1 On September 12. Freitag was working a relief shift in the SHU control tower when she witnessed Inmate X standing naked in the exercise yard masturbating. Freitag was instructed by her direct supervisor not to document the incident. Which are placed in inmates' central files but ordinarily do not form the basis for disciplinary action.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FB881F807ADD1B6588256D830058E1B9/$file/0256947.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because we find it unlikely that the advertising companies will prevail on their First Amendment claims. An
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/07/952234P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Based on their
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/685769e6b6cf31ad88256e5a00707c2e/$FILE/0010283.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were called to the scene to assist. Ranger Lober testified that when he arrived at the Lodge members of the crowd were expressing hostility toward the officers. This is fucked. Lober attempted to get the crowd to back away from the officers who were struggling with Hadley by issuing general orders to the crowd to back up and to disperse. A small group of eight to ten individuals near Lober was particularly angry and emotional. Who was standing approximately five feet away. Poocha's response was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTI0MzItY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2432-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jurors' names that were disclosed in open court. A former executive of Credit Suisse First Boston (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/df356be847bd9e6288256aa1005c3aed/$FILE/0010283.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were called to the scene to assist. Ranger Lober testified that when he arrived at the Lodge members of the crowd were expressing hostility toward the officers. This is fucked. Lober attempted to get the crowd to back away from the officers who were struggling with Hadley by issuing general orders to the crowd to back up and to disperse. A small group of eight to ten individuals near Lober was particularly angry and emotional. Who was standing approximately five feet away. Poocha's response was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr98/95-4996.man.html">GOLD V. CITY OF MIAMI (4/7/1998, NO. 95-4996)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judges.</P> <P> PER CURIAM:</P> <P> The Court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor of it (Rule 35. Rehearing en banc is DENIED.</P> <P> BARKETT. The panel held that the police officers who arrested Gold for disorderly conduct based solely on his comments to them were entitled to qualified immunity on Gold's false arrest claim. The panel held that Gold's First Amendment rights were not clearly established. We should rehear this case <EM>en banc.</EM></P> <P> The disorderly conduct for which Gold was arrested consisted of Gold yelling from his car to a police officer.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19954996.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
PER CURIAM: The Court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor of it (Rule 35. Rehearing en banc is DENIED. The panel held that the police officers who arrested Gold for disorderly conduct based solely on his comments to them were entitled to qualified immunity on Gold's false arrest claim. The panel held that Gold's First Amendment rights were not clearly established. The disorderly conduct for which Gold was arrested consisted of Gold yelling from his car to a police officer.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/may96/94-4236.wpd.html">SEAMONS V. SNOW<BR></A><BR>
The word pendent is misspelled as pendant. Larsen's name was misspelled as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/06/97-6336.htm">97-6336 -- MARTIN V. CITY OF DEL CITY -- 06/03/1999<BR></A><BR>
Martin timely appealed and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/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-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/12/99-8095.htm">99-8095 -- PHELAN V. LARAMIE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES -- 12/19/2000<BR></A><BR>
The provision at issue provides:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="687"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/685769E6B6CF31AD88256E5A00707C2E/$file/0010283.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were called to the scene to assist. Ranger Lober testified that when he arrived at the Lodge members of the crowd were expressing hostility toward the officers. This is fucked. Lober attempted to get the crowd to back away from the officers who were struggling with Hadley by issuing general orders to the crowd to back up and to disperse. A small group of eight to ten individuals near Lober was particularly angry and emotional. Who was standing approximately five feet away. Poocha's response was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/12/98-6462.htm">98-6462 -- WILLIAMS V. CITY OF EDMONDS -- 12/16/1999<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Ron Williamson was terminated from his position as a fire marshal for the City of Edmond for using a profane epithet toward a coworker. The district court determined that the speech for which Williamson was terminated was not protected by the First Amendment and that his due process rights were not violated. Williamson was the City's fire marshal. The fire department is unionized. Williamson was at one of the City's fire stations and entered the office of Captain Charles Owen to show him some photographs from a recent fire. Were also in or near Owen's office. While Williamson was in Owen's office. As I was showing them to him. Everyone knew that I was displeased with it.<sup>[</sup><a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CD690E73DCED6D2388256AA80080FF33/$file/9956964.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sampson contends that: (1) the District's policy against workplace violence is facially constitutional. (2) the District's policy against workplace violence is constitutional as applied to Bauer. (3) the District's policy against racial discrimination or harassment is constitutional as applied to Bauer. (4) Bauer is not entitled to attorney's fees. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Bauer is a tenured professor of ethics and political philosophy at Irvine Valley College (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A59BE2A88B564E3C88256A80007C7F68/$file/9955563.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
An article from this issue entitled
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/09/98-1412.htm">98-1412 -- TORRES V. PUEBLO BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS -- 09/19/2000<BR></A><BR>
Torres was terminated from her employment as a benefits specialist with the County of Pueblo in retaliation for their union organizing activities and Mrs. Torres was the benefits specialist. Her supervisor was defendant Jeanette O'Quin. Torres was the principal organizer in unionizing that department in 1996. Torres was terminated in retaliation for her and Mr. Torres' employment was terminated for
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044646p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. The plaintiffs are a local labor organization. Who were involved in a get out the vote campaign preceding the 2004 presidential election. Is one of a number of municipalities in Allegheny County that regulate door to door canvassing and solicitation. Individuals must present photo identification and the following information in writing: 316.1 The name and the home address of the individual or individuals who will be canvassing in the Municipality. 316.2 The dates and hours during which the individual(s) will canvass in the Municipality. 316.3 The locations in which the individual(s) will canvass in the Municipality. There is a $50 fee for each solicitation permit. Which is waived for those persons soliciting only one time within any calendar year. The police chief must issue the permit if the information is complete and the requisite fees are paid.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/3f9eb3aec663535b88256a32005ad97f/$FILE/0015269.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This doctrine is limited. Weeks responded that the programs were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/10/97-1161.htm">97-1161 -- PARADIS V. MONTROSE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL -- 10/14/1998<BR></A><BR>
Discrimination by certain hospital administrators are of sufficient public concern to be protected under the First Amendment. We also determine whether the First Amendment protections afforded such speech were clearly established at the time hospital administrators purportedly retaliated by firing the staff concerned. We uphold the district court's rejection of the administrators' claims of qualified immunity. <p><strong>I</strong> Appellees Carol Paradis and Kathleen Ryan are registered nurses. Violated their First Amendment rights. <p> The two nurses' complaint states that they were retaliated against and ultimately constructively discharged after speaking to hospital administrators about appellant Doerer's allegedly unethical and illegal conduct. It was clearly established that such speech was of public concern. Appellants argue that the law protecting such speech was not clearly established at the time appellees raised their allegations. Were sufficient to deny appellants qualified immunity as a matter of law.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1812.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bader were on brief. Pierce Atwood were on brief. The Maine Committee is a nonprofit membership corporation. Among its activities thus funded is the publication of voter guides describing the position of congressional candidates on
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6952C5D3EEC8026588256AE6005AD244/$file/9956964.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2001 is hereby recalled for the purposes of amending the Opinion. 2001 and appearing at slip op page 10885 is amended as follows: At slip op page 10901. Sampson contends that: (1) the District's policy against workplace violence is facially constitutional. (2) the District's policy against workplace violence is constitutional as applied to Bauer. (3) the District's policy against racial discrimination or harassment is constitutional as applied to Bauer. (4) Bauer is not entitled to attorney's fees. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Bauer is a tenured professor of ethics and political philosophy at Irvine Valley College (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200313011.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(2) the murals were school sponsored speech. (3) Appellees' response was reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical objectives. While the school was undergoing long term remodeling. Students were prevented from walking into construction areas by dozens of large plywood panels in interior and exterior hallways. These panels were ugly. Students were invited to paint murals on the panels. Three of these murals were most notable. Sharah's first mural was next to the school's main office. Sharah's second mural was only a few panels down from the office and read. Do you have time for Him?
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3DF703F416DC0608882570F40006DDCF/$file/0117424.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bea) conclude that the case is ripe for adjudication. The judgment of the district court is REVERSED and the case REMANDED with directions to dismiss the action without prejudice. Brought suit in federal district court in diversity against La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1997/97a1504p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. He was assigned to the Housing Authority Police Department's Drug Elimination Task Force (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3F9EB3AEC663535B88256A32005AD97F/$file/0015269.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This doctrine is limited. Weeks responded that the programs were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2204A.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Requires that political advertising that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/56EE8299939A3A9688256C6000730733/$file/0017222.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Walters is substituted for his predecessor. P. 43(c)(2). **Asa Hutchinson is substituted for his predecessor. P. 43(c)(2). ***John Ashcroft is substituted for his predecessor. Thompson is substituted for his predecessor. Chief Judge: This is an appeal from a permanent injunction entered to protect First Amendment rights. Where the basis for the government's action is solely the physician's professional
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/43BE1CE790E4B91188256E5A00707AF7/$file/0015269.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This doctrine is limited. Weeks responded that the programs were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1997/97a1505p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which we will refer to as the voting room. When the doors were open. Because the tenor of the lyrics is so important to the resolution of the case. We recite the words of the songs: First song: Throughout North America you see us on the job from Atlanta to Calgary Vancouver to Cape Cod You can't tell us by our color you can't tell us by our hat we're the backbone of the country we take pride in being that We're brothers and we're sisters working hard for what is fair you can always tell a Teamster by that certain pride he wears Meeting all the challenges united we stand tall Proud to be a Teamster that's why we'll never fall We are the North Americans from sea to shining sea we backed our country in the fight we earned the right to be When FDR put out the call we kept him rolling through it all we are the workers who stand united we're Teamsters one and all We're carving out a better life for our loved ones old and young we're giving them the melody the song that's not been sung In a moment of reflection I close my eyes and see the dreams our fathers had for us are now reality Second song: Let's hail the Teamsters Union and sing of it with pride Remember Teamster members.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9A8A5C6DF4191E6C88256E5A00707BD3/$file/9955563.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
An article from this issue entitled
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0D3D083082AA219188256E5A00707C54/$file/9956964.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sampson contends that: (1) the District's policy against workplace violence is facially constitutional. (2) the District's policy against workplace violence is constitutional as applied to Bauer. (3) the District's policy against racial discrimination or harassment is constitutional as applied to Bauer. (4) Bauer is not entitled to attorney's fees. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Bauer is a tenured professor of ethics and political philosophy at Irvine Valley College (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/43be1ce790e4b91188256e5a00707af7/$FILE/0015269.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This doctrine is limited. Weeks responded that the programs were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8E91287A670DA81C88256E5A00707D07/$file/9956964.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2001 is hereby recalled for the purposes of amending the Opinion. 2001 and appearing at slip op page 10885 is amended as follows: At slip op page 10901. Sampson contends that: (1) the District's policy against workplace violence is facially constitutional. (2) the District's policy against workplace violence is constitutional as applied to Bauer. (3) the District's policy against racial discrimination or harassment is constitutional as applied to Bauer. (4) Bauer is not entitled to attorney's fees. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Bauer is a tenured professor of ethics and political philosophy at Irvine Valley College (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/03/041211P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Arguing that there was no probable cause for the search of his residence. That his convictions are constitutionally infirm. Paul Police Department was contacted by a mother concerned about a document on her family computer. Dlbch15 added that he would like to see AM if he were going to drive to St. Schaub also discovered that the nickname dlbch15 was linked to the email address dlbch15@prodigy.com. Further investigation revealed that Bach was a registered sex offender because of a 1995 state conviction for criminal sexual conduct in the third degree. Involving sex with a fourteen year old boy. 2 3 Initials are used when minors are referenced. The warrant was faxed from Minnesota to Yahoo! in Santa Clara. Inside was a zip disk containing all of the emails preserved in the accounts belonging to AM and Bach (dlbch15@yahoo.com). Among them was one dated August 1. That transmission is the basis for Bach's conviction for receiving child pornography. Below the image was the name of AC. An IP is generated when one computer connects with another through the internet.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="678"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2004/031725p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Holding that the law
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199805/97-1113a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Jonathan S. With him on the briefs were Frank W. With him on the brief were David W. BellSouth says s 274 is an unconstitutional bill of attainder. Are singled 1 The order under challenge is Implementation of the Telecom munications Act of 1996: Telemessaging. BellSouth's challenge to the order is entirely derivative of its constitutional challenge to the statute. Although electronic publishing restrictions have usually amounted to little more than a subplot. In 1982 a consent decree was entered in settlement of the govern ment's 1974 antitrust suit against AT&T. The twenty BOCs eventually named in the 1996 Act were spun off from AT&T and grouped into seven regional Bell operating companies. Of which BellSouth is one.2 The MFJ initially prohibited the BOCs from providing
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0070p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jr. is the General Vice President of the Eastern Regional Office of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. Is temporarily secured to the ground with stakes to ensure that it does not tip over. Also includes anything constructed which is not enclosed within another structure and is placed in a stationary location.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1BED9CDE5317262088256AA7005A910A/$file/9917157.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The HO's determination would have 10684 provided Amanda reimbursement for the cost of the 1996 assessments indicating autism and the cost of an in home program funded by her parents from April 1. We then turn to a question of more significance to the growing number of parents of autistic children for whom early detection and early parental involvement in education is critical to their ability to overcome the disorder: whether the District's failure to give Amanda's parents copies of the evaluations indicating the possibility of autism and the need for further psychiatric evaluations when the District learned of the possible diagnosis violated the procedural requirements of the IDEA. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1291. Congress enacted the IDEA
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0362p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
John Patrick Farrelly was convicted of one count of receiving child pornography and was sentenced to 57 months' imprisonment. Because there was sufficient evidence that the pornographic images that Farrelly received were of real children. The FBI received a tip from one of Farrelly's coworkers that Farrelly was accessing child pornography on his office computer. As that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)(A)
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AE0A858C82A2EA8F88256D4E007A736C/$file/0156380.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: There is no reason inherent in the technological features of cyberspace why First Amendment and defamation law should apply differently in cyberspace than in the brick and mortar world. Has chosen for policy reasons to immunize from liability for defamatory or obscene speech
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ADF14D5C63B4E48288256A8F005892B0/$file/0035303.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Requires us to evaluate through a constitutional prism the actions school officials took to address what they perceived was the student's implied threat of violent harm to himself and others. Have imparted about the potential for school violence (as rare as 9256 these incidents may be when taken in context). They are educational institutions after all. Speech including creative writing and poetry is an essential part of the educational fabric. Although this is a close case in retrospect. James LaVine was in eleventh grade and a student in Vivian Bleecker's sixth period English class at Blaine High School. Beauty is in the eye's. 1 All of these facts are undisputed. 9257 and now. Was I would not. When it all was over. 28 were. Was not felling. I was. Were screams. 2 years have passed. Oregon and were frequent topics in the news.2 The morning after James wrote the poem. Because
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BE2A626F3785FDA588256E5A00707BF7/$file/0035303.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Requires us to evaluate through a constitutional prism the actions school officials took to address what they perceived was the student's implied threat of violent harm to himself and others. Have imparted about the potential for school violence (as rare as 9256 these incidents may be when taken in context). They are educational institutions after all. Speech including creative writing and poetry is an essential part of the educational fabric. Although this is a close case in retrospect. James LaVine was in eleventh grade and a student in Vivian Bleecker's sixth period English class at Blaine High School. Beauty is in the eye's. 1 All of these facts are undisputed. 9257 and now. Was I would not. When it all was over. 28 were. Was not felling. I was. Were screams. 2 years have passed. Oregon and were frequent topics in the news.2 The morning after James wrote the poem. Because
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar98/97-8268.man.html">GRIGLEY V. CITY OF ATLANTA (3/4/1998, NO. 97-8268)<BR></A><BR>
Alleging that he was retaliated against in violation of his First Amendment right to petition. Ruling that Grigley's expression was not protected by the First Amendment because it did not relate to a matter of public concern. BACKGROUND</CENTER> </P> <P> Grigley is a male police officer employed as a Sergeant by the City of Atlanta Police Department. He is a 22 year veteran of that department. Grigley was involved in a physical altercation at his home with Officer Phyllis Hayes Dix. City of East Point police officers were called to the scene and issued citations for disorderly conduct to Grigley and Hayes Dix. Grigley alleges that although he was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F2E9E3A0DEC35D2088256E5A00707CE4/$file/9917157.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: Please see attached Amended Opinion. The petition for rehearing is DENIED and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is REJECTED. 13664 OPINION WARDLAW. The HO's determination would have provided Amanda reimbursement for the cost of the 1996 assessments indicating autism and the cost of an in home program funded by her parents from April 1. We then turn to a question of more significance to the growing number of parents of autistic children for whom early detection and early parental involvement in education is critical to their ability to overcome the disorder: whether the District's failure to give Amanda's parents copies of the evaluations indicating the possibility of autism and the need for further psychiatric evaluations when the District learned of the possible diagnosis violated the procedural requirements of the IDEA. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1291. I. Statutory Background The IDEA provides states with federal funds to help educate children with disabilities if they provide every qualified child with a FAPE that meets the federal statutory requirements.1 Congress enacted the IDEA
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/03/022705P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Also dismissed were alleged statutory violations for omitting information required by 22 1 rel. An
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2001/00-16220.opn.html">HORTON V. CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE (11/15/2001, NO. 00-16220)<BR></A><BR>
That is closed to automobile traffic. Shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section. Is not limited to acting. Canvas or other similar medium when such art is applied to the medium through the use of brush. Horton's Complaint claimed that Section 22 9 was:</P> <P> (1)
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1994/94a0892p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are engaged in. Or who would have the right to file or seek enforcement of administrative. The district court held that the case was not ripe. That the controversy is ripe because Cummings arguably alleges the statute threatens his right as an individual citizen to speak out against male and female homosexual acts and the state has expressly refused to offer any assurance it will not prosecute Cummings if he does so outside his church. Is not true of the institutional church plaintiffs. We will reverse the district court's order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion in so far as its order applies to Reverend Cummings. We will. We also held that the possibility of private enforcement of the Act by activist homosexual groups was too remote to constitute an immediate threat of potential harm and. The case was not ripe and that the federal court should abstain under Railroad Commission of Texas v. It held that the case was not ripe. It is unlawful for an employer
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2003/021665p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Daniel Walz was a student in pre kindergarten in the spring of 1998. There was usually an exchange of small gifts. The children's parents were encouraged to donate gifts to the local Parent Teacher Organization. [our student body is] very diverse. Kids would see other kids doing it and feel they have to do it. Walz had purchased the pencils at a local store because she thought 3 the pencils were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/06/03-8035.htm">03-8035 -- COOPER V. TOWN OF BAR NUNN WY -- 06/10/2004<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Defendant appellant Charles Anderson. Anderson filed a motion for summary judgment alleging he was entitled to qualified immunity. We affirm. <p>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/97-6175.htm">97-6175 -- ADAMS V. CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY -- 07/07/1998<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiffs Janine A. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2314.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is the fifth time this case is 1 before this court. At issue in this appeal is the district Southworth v. The procedural history of this case is important to the resolution of this appeal. 1 (...continued) Southworth v. The most important for resolving the current dispute are our reported opinions. The facts relied on here relate specifically to the Madison campus and the Appellees are. Or were. Responsibility for the allocation of these fees is shared by the Board of Regents for the University and students at the University through their student government representatives. A portion (by far the larger portion) of the collected fees are classified by the Regents as nonallocable. This portion is used to cover expenses such as debt service. This nonallocable portion is not at issue here. The remainder of the fees are classified as allocable and are largely controlled by the University's student government body. The SSFC is responsible for the allocation of that portion of the fees held in the General Student Services Fund (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011726.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Footnote 1 the second sentence of the footnote is amended to read: Gen. (4) Any conduct or entertainment by any person whose private parts are exposed or who is wearing transparent clothing that reveals the private parts. Or any sexual acts that are prohibited by law. A court must consider
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19949220.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That she was subject to a six month probationary period and that he expected a two year commitment from her. employment lasted until March 15. The office receptionist questioned her One of the if
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2001/00-16220.opn.html">HORTON V. CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE (11/15/2001, NO. 00-16220)<BR></A><BR>
That is closed to automobile traffic. Shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section. Is not limited to acting. Canvas or other similar medium when such art is applied to the medium through the use of brush. Horton's Complaint claimed that Section 22 9 was:</P> <P> (1)
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/06/02-3121.htm">02-3121 -- BURNS V. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF JACKSON COUNTY -- 06/03/2003<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200705/05-5359a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Robert L. With her on the brief were Kenneth L. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Plaintiffs are citizens who petitioned various parts of the Legislative and Executive Branches for redress of a variety of grievances that plaintiffs asserted with respect to the Government's tax. I Plaintiffs are numerous individuals and an organization that creatively calls itself
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may99/98-4091.man.html">ONE WORLD ONE FAMILY NOW V. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH (5/20/1999, NO. 98-4091)<BR></A><BR>
Vending from streets and sidewalks is prohibited. The only exception to this general prohibition is that full service restaurants operating from an enclosed structure may serve food on outdoor tables.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/jan96/94-6335.html">EAGON V. CITY OF ELK CITY<BR></A><BR>
Plaintiffs cross appeal from an order of the district court holding that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from damages. While injunctive and declaratory relief was granted (No. 94 6336). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291. I Ackley Park is a public park in Elk City. Clubs have been allowed to erect displays. In December 1992 plaintiff Mayberry was instructed to take down his display for the Beckham County Teenage Republican Club by Nelda Burch because his sign
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar98/97-8268.man.html">GRIGLEY V. CITY OF ATLANTA (3/4/1998, NO. 97-8268)<BR></A><BR>
Alleging that he was retaliated against in violation of his First Amendment right to petition. Ruling that Grigley's expression was not protected by the First Amendment because it did not relate to a matter of public concern. BACKGROUND</CENTER> </P> <P> Grigley is a male police officer employed as a Sergeant by the City of Atlanta Police Department. He is a 22 year veteran of that department. Grigley was involved in a physical altercation at his home with Officer Phyllis Hayes Dix. City of East Point police officers were called to the scene and issued citations for disorderly conduct to Grigley and Hayes Dix. Grigley alleges that although he was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200016220.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That is closed to automobile traffic. Shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section. Is not limited to acting. Canvas or other similar medium when such art is applied to the medium through the use of brush. Horton's Complaint claimed that Section 22 9 was: (1)
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/677B99C9B927E47488256AD20057BC53/$file/9917157.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: Please see attached Amended Opinion. The petition for rehearing is DENIED and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is REJECTED. 13664 OPINION WARDLAW. The HO's determination would have provided Amanda reimbursement for the cost of the 1996 assessments indicating autism and the cost of an in home program funded by her parents from April 1. We then turn to a question of more significance to the growing number of parents of autistic children for whom early detection and early parental involvement in education is critical to their ability to overcome the disorder: whether the District's failure to give Amanda's parents copies of the evaluations indicating the possibility of autism and the need for further psychiatric evaluations when the District learned of the possible diagnosis violated the procedural requirements of the IDEA. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1291. I. Statutory Background The IDEA provides states with federal funds to help educate children with disabilities if they provide every qualified child with a FAPE that meets the federal statutory requirements.1 Congress enacted the IDEA
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may99/98-4091.man.html">ONE WORLD ONE FAMILY NOW V. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH (5/20/1999, NO. 98-4091)<BR></A><BR>
Vending from streets and sidewalks is prohibited. The only exception to this general prohibition is that full service restaurants operating from an enclosed structure may serve food on outdoor tables.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/770245B50EEC5EFD88256E5A00707C44/$file/9917157.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The HO's determination would have 10684 provided Amanda reimbursement for the cost of the 1996 assessments indicating autism and the cost of an in home program funded by her parents from April 1. We then turn to a question of more significance to the growing number of parents of autistic children for whom early detection and early parental involvement in education is critical to their ability to overcome the disorder: whether the District's failure to give Amanda's parents copies of the evaluations indicating the possibility of autism and the need for further psychiatric evaluations when the District learned of the possible diagnosis violated the procedural requirements of the IDEA. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1291. Congress enacted the IDEA
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021153.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lines 1 2 the phrase is corrected to read
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2003/023897p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Such that the EAA's limited open forum mandates were not triggered. 1 we conclude that her request for injunctive and declaratory relief is moot. The opening briefs were filed and oral argument took place while she was still a student. During which time she was referred to as such. We will do the same. 4 justify PAHS's preventing the Bible club from meeting during the activity period. Punxsutawney Area High School (PAHS) is a Punxsutawney Area School District public secondary school that receives federal financial assistance. Students have free reign in a closed universe. Each club must have a faculty sponsor who monitors but is not required to participate actively in club meetings. Noncurriculum related groups that meet during the activity period are the ski club. Appellant Melissa Donovan is a PAHS senior who leads a Bible club known as FISH. Former PAHS Principal Allen Towns and current PAHS Principal David 5 London have stipulated that FISH may not meet during the activity period due to the club's religious ties.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/02/02-2314.htm">02-2314 -- SALEHPOOR V. SHAHINPOOR -- 02/18/2004<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1775.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: Page 4. Jr. were on brief. Goodwin Procter & Hoar were on brief. Clients' funds which lawyers held for a short term or in nominal amounts were deposited into non interest bearing pooled trust accounts. Banking laws and the ethical obligation of lawyers to maintain clients' funds so that they were immediately available for reimbursement prevented such pooled trust accounts from accruing interest. The Massachusetts IOLTA program was established by amendment to Canon 9. The deposits were nominal in amount or to be held for only a short period of time. The designated charities were Massachusetts Legal Assistance. The parties have not briefed or argued any issues in the context of the 1993 amendment to the IOLTA Rule.3 Although the amendment of the IOLTA Rule affects the process of funds disbursement. The changes are not material to this decision. Was significant. The funds are still disbursed primarily to Massachusetts Legal Assistance with the remainder to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/984168.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Prior to a criminal trial in which he was a participating lawyer. Morrissey was convicted of two counts of criminal contempt for violating Local Criminal Rule 57 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/150223FA6234604188256C33005B696E/$file/0015652.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Rumsfeld is substituted for his predecessor. Arguing that the Act is unconstitutionally vague. We must decide whether the Act's ban on sexually explicit materials is government speech. Because we believe it is not. Applied First Amendment forum analysis to conclude that military exchanges are nonpublic fora and that the Act is a viewpoint neutral. A theme of any material that is superior in power. Any such material it deems sexually explicit is withdrawn from military retail outlets. Exchanges are open only to members of the military and to those explicitly authorized under DOD Directive 1330.9 § E2.2. Applying traditional First Amendment forum analysis to conclude that exchanges were nonpublic fora. That the Act was a reasonable. Is unconstitutionally vague. Arguing that almost all adult materials specifically
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1994/94a0921p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is the largest housing agency in Pennsylvania and fourth largest in the United States. The agency is governed by a board of commissioners consisting of five members. Paone was named as PHA's new executive director. Feldman was responsible for investigating. Feldman was required to present his findings and observations to the executive director and the board of commissioners. His work was considered exemplary. Many of his reports criticized the job PHA's management was doing. Paone was particularly displeased with Feldman after he reported that management had promoted a PHA employee who was under investigation for corruption. Which was responsible for the agency's fencing contracts. Was involved in an illegal bid rigging scheme. Several PHA employees were linked to the unlawful activity. Including which PHA employees were probably involved.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1189.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Dillon was formerly a paraprofessional at the Academy. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Background(1) The Academy is a K 8 charter school in Longmont. It is chartered by. Dorothy Marlatt was the principal of the Academy when Ms. Dillon was employed there as a paraprofessional. Her initial performance evaluations were satisfactory. Her primary assignment was to work in the Academy's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-4143_012.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He was removed from the task force and passed over for promotions. Finding that Sigsworth's speech was not made outside of his capacity as an investigator and a task force member. So he was not speaking as a citizen for First Amendment purposes. Sigsworth also objects to the district court's denial of his motions for leave to file a second amended complaint that were brought pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 15(a). We cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion because there were no manifest errors of law or newly discovered evidence that merited consideration. Amendments to his complaint would have been futile since his speech was made as a public employee and not as a citizen. I. BACKGROUND The following allegations are taken from the first amended complaint.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044124p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have an appeal by an employer from an adverse verdict in favor of an employee (here independent contractor) on his claim of unlawful termination in retaliation for speech protected by the First Amendment. Our task is to review the law applied by the District Court on a plenary basis and ascertain whether there is sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict. 2 I. Gregg Sylvester was the Secretary of DHSS from October. Was an independent contractor at the DPC from July 1. These were introduced into evidence at trial as Plaintiff's Exhibits PX 1 through 5. We summarize them below but because they are central to the issues before us they are included verbatim in the Appendix to this opinion. The memorandum charges that there was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-8060.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
€the€City€would€be€entitled€to€qualified€immunity€onĐ
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2000/993545.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is a student run newspaper at the University of Pittsburgh. Are subject to prosecution under Act 199. Therefore was not a proper party to bring this challenge.1 The Pitt News appeals. Arguing that its own First Amendment rights have been infringed by Act 199. Neither of whom are parties to this litigation. We hold that The Pitt News does have standing to argue that Act 199 infringes upon its own First Amendment rights. We will therefore proceed to the merits of the preliminary injunction only on the question of whether the economic effect felt by The Pitt News amounts to a violation of its own First Amendment rights. Will affirm. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. FACTS and PROCEEDINGS The Pitt News is a student run newspaper. P. 30. 3 Students have full editorial control over the content of the newspaper. It is entirely supported by advertising revenue. It is distributed free of charge in racks at 75 locations around the school campus. It is read by University of Pittsburgh students and faculty.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/150223fa6234604188256c33005b696e/$FILE/0015652.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Rumsfeld is substituted for his predecessor. Arguing that the Act is unconstitutionally vague. We must decide whether the Act's ban on sexually explicit materials is government speech. Because we believe it is not. Applied First Amendment forum analysis to conclude that military exchanges are nonpublic fora and that the Act is a viewpoint neutral. A theme of any material that is superior in power. Any such material it deems sexually explicit is withdrawn from military retail outlets. Exchanges are open only to members of the military and to those explicitly authorized under DOD Directive 1330.9 § E2.2. Applying traditional First Amendment forum analysis to conclude that exchanges were nonpublic fora. That the Act was a reasonable. Is unconstitutionally vague. Arguing that almost all adult materials specifically
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2003/022977p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jesus is Alive.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1574.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Graham</SPAN> was on brief for plaintiff. P.C.</SPAN> were on brief for defendant. The only ones of relevance here are those under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). The section 1983 claim was presented to the jury on two alternative theories: that Wagner had suffered an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/10B30B019A9B51118825711E00825DE2/$file/0435402.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The interest organizations have in not being compelled to communicate messages not of their choosing. Plaintiff Edward Gathright is an evangelical Christian who preaches outdoors to the general public. Gathright himself has observed that it is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3669.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jr. is a former Milwaukee police officer who was arrested for physically abusing a child. Though he was not prosecuted. Anderer was terminated following an internal affairs investigation into this incident. Finding that probable cause existed at the time Anderer was arrested and that the 2 No. 02 3669 speech at issue was not protected by the First Amendment. After the juveniles were handcuffed. While they were being escorted to the patrol cars. One 12 year old boy (whom we will call JR) started shouting that one of the officers who was escorting him to the car. Was touching him on the buttocks and trying to rape him. Three of the juveniles were then transported to the police station by Officer Cook and his partner Officer Jeffrey Logan. JR was placed in a patrol car and driven to the station by Anderer. Several officers noticed that JR was bleeding from the nose and mouth and had blood on his clothing. Mary Hoerig and Because
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may97/96-8338.opa.html">WALKER V. SCHWALBE<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Walker v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> Defendants interlocutorily appeal the district court's holding that they are not entitled to qualified immunity. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062184p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Agree to a variety of conditions before permission for the use of that land is granted. The District Court ruled that two provisions of the Ordinance were unconstitutional. We will affirm in part and reverse in part. 2 I. Which is $50 for city residents and $100 for non residents. Or certificate of insurance shall be waived . . . if the activity is protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the requirement would be so financially burdensome that it would preclude the applicant from using Park property for the proposed activity.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/055259p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Indiana 47807 This appeal was argued before the panel of Judges Rendell. The quorum was reconstituted to include Chief Judge Scirica after Judge Rendell recused herself in this matter. At issue in this appeal are the free speech rights of candidates for state judicial office. Appellant Pennsylvania Family Institute (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200513852.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This is an appeal by John Watts from the dismissal under Fed. That because of his religious beliefs he was terminated from a practicum position. Are what count. He was scheduled to graduate in May of 1997. Field Practicum II was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1995/95a1098p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Those officials had violated his constitutional rights.[fn1] Holding that defendants enjoyed qualified immunity because the law in this area was unsettled in our circuit. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1291. Plaintiff Polyns Bieregu is incarcerated at the federal prison in Fairton. The federal regulatory framework for handling prisoner mail is straightforward. Incoming special mail must be marked
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-2501_017.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Kathleen Lifton was an awardwinning kindergarten teacher who taught at Norwood Park Elementary School. Lifton proposed modifying the school schedule so that students would have staggered dismissal times. When she believed students were better able to concentrate. Meuer responded that they could discuss her proposal in the future but that it was too late to change the program for the upcoming school year with only two months' notice. Lifton was a teacher representative on Norwood Park's Local School Council (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug98/96-8972.man.html">FALANGA V. STATE BAR OF GEORGIA (8/19/1998, NO. 96-8972)<BR></A><BR>
Chief Judge:</P> <P> The principal issue in this case is whether Georgia's prohibiting lawyers and their agents from soliciting professional employment from potential clients face to face and without invitation survives First Amendment commercial speech scrutiny as applied to appellees/cross appellants. Who are licensed to practice law in and members of the State Bar of Georgia. Most of their clients are poor and uneducated. Uninvited solicitation are constitutional as applied to Falanga and Chalker.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/may96/95-2009.wpd.html">CHURCH ON THE ROCK V. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE<BR></A><BR>
The centers are multipurpose facilities that provide forums for lectures. The sole requirement for membership is that a person be at least fifty five years old or be married to a member who is at least fifty five years old. All of the programs are voluntary. Many of the programs at the Senior Centers are organized and sponsored by private individuals or organizations. Sitting by designation. for classes and other activities if the subject matter is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug98/96-8972.man.html">FALANGA V. STATE BAR OF GEORGIA (8/19/1998, NO. 96-8972)<BR></A><BR>
Chief Judge:</P> <P> The principal issue in this case is whether Georgia's prohibiting lawyers and their agents from soliciting professional employment from potential clients face to face and without invitation survives First Amendment commercial speech scrutiny as applied to appellees/cross appellants. Who are licensed to practice law in and members of the State Bar of Georgia. Most of their clients are poor and uneducated. Uninvited solicitation are constitutional as applied to Falanga and Chalker.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043756p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It is proper to submit that question to a jury. Alleging that when he was a member of the Elizabeth. Perkins Auguste asserted that she was entitled to qualified immunity and moved for summary judgment on that ground. Her motion for summary judgment was denied on the basis that whether she was entitled to qualified immunity depended on a disputed issue of material factwhether she had Monteiro ejected from the meeting on the basis of viewpoint. The jury's verdict is based on sufficient evidence. 3 I. We note that it is not clear what rights. Was that right limited to legal errors made at trial and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's verdict? Qualified immunity is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/05/96-3390.htm">96-3390 -- CRAGG V. CITY OF OSAWATOMIE -- 05/07/1998<BR></A><BR>
Alleging he was terminated in violation of his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may97/96-8338.opa.html">WALKER V. SCHWALBE<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Walker v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> Defendants interlocutorily appeal the district court's holding that they are not entitled to qualified immunity. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/02-5029.htm">02-5029 -- KING V. DOWNING -- 02/20/2003<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Steven King appeals the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july98/97-5304.man.html">ISKCON MIAMI, INC. V. METRO. DADE COUNTY (7/27/1998, NO. 97-5304)<BR></A><BR>
In addition to arguing that the bans on solicitation and sale of literature are unconstitutional restrictions on speech. ISKCON argues that the areas within MIA where ISKCON may distribute free literature are inadequate and that County regulations impermissibly grant the Director of MIA unfettered discretion to select the areas for such First Amendment activity.</P> <P><CENTER>BACKGROUND</CENTER> </P> <P> In June 1995. Made only after a finding by the Director that the restrictions are necessary to avoid injury. Krishna adherents are required to venture into public places to distribute religious literature and solicit support for the religion. Shortly after the new regulations were passed. Waiting areas are located. We are guided by the Supreme Court's decisions in <EM>International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Regulations on speech in traditionally public fora such as municipal sidewalks and parks are subject to strict scrutiny. As are regulations in fora designated by the government to be used for expressive activities. <EM>Id.</EM> at 678.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0927EAED1DB2BE5B88256ED90068E11A/$file/0310001.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: on slip opinion page 7447. The factual difference between the two acts is that. The factual difference between the two acts is that. The Petition for Rehearing is DENIED. We conclude that § 2422(b) is not facially unconstitutional as overbroad and vague. We are also unpersuaded by Dhingra's multiple evidentiary and sentencing challenges. The victim stated that she
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/12/981796P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Violated her First Amendment rights by retaliating against her when she complained that he discriminated against her because she was an older woman. I. BACKGROUND The MHTC is a part of the executive branch of the Missouri State government. Ron Hopkins was the Human Resources Manager for the district six office. Thelma Hall was his secretary. She was promoted to secretary in 1970. Attention to detail is particularly strong. Output is above level that would be considered acceptable.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/08/981161P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was demoted from his position as warden of the state maximum security unit after he spoke out about corruption and lack of security in the institution. Terry Campbell was employed in the Arkansas state prison system for seventeen years prior to his appointment as warden of the Tucker Maximum Security Unit on The Honorable Gary A. The Director of the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) was Larry Norris. He was the official who appointed Campbell warden at Tucker. Part of the reason he offered him the Tucker position was because he believed Campbell was strong on policy. Campbell was regarded by others in the system as meticulous in his implementation of ADC policies and procedures. When Campbell arrived at Tucker he was faced with morale and turnover problems and numerous vacant staff positions. Illegal contraband was moving into and within the prison so he instituted policies to search all staff. Through his investigation he learned there were security breaches at Tucker. Cell doors which had been altered so that inmates were able to open them.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/03/98-4072.htm">98-4072 -- ANDERSEN V. MCCOTTER -- 03/06/2000<BR></A><BR>
DOC officials were concerned that a premature announcement of the proposed changes would upset the inmates and make them less responsive to their current treatment providers. The DOC hoped to postpone formal announcement of the program changes until the details were finalized. <p> Andersen and her supervisor. Were both opposed to the proposed changes. Andersen knew that if the changes were implemented. Andersen appeared in the story and was identified as a Bonneville volunteer. The court found that Andersen's interest in voicing her criticism was clearly outweighed by the DOC's interest in enforcing its Code of Conduct and thus held that her First Amendment rights had not been violated. <p> On appeal. [defendants were] not entitled to summary judgment.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/05/99-4222.htm">99-4222 -- LANGILLE V. LOGAN CITY -- 05/25/2001<BR></A><BR>
Cache County managed the CVCC under a management contract which was due to expire in August 1996. CVCC employees were employees of Cache County. Although the CVCC was a separate entity from other Cache County governmental agencies and was governed by an Operations Board and a Governing Board. A representative from the Utah Department of Public Safety. <p> Plaintiffs Langille and Larson were Cache County employees who worked at the CVCC. Langille was the CVCC Director. Larson was a dispatcher. Who was a Cache County Deputy Sheriff. Langille was deposed in connection with the Larson lawsuit. She was questioned about a sexual harassment complaint made by a fellow Cache County employee against Ms. She testified as follows: <p> Q: Have you discussed this case with Lynn Lemon? <p> . . . . <p> A: The lawsuit has been brought up between Lynn Lemon and I. Langille's attorney]: When was the first time you recall the lawsuit being brought up? <p> A: I don't know if this was the first time. The time I recall that the lawsuit was brought up between him and I was in a meeting the end of June. <p> Q: Of 19
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-4030_012.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ovadal was ultimately banned from any such protest on any Beltline pedestrian overpass. The district court found that the restriction on 2 No. 04 4030 speech was justified and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. I. History Ralph Ovadal is a Christian minister who wishes to share his religious views with the public through the use of signs and banners.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/11/02-4030.htm">02-4030 -- HEIDEMAN V. SOUTH SALTLAKE CITY -- 11/04/2003<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0207p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The city expressly permits the distribution of written materials to private residences if the literature
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/07/98-6219.htm">98-6219 -- WORRELL V. HENRY -- 07/26/2000<BR></A><BR>
Worrell's interest in testifying was outweighed by the defendants' interest in administering an effective drug task force. <p> For the reasons set forth below. Because the <u>Pickering</u> balancing test has not been applied to individuals who are neither the plaintiff's employer nor parties to a contract with him. Worrell was employed as a private investigator. They explained that they were exploring a theory of self defense: that the murdered ONBDD agent had attempted to arrest the defendant without displaying any indication of his official authority and that. The defendant could have reasonably believed that the agent was attempting to rob him. <p> Mr. Are [sic] there any type of standard operating procedure. Or basic fundamental course that is taught the officer as to how he is to go about identifying himself under those circumstances? <p> A: Yes. Whoever is going to make the apprehension must have some form of identification to show that they are a law enforcement officer. Or they must be in uniform or they must have a jacket.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/65378EE06236E19B882573410049E736/$file/0435876.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Which is part of the Kent School District.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/257D0388E66DBB9088257074005B1AED/$file/0435155.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which is to propose laws and amendments to the Constitution and enact or reject them at an election independently of the Legislative Assembly.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4270.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-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb97/94-9220.opa.html">WATKINS V. BOWDEN<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Watkins v. That she was subject to a six month probationary period and that he expected a two year commitment from her. The office receptionist questioned her if
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july98/97-5304.man.html">ISKCON MIAMI, INC. V. METRO. DADE COUNTY (7/27/1998, NO. 97-5304)<BR></A><BR>
In addition to arguing that the bans on solicitation and sale of literature are unconstitutional restrictions on speech. ISKCON argues that the areas within MIA where ISKCON may distribute free literature are inadequate and that County regulations impermissibly grant the Director of MIA unfettered discretion to select the areas for such First Amendment activity.</P> <P><CENTER>BACKGROUND</CENTER> </P> <P> In June 1995. Made only after a finding by the Director that the restrictions are necessary to avoid injury. Krishna adherents are required to venture into public places to distribute religious literature and solicit support for the religion. Shortly after the new regulations were passed. Waiting areas are located. We are guided by the Supreme Court's decisions in <EM>International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Regulations on speech in traditionally public fora such as municipal sidewalks and parks are subject to strict scrutiny. As are regulations in fora designated by the government to be used for expressive activities. <EM>Id.</EM> at 678.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb97/94-9220.opa.html">WATKINS V. BOWDEN<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Watkins v. That she was subject to a six month probationary period and that he expected a two year commitment from her. The office receptionist questioned her if
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/08/953098P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case is before us for a second time. The plaintiffs are pro life activists who sometimes express their objection to abortion by picketing near the residences of individuals who provide abortion services. Holding that a preliminary injunction was in order because the ordinance was probably unconstitutional. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may98/96-7073.man.html">SAMMY'S OF MOBILE, LTD. V. CITY OF MOBILE (5/8/1998, NO. 96-7073)<BR></A><BR>
Encourages undesirable behavior and is not in the interest of the public health. The Candy Store were licensed to sell alcoholic beverages for on premises consumption and offered topless female dancing. The complaint alleges that the ordinance is unenforceable under the doctrine of equitable estoppel and that it violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment. The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that the ordinance is unenforceable under the doctrine of res judicata.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0133n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plaintiffs argue that: 1) they were discharged in retaliation for exercising their First Amendment rights. 2) the Mentor police rules are an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. Baker were police officers for the City of Mentor and active officers in the police union. Amiott's decision to recommend the discharge of the officers was based. Summary judgment is appropriate when
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021418.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At Norfolk
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0037p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Haynes contends that he was fired for protesting proposed cutbacks in canine training. He asserted that this reduction in training was likely to cause an imminent risk of physical harm to the public. Haynes claims that Circleville's decision to do so was based at least in part on research and input from both himself and former Chief of Police John Kinney. The canine unit is classified as part of the patrol unit. So Haynes was still considered a patrolman as well as a canine handler from the time the canine unit was created. This agreement was an addendum to the collective bargaining agreement between the Ohio Patrolmen's Benevolent Association and Circleville that covered Haynes's duties as a patrolman. When the canine unit was created. Haynes was paired with a dog named Bronco for approximately three and a half years. He was paid for all of this additional time. Chief Gray instituted a cost containment measure under which canine handlers and their dogs were allowed to train at Wachtmeister only once every three weeks rather than weekly.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9E57C1EF6508BFE988256EAD005AF18C/$file/0310001.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude that § 2422(b) is not facially unconstitutional as overbroad and vague. We are also unpersuaded by Dhingra's multiple evidentiary and sentencing challenges. Although Dhingra and the victim's computers were both located in California. The conversations were sent through America Online's computer server in Virginia and therefore traveled across state boundaries via a means of interstate commerce. 2 America Online Instant Messenger is an Internet service that enables users to chat in real time dialogue
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7F7F66434ED9D1A8882571ED00574EE3/$file/0455819.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because we conclude that the ordinance is not unconstitutional in every conceivable application and is not unconstitutionally vague. The ordinance reads:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3722_042.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This First Amendment retaliation case is before us for the second time. After briefing was completed. Holding that the First Amendment does not protect statements made pursuant to a public employee's official duties because that employee is not speaking as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may98/96-7073.man.html">SAMMY'S OF MOBILE, LTD. V. CITY OF MOBILE (5/8/1998, NO. 96-7073)<BR></A><BR>
Encourages undesirable behavior and is not in the interest of the public health. The Candy Store were licensed to sell alcoholic beverages for on premises consumption and offered topless female dancing. The complaint alleges that the ordinance is unenforceable under the doctrine of equitable estoppel and that it violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment. The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that the ordinance is unenforceable under the doctrine of res judicata.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/12/033848P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs are nonprofit organizations who rely on professional charitable solicitors for their fundraising. The Act exempts telephone solicitations made by charitable organizations if
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="648"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTQ1NDNfc28ucGRm/04-4543_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7DC04D3E51DE8AC888256EF200545B8C/$file/0335120.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Annette Thomas was the municipal court administrator for the City of Beaverton. Because there is insufficient evidence of racial animus. Annette Thomas was hired as the municipal court administrator for the City of Beaverton and placed on a standard six month probationary period for new employees.1 Her job duties included supervising and hiring court clerks. One of whom was Susie Perry. Who was then in charge of the municipal court's personnel matters. After Perry was passed over for a promotion to the position of senior court clerk in 1996 and 1997. Specifically found that Perry was qualified for the senior court clerk position and that the City's reasons for not promoting Perry were pretextual. As Thomas was preparing to recruit applicants for the position. Thomas consequently refused to document incidents involving Perry because she thought it was unfair to Perry and there was nothing substantial to document. Was the most qualified for the position and should be promoted to the position.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B7F975216438AC9B88256E5A00707C67/$file/0035537.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which was enacted by the City of Coeur d'Alene. Abridges his right to free speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. 1 The district court rejected Edwards's challenge and granted summary judgment for the City after finding that the ordinance was a valid
</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.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTA5NzEtY3Jfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0971-cr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendant was sentenced to 262 months imprisonment for each count. Circuit Judge: Defendant Stefan Irving (defendant or appellant) was convicted. Only arose from defendant's trips to Mexico and Honduras. of the travel to Mexico and its purpose was strong. the proof of travel to Honduras was established. It is a well established principle that a conviction in criminal law must stand on firmer ground than an uncorroborated admission by defendant. Because proof of defendant's purpose for the trip on the charged offenses was insufficient. Facts Defendant is a former chief pediatrician for the Middletown. He was convicted of attempted sexual abuse in the first degree of a seven year old boy that resulted in the revocation of his license to practice medicine in New York. A guest house that served as a place where men from the United States could have sexual relations with Mexican boys. Seven or eight boys ranging in age from eight to 20 years old were residing there. This witness stated that he saw
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200015378.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: This is an interlocutory appeal from the entry of a preliminary injunction in a copyright infringement suit that was initiated by four major television network stations and associations representing hundreds of local network affiliates against EchoStar Satellite Company and its subsidiaries. That there was a substantial likelihood that the Networks could establish that EchoStar provides distant network signals to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1188_020.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jason Goodman is a chiropractor who currently practices in St. He is 2 No. 05 1188 licensed in Illinois. He wishes to telemarket his services to people in the Springfield area who have recently been in car accidents. Is prevented from doing so by the Illinois Medical Practice Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2001/00-15378.opn.html">CBS BROAD. V. ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATION CORP. (9/17/2001, NO. 00-15378)<BR></A><BR>
Chief Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4AE8C752D9F8836788256CAE00581170/$file/0070014.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sewers are also used on occasion as an easy (if illicit) means for the direct discharge of unwanted contaminants. They are subject to the controls of the Clean Water Act. 578 ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER v. The Problem of Stormwater Runoff Stormwater runoff is one of the most significant sources of water pollution in the nation. SediThe
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/11/01-1220.htm">01-1220 -- Z.J. GIFTS D-4 V. CITY OF LITTLETON -- 11/18/2002<BR></A><BR>
Including one in which the circuits are substantially divided: namely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-1012_018.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Primarily because we conclude that the Sexually Explicit Video Game Law is not sufficiently narrowly tailored. The Act is comprised primarily of the Violent Video Game Law (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/024575D35B3EF12488256AAF0057FB4B/$file/0035537.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which was enacted by the City of Coeur d'Alene. Abridges his right to free speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. 1 The district court rejected Edwards's challenge and granted summary judgment for the City after finding that the ordinance was a valid
</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/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-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/06/063527P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Altonen was hired by the Minneapolis Police Department in September 1987 and received several promotions. She was notified at the time of her appointment that inspectors serve at the pleasure of the chief. That if she were no longer needed as inspector. Altonen applied for the position but was eliminated after the second round of interviews. William McManus was ultimately appointed to the position. He was sworn in on February 17. There was evidence which caused some to suggest that he had shot himself. After Altonen was given responsibility for the investigation. Gerold and one of her supporters were among those suspended. The allegation was later found to be without merit. The officers were reinstated. Jackson informed her that the investigation had been closed and that the allegations were not sustained. When her request was denied. Department protocol provides that when an employee is accused of violating the Respect in the Workplace Policy. An investigator is assigned to gather evidence and prepare a memorandum of findings and recommendations for a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962597.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Goad surmised this emphasis was a result of Dr. Goad was the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2003/02-13981.opn.html">WOMEN'S EMERGENCY NETWORK V. BUSH (3/7/2003, NO. 02-13981)<BR></A><BR>
An injunction preventing Appellees from enforcing the Act and a declaration that the Act is unconstitutional.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=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-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/01/98-4158.htm">98-4158 -- AMERICAN TARGET ADVERTISING, INC. V. GIANI -- 01/13/2000<BR></A><BR>
Background</strong> <p> American Target is a Virginia corporation that provides fundraising services to nonprofit organizations. The corporation is under contract to provide such services to Judicial Watch. American Target is classified as a professional fundraising consultant under the Utah Charitable Solicitations Act. 13 22 9. <p> American Target has not complied with the registration requirements and is therefore barred from assisting Judicial Watch with its mailing in Utah. Because nothing in the record indicates that the Act will have any different impact upon interests not before this court. We analyze both prongs of the First Amendment challenge as they are presented under the facts of this case. <u>City Council of L.A. v. We will then decide if the provision is unconstitutional on its face. Where expressive activity is arguably protected by the First Amendment. We conclude that all but three of the challenged provisions are consistent with the First Amendment. <p> Charitable solicitations qualify as protected speech for First Amendment purposes. <u>Village of Schaumburg v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTA5NzEtY3JfcmV2X29wbi5wZGY=/04-0971-cr_rev_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Rehearing is granted. The majority opinion and the concurring and dissenting opinion are withdrawn. Defendant's convictions on counts two and three previously vacated are now affirmed in the revised opinion issued herewith. Defendant was sentenced to 262 months imprisonment for each count. That vacated two counts upon which defendant Stefan Irving was convicted. is granted. Irving's convictions on counts two and three previously vacated are now affirmed in the revised opinion that follows. We remand for consideration of whether resentencing is warranted under United States v. BACKGROUND Defendant is a former chief pediatrician for the Middletown. He was convicted of attempted sexual abuse in the first degree of a seven year old boy that resulted in the revocation of his license to practice medicine in New York. A guest house that served as a place 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 where men from the United States could have sexual relations with Mexican boys. Seven or eight boys ranging in age from eight to 20 years old were residing there.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr96/94-4267.wpd.html">HOM V. SQUIRES<BR></A><BR>
Hudachko was Hom's immediate supervisor. By the time Hom was dismissed. Squire alleged that Hom was a security risk. A Drivers License Division employee who was familiar with the annual job run process and the drivers license files. Ertel was unreachable. Stating that as a staff member he did not have permission to call management personnel such as Blackstock. Alleging that he was dismissed not for the reasons given by Squires. A number of Hom's co workers expressed their concerns to Hudachko that Hom was behaving erratically. Hom claimed that both the investigation and his eventual termination were motivated by his objections to the bidding process. One of Hom's responsibilities at the Department was being on call in order to address any technical problem with the Department's computer system. Hom claimed that he was on call without a break for four and one half years. He discovered evidence that would support a claim that he was terminated because of perceived emotional instability. The district court denied this motion on the grounds that the motion was untimely and would unduly prejudice the defendants.
</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/96311E1BD528E6CC88256DA2005952F9/$file/0070014.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are vacated. They are replaced by the Opinion and Dissent filed today. The petitions for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. The clerk is instructed not to accept for filing any new petitions for rehearing or petitions for rehearing en banc in this case. 13774 ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER v. Sewers are also used on occasion as an easy (if illicit) means for the direct discharge of unwanted contaminants. They are subject to the controls of the Clean Water Act. EPA preserved The
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/05/97-1157.htm">97-1157 -- JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.R-1 V. MOODY'S INVESTOR'S SERVICES INC. -- 05/04/1999<BR></A><BR>
Contending that Moody's evaluation was materially false. It reasoned that Moody's article was protected by the First Amendment because it neither stated nor implied an assertion that was provably false. BACKGROUND</u><strong></center> </strong> <p> <strong> </strong> Because we are reviewing the district court's decision to grant Moody's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Concluding that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov96/95-6261.opa.html">HARRIS V. SHELBY CTY. BD. OF ED.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Harris v. Including temporary and permanent injunctions requiring the defendants to promote him to the principalship at Thompson High School with back pay and other employment benefits to which he would have been entitled. All of these candidates were interviewed and ranked by a committee (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov96/95-6261.opa.html">HARRIS V. SHELBY CTY. BD. OF ED.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Harris v. Including temporary and permanent injunctions requiring the defendants to promote him to the principalship at Thompson High School with back pay and other employment benefits to which he would have been entitled. All of these candidates were interviewed and ranked by a committee (
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19956261.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Including temporary and permanent injunctions requiring the defendants to promote him to the principalship at Thompson High School with back pay and other employment benefits to which he would have been entitled. All of these candidates were interviewed and ranked by a committee (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/11/973359P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Members of the Twentieth Century Holiness Tabernacle Church (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2003/014098p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. I. Plaintiff Amanda Walker Serrano was a nine year old third grade student at the Lackawanna Trail Elementary School. Walker Serrano did not approve of the voluntary outing because she believed the circus was cruel to animals. Walker Serrano was at her classroom desk during a class period of silent reading and independent work. Carpenter then noticed that one of the female students was crying she had fallen on the ice and was bleeding. Walker Serrano contends that Carpenter told her either
</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.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511187.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
These events are the facts as they occurred. Plaintiff began to observe and document what she believed were fraudulent practices in the Federal Work Study Program. The OFA was reorganized. She was required to verify the completion and accuracy of 2 student files as well as report any perceived fraudulent activity. Were transferred to Plaintiff. Plaintiff discovered
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/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-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2004/021401p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The trusteeship was imposed pursuant to Title III of the LaborManagement Reporting and Disclosure Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199809/97-5293a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Frank W. With her on the brief were Ann M. Taylor was on the brief for amici curiae National Coalition for the Protection of Children & Families. The statute is not enforced directly. Ruled that it was facially invalid as a violation of the First Amendment and enjoined its enforcement. Federal regulations authorized prison wardens to reject a publication
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1223.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Mahoney & Miller were on brief. Shaw & Griffith was on brief. We conclude that we have jurisdiction over only one facet of the appeal and. The five members of the Zoning Board of Appeals (the Board) are appointed for fixed terms by the Town's governing body (the Board of Selectmen) and may be removed during their terms only for cause. The 2 subcommittee held public hearings at which various complaints were aired. Their flagship claim was that the selectmen cashiered them in retaliation for their speech (the votes they had cast). Separate votes were taken with regard to each ouster. 3Although the complaint contained other statements of claim. We apply the lessons we have learned to the problems that confront us. If the law was clearly established at the time of the infringement. So that an objectively reasonable actor would have realized that his conduct violated the plaintiff's rights. Then the qualified immunity defense is unavailable. The doctrine of qualified immunity limits a plaintiff's damages against state actors
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2001/00-15378.opn.html">CBS BROAD. V. ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATION CORP. (9/17/2001, NO. 00-15378)<BR></A><BR>
Chief Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/97opinions/97-5293a.html">AMATEL JOSEPH V. HAWK, KATHLEEN<BR></A><BR>
With him on the briefs <p> <p> <p> were <i>Frank W. With her <p> on the brief were <i>Ann M. Taylor</i> was on the brief for amici curiae National <p> Coalition for the Protection of Children &. The statute is not enforced directly. Ruled that it <p> was facially invalid as a violation of the First Amendment and <p> enjoined its enforcement. Federal regulations authorized prison wardens <p> to reject a publication
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar2003/02-13981.opn.html">WOMEN'S EMERGENCY NETWORK V. BUSH (3/7/2003, NO. 02-13981)<BR></A><BR>
An injunction preventing Appellees from enforcing the Act and a declaration that the Act is unconstitutional.
</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/053430p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Stated that the bill was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="637"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2178.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
An Administrative Law Judge found that Lamanuel was not disabled. Finding it was supported by substantial 2 No. 02 2178 evidence. Was five years old as of the effective date of his application and six years old at the time of his hearing before the ALJ. Blakes presented evidence to the ALJ that Lamanuel was being treated for a seizure disorder and also received services for speech and language delays. Lamanuel underwent testing in February 1999 that showed he was delayed 17 months to three years in speech intelligibility and receptive and expressive language. Lamanuel's test scores were all consistent when translated to percentile rankings. Suggested that some of the delays may have been caused by environmental factors. The examiner also emphasized that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may96/95-4070.opa.html">SCIARRINO V. CITY OF KEY WEST<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Sciarrino v. OPC activity was significantly restricted. Proving citizenship or work eligibility. <i>Id.</i>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/02/99-2280.htm">99-2280 -- GONZALES V. HERNANDEZ -- 02/27/2001<BR></A><BR>
Is a psychologist employed by the Las Vegas Medical Center (LVMC) in Las Vegas. The district court did not address whether Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Defendants appeal. <p>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/12/982147P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Have filed a petition for rehearing with a suggestion for rehearing en banc. Is invalid. The Fargo picketing ordinance is facially unconstitutional for reasons given in Kirkeby II. Appellees assert that the principal issues in this appeal are not governed by Frisby v. 487 U.S. 474 (1988) but are governed by Kirkeby II. This panel granted a rehearing to reconsider whether we are bound to affirm the district court's determination that the Fargo ordinance is unconstitutional based on Kirkeby II. Certain words and phrases used herein are defined as follows: A. Which is used as a place of residence. For only a few hours and The ordinance in question here was subsequently amended by the Fargo City Council on February 1. 1993. 2 1 The picketers would have been released that night if they had paid a $50 bond. 3 released her to the custody of her parents. Deciding that the ordinance was constitutional on its face but unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs on October 10. The district court concluded that the officers' conduct was not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054114p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge An apolitical government employee appeals a grant of summary judgment rejecting her claim that she was fired in violation of her First Amendment rights because she failed to support the administration or political party in power. Galli alleges that she was unlawfully terminated from her position with the Commission because she was neither an active Democrat nor a 3 supporter of then newly elected Democratic Governor James McGreevey. She was hired to serve on the Commission in 1984 during the Republican administration of Governor Thomas Kean. She was the Commission's Director of Environmental Education. Galli claims that she was not registered with a political party and kept her lack of political affiliation private. Galli never shared her political views with her supervisor and was not asked to participate in any partisan political activity. Solid waste management is an affiliate of the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs and is governed by a seven member Board. Levin was appointed as the Director of the Department of Community Affairs.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2001/004313.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The effect on the record of the District Court's addition to it after a notice of appeal is filed. Because we hold that we have jurisdiction over an appealable collateral oral order. That it was error to issue the gag order. It will be reversed. The order was to last until the Court received the motion and decided it. The article stated that the device
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A1745CEA3E73F3F38825720C006F7D34/$file/0435606.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: At slip opinion page 11445. The City passed a new sign ordinance that rescinded the ban that was the basis of Ballen's Complaint. The City conceded in its notice to us and at oral argument that its new ordinance was adopted only as an interim regulation in response to the district court's summary judgment ruling. Because the new ordinance was intended to be only temporary pending the outcome of the litigation. This case is not moot. 1194 (9th Cir. 2000) (indicating that mootness is less appropriate when repeal occurred due to the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1513.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellant. This case presents constitutional issues of first impression in this circuit: whether the CPPA's definition of child pornography is so overbroad as to contravene the First Amendment or so vague as to violate due process. The court was troubled by a perceived difficulty in determining whether a depicted person appeared to be under 18 years old and by its belief that the statute impermissibly criminalizes possession of adult pornography. It neither impinges substantially on protected expression nor is so vague as to offend due process. We must carefully consider fundamental constitutional norms in light of recent technological advances to determine whether Congress's objectives and the statutory scheme it has established are in accord with our constitutional design. Lawmakers wished to improve law enforcement tools to keep pace with technological improvements that have made it possible for child pornographers to use computers to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/994813.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was convicted in the district court of possessing child pornography. Is constitutional on its face. The federal courts of appeals that have considered this issue are split on its proper resolution. The First and Eleventh Circuits have upheld the Act against constitutional challenge. The FBI received information from a confidential informant that Mento was in possession of child pornography. One of the children was only five years old. The Supreme Court held that child pornography is outside the scope of the First Amendment. Most doubts as to what could constitute
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-60924.0.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. Johnson and other defendants had filed a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4D377C9418B42EB488256E4E00784B23/$file/0215693.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Property is the only location within Morgan Hill actually zoned for hospital use. Provided such uses are shown on the development plan for a particular PUD district as approved by the city council.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-5194.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was denied permission to collect royalties from the publisher of a textbook he wrote on Social Security disability law. Wolfe indicated on the form that his official duties did not relate in any way to the proposed activity except
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1997/97a1727p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will reverse and remand for further proceedings. . The property is located within 600 feet of a structure that. It is also within 1500 feet of the Brick High School. Which is frequented by young customers. Not far away is the only branch of the Ocean County Public Library in Brick. . Among others that are not challenged before us: <br wp=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D3BB2B79B2BAD08688256BFA005882C4/$file/0035962.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This appeal challenges Washington law that denies a statefunded
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan97/95-6432.opa.html">WILLIAMS V. ALABAMA STATE UNIV.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Williams v. We reverse.<p> BACKGROUND<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2398.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LLC</SPAN> was on brief. Will &. Were on brief. No permit was forthcoming. I. While the suit was pending. We hold that the Fish Pier is a non public forum. That the leafletting ban which is content neutral and reasonable in light of the uses to which the pier is put is a valid exercise of governmental authority. We hold that Massport's permit requirement is valid on its face: the neoteric regulations sufficiently limit official discretion and the restrictions imposed are both content neutral and narrowly tailored.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9BB927BAFC52D41E88256E6D005A56E7/$file/0235260.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Facts Many facts were hotly disputed at trial. Pamella Settlegoode was hired by Portland Public Schools as an Adapted Physical Education teacher for the 1998 99 academic year on a probationary basis. She was an itinerant teacher and therefore conducted her physical education classes at two or three different schools each day. Settlegoode soon became concerned about the way disabled students were treated in the Portland schools. Material and equipment were often lacking. Winthrop told Settlegoode that she was the only one who had ever complained about the facilities for disabled students.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr96/94-7216.opa.html">FIKES V. CITY OF DAPHNE<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Fikes v. A police officer's complaint alleging that he was discharged from his employment for exercising his freedom of speech. And<p> <p> (b) the common law of the State of Alabama providing for damages to persons subjected to the intentional [infliction] of emotional distress or the intentional interference with employment contracts.<p> <p> The
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan97/95-6432.opa.html">WILLIAMS V. ALABAMA STATE UNIV.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Williams v. We reverse.<p> BACKGROUND<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3E7522AF9F2E55F2882571EA00556739/$file/0435606.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We must decide whether the Ordinance prohibiting the use of portable signs is a permissible restriction on commercial speech. Are prohibited. Is not limited to. Ten categories of signage are exempt from this general prohibition: (1) banners on the Redmond Way railroad overpass. The City transmitted a letter to Ballen notifying him that he was in violation of the law and warning him that continued noncompliance would result in the initiation of code enforcement proceedings. Another timely appeal followed.1 II A grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied substantive law.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may96/95-4070.opa.html">SCIARRINO V. CITY OF KEY WEST<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Sciarrino v. OPC activity was significantly restricted. Proving citizenship or work eligibility. <i>Id.</i>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jul2004/Jul15/03-60924.0.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. Johnson and other defendants had filed a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTIxMDYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2106-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We disagree that Konits's 1996 suit was not speech on a matter of public concern. We vacate the grant of summary judgment on Konits's retaliation claim and remand to the district court for further proceedings. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 BACKGROUND Konits is a tenured music teacher in the Valley Stream Central High School District (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CFF82F4865A3771188256EAE0059035E/$file/0235260.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
ORDER The opinion in this case is amended as follows: 7492 SETTLEGOODE v. The section 1983 claim is both necessary and sufficient to sustain the jury's full verdict.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3814.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Confirming that she was laid off as part of a reduction in force (RIF). Nieves was unable to obtain another position in the Chicago Pub 2 No. 01 3814 lic Schools until August 2000. Alleging that she was terminated because she exercised her constitutional right to free speech. Bender was principal of Schurz High School and Nieves was employed as a Security Supervisor II. Nieves acknowledges receiving a memorandum from Bender to all employees whose positions were funded through state Chapter I funds. Schurz was on academic probation because a high percentage of its students had tested below grade level in reading. The budget at Schurz was no longer controlled by the local school council. Which was February 17. Nieves later received the June letter from Bender and the July letter from Vallas indicating that her position was closed and that she was laid off as part of an RIF. The five Chapter Ifunded positions closed were: Security Supervisor II. The aide positions were vacant at the time of the decision. No. 01 3814 3 Nieves testified that after her position was closed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CDA37DE3FAC4A07F8825732F005897FF/$file/0655517.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
District Judge.** Opinion by Judge Fisher *Debra Bowen is substituted for her predecessor. Circuit Judge: The 2000 presidential election was one of the closest in our nation's history. Their importance was magnified by the closeness of the election. Even if his share of the vote is less than an outright majority. It was in this highly charged political atmosphere that Appellants created two websites. Was to improve Gore's odds of winning the Democratic pledged electors in the swing state without reducing Nader's share of the national popular vote (which needed to exceed five percent in order to qualify his party for federal funding in future elections). The owners of voteswap2000.com were threatened with criminal prosecution by then California Secretary of State. Because the letter does not assure that California will not threaten to prosecute vote swapping websites in the future. We conclude that this appeal is not moot. The websites' vote swapping mechanisms as well as the communication and vote swaps they enabled were constitutionally protected.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19966358.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is Donald B.'s maternal parent and by state statute. Donald B. was enrolled unilaterally by his mother in a private. (9) Donald B. was. It further held that Donald B. failed to satisfy McNair 's third prong which limits relief to cases in which the sought after
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200410046.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
It is now before this Court for the second and final time. Shortly before Jackson was terminated. A student in his welding class who was not wearing safety gloves was burned on his hand by a welding torch. Jackson also went to a Board meeting at which he was not scheduled to participate and distributed confidential records regarding his special education students. Apparently in an attempt to demonstrate that the classes were overcrowded. Who was then the Superintendent of the Board of Education. A public hearing was held and the Board voted to terminate Jackson's teaching contract. That Jackson had failed to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the reason proffered by the Board for his termination was pretextual. The district court determined that Jackson's speech activities were protected and that he had established a prima facie case of retaliation. Because the district court decided that Jackson had failed to create a genuine issue of fact regarding whether the Board's proffered reason for discharge was a pretext.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1997/97a1727p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will reverse and remand for further proceedings. The property is located within 600 feet of a structure that. It is also within 1500 feet of the Brick High School. Which is frequented by young customers. Not far away is the only branch of the Ocean County Public Library in Brick. Among others that are not challenged before us: There shall be no private viewing of movies within an enclosed area anywhere upon the premises or within the structure. Obstructions or privacy provided the movies are not rated R. Ann. 2C:34 6 (West Supp. 1997)). 3 sale of such materials can only take place in an area of the premises that is separated. Separately walled through which admission can only be gained by a separate door which shall have a sign affixed to it stating that admission is only to those persons over eighteen years of age. Sound acknowledged that this was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="626"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr96/94-7216.opa.html">FIKES V. CITY OF DAPHNE<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Fikes v. A police officer's complaint alleging that he was discharged from his employment for exercising his freedom of speech. And<p> <p> (b) the common law of the State of Alabama providing for damages to persons subjected to the intentional [infliction] of emotional distress or the intentional interference with employment contracts.<p> <p> The
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/07/99-6382.htm">99-6382 -- STEWART V. PULIS -- 07/27/2000<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff Anthony Stewart. Was demoted from the position of shift leader after he spoke at a meeting of the city commissioners. Stewart had been a fireman for several years and was president of the firefighters' union. Pulis stated that there were disputes as to whether EMT training would be required for firefighters to keep their jobs. Stewart answered that they had not. <u>See</u> <u>id.</u> Pulis then stated that the meeting was not the place for negotiations. <u>See</u> <u>id.</u> When Stewart replied that he had not raised the subject. Pulis replaced Stewart as shift leader. <p> <center>II.</center> <p> Defendants argue on appeal that: (1) plaintiff's speech is not protected because it concerned only the working conditions of the City's firefighters. Which was a matter of private rather than public concern and. Plaintiff's interest in his expression is outweighed by the City's interest in avoiding confrontations between the union and the City at meetings of the city commissioners over firefighters' working conditions.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.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-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar97/95-9197.opa.html">VISTA COMMUNITY SERVICES V. DEAN<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Vista Community Services v. Both claims were sent to the jury. </i> the law of our Circuit was that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200507/03-7195a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the briefs were Robert J. With him on the brief was Fritz Mulhauser. Circuit Judge: We remanded the record because it was uncertain whether the First Amendment issue in this case was moot. 396 F.3d 416 (D.C. We will therefore proceed to the merits. I. The following recitation of facts is drawn from our earlier opinion. The Commission retained ownership of the decorated donkeys and elephants and planned to sell them at auction after the exhibit ended. 3 The written announcement stated that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/01-2157.htm">01-2157 -- MCCOOK V. SPRINGER SCHOOL DISTRICT -- 08/05/2002<BR></A><BR>
Have been frequent and outspoken critics of Defendants since 1997. He
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-4115.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Indiana where they had stopped to eat after attending a school soccer game.1 As 1 The facts described in this paragraph are those that gave rise to the Hodgkins' first challenge to the Indiana Curfew law. The statute was revised and the Hodgkins challenged the new statute. The police took Colin and his friends to a curfew sweep processing site where he was given a breathalyser test and escorted to a bathroom where he was required to submit a urine sample to be tested for drugs. Both tests were determined to be negative. It is a curfew violation for a child fifteen (15). 1 (...continued) though the facts that follow are those that gave rise to the initial lawsuit and are not those of the case before us today. They are included in order to give context and background to the current dispute. 4 No. 01 4115 (2) after 11 p.m. on Sunday. A third statute in force at the time of Colin's arrest exempted from application of the curfew statute any child who was: (1) accompanied by the child's parent. These statutes formed what we will call Indiana's prior curfew law.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/11/98-2326.htm">98-2326 -- LYBROOK V. MEMBERS OF THE FARMINGTON MUNICIPAL SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION -- 11/27/2000<BR></A><BR>
Arguing that it was entitled to qualified immunity. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-1336a.html">BLOUNT WILLIAM B. V. SEC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2000/98-2174.man.html">UNITED STATES V. FRANDSEN (5/25/2000, NO. 98-2174)<BR></A><BR>
Marvin Frandsen and Bryan Morris (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar97/95-9197.opa.html">VISTA COMMUNITY SERVICES V. DEAN<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Vista Community Services v. Both claims were sent to the jury. </i> the law of our Circuit was that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971523.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may97/94-6699.o2.html">INTERNATIONAL CAUCUS OF LABOR COMMS. V. CITY OF MONTGOMERY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>International Caucus of Labor Comms. v. Senior Circuit Judge.<p> <p> PER CURIAM:<p> <p> The opinion originally issued in this case is withdrawn. <i>International Caucus of Labor Comms. v. The following opinion is issued as the opinion of the Court on this appeal.<p> This case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of a city policy banning tables from city sidewalks. Were distributing literature from a card table placed on the sidewalk when police told them to leave or submit to arrest. The district court found that The International Caucus is an organization devoted to altering the contemporary political landscape. One of its preferred ways is to place tables in public areas in an effort to attract people to take its literature from these tables. The letter stated in relevant part:<p> Your actions do not violate the laws of this city unless you impede the orderly flow of traffic in the streets and at the street corners.<p> <p> Your organization will not be allowed to set up tables or booths on the sidewalks of this city.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2507FB5DDCB94D7088256C000051F3B8/$file/9856453.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: If this were a sci fi melodrama. I Barbie was born in Germany in the 1950s as an adult collector's item. Aqua is a Danish band that has. (The lyrics are in the Appendix.). MCA also brought a defamation claim against Mattel for statements Mattel made about MCA while this lawsuit was pending. Mattel appeals the district court's ruling that Barbie Girl is a parody of Barbie and a nominative fair use. That MCA's use of the term Barbie is not likely to confuse consumers as to Mattel's affiliation with Barbie Girl or dilute the Barbie mark. All three foreign defendants are affiliated members of Universal Music Group and have an active relationship with each other and with domestic members of the Group. This conduct was expressly aimed at. Mattel's trademark claims would not have arisen
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2103.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief for appellees.</SPAN></P> <TABLE BORDER=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/05-7110a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Alleging that she was not selected for the Director's position in retaliation for the exercise of her First Amendment right to criticize the District government. After concluding that the District was not a party to the suit. Wilburn suggested that the salary denials were 3 motivated by the race and gender of the two candidates. Were identified for interviews. Wilburn Decl. at JA 120 constituted inadmissible hearsay because the District was not a party to the suit and. Again concluding that the District was not a party and thus Graham's statements were inadmissible. Wilburn appeals both the grant of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/07/952891P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court held that the state's exclusion of the group did not violate the The policy employed to decide which persons are permitted access to the lobby is vague and subject to For this reason. The facts of this trial case and BACKGROUND are essentially on a undisputed. for After a consolidated bench hearing request preliminary injunction. Families Achieving Independence and Respect (FAIR) is a looselyorganized group of past and current welfare recipients providing educational support for low income persons. system' and 'welfare reform.'
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AEE47BCC6A6B67C488256DC9007DF6C1/$file/0136162.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was unconstitutionally viewpoint discriminatory. We have jurisdiction over Seattle's timely appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Was originally appointednot elected to his seat on the city council in 1996. Is failing to pursue sensible public transportation solutions for the city and the region. The action was brought as a facial challenge to Seattle's restriction as a viewpoint biased and unreasonable limitation on Cogswell's free speech rights in a limited public forum. This case is not moot because it falls within the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AEC1A9FBFB8AC71288256FD5006A829E/$file/0456072.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: The second paragraph on slip op. 1131. Line 3: the words
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1444.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. BACKGROUND The '222 patent is entitled
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3228_021.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who was then a part time instructor of cosmetology at Carl Sandburg College. The student was offended and complained to college officials. Whose offense was to clean out Piggee's refrigera 2 No. 05 3228 tor and throw away her noodles at some point during the spring of 2003) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That the college's sexual harassment policy was constitutionally infirm. Noting that none of the facts was seriously in dispute. I Carl Sandburg College (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july97/96-6358.opa.html">DONALD B. V. BOARD OF SCHOOL COMM'RS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Donald B. v. Is Donald B.'s maternal parent and by state statute. Donald B. was enrolled unilaterally by his mother in a private. (9) Donald B. was. It further held that Donald B. failed to satisfy <i>McNair</i> 's third prong which limits relief to cases in which the sought after
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A188A7C015356BED88257022007EE80F/$file/0250355.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Facts The issue here is the constitutionality of the crime charged in the indictment. In violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339B(a)(1).2 1 The MEK is also known as the People's Mojahedin Organization for Iran. The MEK was founded in the 1960's as an Iranian Marxist group seeking to overthrow the regime then ruling Iran. After the Iranian regime fell and was replaced by a clerical. If the indictment is correct. We take it as true that the defendants knew that they were furnishing assistance to a designated
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr98/96-6111.man.html">MARTIN V. BAUGH (4/28/1998, NO. 96-6111)<BR></A><BR>
The supervisor in both his official and individual capacities.</P> <P> The interlocutory appeal before us is from the district court's order rejecting the supervisor's defense of qualified immunity and denying him summary judgment on the plaintiff's claim for money damages. Is entitled to qualified immunity from suit under section 1983. We answer that question in the affirmative and therefore reverse the judgment of the district court.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The salient facts are as follows. Martin was hired by the City of Birmingham in 1979 as a communications technician in the City's Department of Communications. Defendant Victor Baugh was head of the Communications Department and Martin's supervisor at all times relevant to this litigation.</P> <P> In the spring of 1993. Ericsson General Electric (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTAyMzJfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-0232_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The court further found that Gill's First Amendment retaliation claim failed because the alleged adverse action did not have an actual deterrent effect on his exercise of First Amendment rights: Gill had commenced at least four additional lawsuits and at least thirty five institutional grievances against the Department of Correctional Services and its employees since the asserted retaliation. We have previously held that. A prisoner must demonstrate the following:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/07/002324P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a facial challenge to the constitutionality of section 4 99 201 of the Arkansas Code by the National Federation of the Blind of Arkansas and Larry Wayland. We will refer to plaintiffs collectively as the NFBA. Sitting by designation. * call to an Arkansas resident to solicit a charitable contribution or to offer any commercial product or service must identify the caller and the organization on whose behalf the call is being made. That provision is not at issue. The challenge is to the following subsection: (2) If the person receiving the telephone call indicates that he or she does not want to hear about the charity. A violation of subsection (a)(2) is a Class A misdemeanor and an unfair and deceptive act or practice for purposes of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The NFBA plaintiffs are an Arkansas charity that solicits contributions and a blind individual who wishes to be solicited without government interference. Concluding that the statute is constitutional on its face. The State argues that the NFBA's First Amendment claims were properly dismissed because subsection (a)(2)
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-1723a.html">TIME WARNER ENTRTNMT V. FCC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTUxMzEtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-5131-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
J.) dismissing claim that plaintiff was not afforded professor emeritus status in retaliation for speech related to a matter of public concern. The alleged deprivations were pleaded in claims made pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A claim of defamation also was alleged. Was later voluntarily withdrawn by Zelnik. As he was unable to demonstrate the loss of a benefit resulting from FIT's retaliatory failure to afford him professor emeritus status. The District Court also found that no reasonable fact finder could have determined that the conduct of defendantappellee Brown constituted harassment of the type that would have deterred a reasonable person from exercising his free speech rights. The District Court's dismissal of Zelnik's First Amendment claim for failure to demonstrate retaliation by adverse employment action is the only ruling challenged on appeal. We affirm the judgment of the District Court. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 BACKGROUND Zelnik is a retired faculty member of the Fashion Institute of Technology (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Jan2004/023952p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Delaware Police Department (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19966111.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The interlocutory appeal before us is from the district court's order rejecting the supervisor's defense of qualified immunity and denying him summary judgment on the plaintiff's claim for money damages. Is entitled to qualified immunity from suit under section 1983. Sitting by designation. * The salient facts are as follows. Martin was hired by the City of Birmingham in 1979 as a communications technician in the City's Department of Communications. Defendant Victor Baugh was head of the Communications Department and Martin's supervisor at all times relevant to this litigation. Ericsson General Electric (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr98/96-6111.man.html">MARTIN V. BAUGH (4/28/1998, NO. 96-6111)<BR></A><BR>
The supervisor in both his official and individual capacities.</P> <P> The interlocutory appeal before us is from the district court's order rejecting the supervisor's defense of qualified immunity and denying him summary judgment on the plaintiff's claim for money damages. Is entitled to qualified immunity from suit under section 1983. We answer that question in the affirmative and therefore reverse the judgment of the district court.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The salient facts are as follows. Martin was hired by the City of Birmingham in 1979 as a communications technician in the City's Department of Communications. Defendant Victor Baugh was head of the Communications Department and Martin's supervisor at all times relevant to this litigation.</P> <P> In the spring of 1993. Ericsson General Electric (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/96-3120.htm">96-3120 -- GOETZ V. GLICKMAN -- 07/10/1998<BR></A><BR>
Is unconstitutional. We affirm.<strong></strong> <p> <strong> <center>Facts and Proceedings Below</strong></center> <p> Goetz filed this class action lawsuit against the Secretary contending that his and other class members' constitutional rights are being violated because they must pay a $1.00 per head
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1235.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Suris & Godreau were on brief for appellant. Ram rez Lavandero & Associates were on brief for appellees. Appellant Romero Barcelo was the Governor of Puerto Rico. Subpoenas were issued for documents in the possession of the 1Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals are reviewed under the rubric that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1697.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Were on brief. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may97/94-6699.o2.html">INTERNATIONAL CAUCUS OF LABOR COMMS. V. CITY OF MONTGOMERY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>International Caucus of Labor Comms. v. Senior Circuit Judge.<p> <p> PER CURIAM:<p> <p> The opinion originally issued in this case is withdrawn. <i>International Caucus of Labor Comms. v. The following opinion is issued as the opinion of the Court on this appeal.<p> This case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of a city policy banning tables from city sidewalks. Were distributing literature from a card table placed on the sidewalk when police told them to leave or submit to arrest. The district court found that The International Caucus is an organization devoted to altering the contemporary political landscape. One of its preferred ways is to place tables in public areas in an effort to attract people to take its literature from these tables. The letter stated in relevant part:<p> Your actions do not violate the laws of this city unless you impede the orderly flow of traffic in the streets and at the street corners.<p> <p> Your organization will not be allowed to set up tables or booths on the sidewalks of this city.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/10/002051P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With respect to actions of various council members that she felt were unlawful. That the post termination hearing that he received was inadequate because of bias on the part of the mayor and the council members. Thompson was fired in retaliation for his wife's remarks at the council meeting. Thompson were pretextual. We therefore conclude that any equal protection claim that was raised has been abandoned. Thompson was an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2000/98-2174.man.html">UNITED STATES V. FRANDSEN (5/25/2000, NO. 98-2174)<BR></A><BR>
Marvin Frandsen and Bryan Morris (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3093.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
If there is an implied private right of action under Section 19c.1. Is that action limited to one against the employer (i.e. We are now in a position to dispose of the issues presented by this appeal. As this issue was fully explored in the original briefs and oral argument in this case. It too is ready for decision. That two of her co workers were taking time off from work without using benefit time. Discovered that Metzger 4 Nos. 01 3093 & 01 3300 herself was often 30 minutes late for work. Wasmer Ryherd also suspected that Metzger was rummaging through office files and co workers' desks after hours. Which she claims is a matter of public concern. The court must determine whether the employee's speech was constitutionally protected under the Connick Pickering test. The plaintiff must establish that the speech was a substantial or motivating factor in the retaliatory action. The defendant has an opportunity to establish that the same action would have been taken in the absence of the employee's protected speech.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19966111.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The interlocutory appeal before us is from the district court's order rejecting the supervisor's defense of qualified immunity and denying him summary judgment on the plaintiff's claim for money damages. Is entitled to qualified immunity from suit under section 1983. I. The salient facts are as follows. Martin was hired by the City of Birmingham in 1979 as a communications technician in the City's Department of Communications. Defendant Victor Baugh was head of the Communications Department and Martin's supervisor at all times relevant to this litigation. Ericsson General Electric (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0118p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because the defendants have raised a sovereign immunity defense to these claims as an alternative ground for affirmance. The Oakland County Community Mental Health Authority
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-2669.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is president and sole shareholder of Fish. There were four licensed. The income which the adult entertainment industry generates for the Village is critical. Ex. 11.) 1 Joelner claims to have been doing business at the 2226 Kingshighway location since 1990 or 1991. The stated goal of the increase was to protect the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1623.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Individually and as They Are Members of the Lexington School Committee. Smith were on brief for appellant. LLP were on brief for appellees. The advertisement promoted sexual abstinence and was proffered by a parent. Superintendent and school officials was terminated on defendants' motion for summary judgment. Holding that summary judgment should be entered for Yeo on his claims that there was state action. That each student publication was a public forum. That the decisions not to publish were impermissible view point discrimination. 1997 WL 292173 (1st Cir. The Yearbook was operated entirely by a staff of about sixty students. Staffing decisions were made by students. This staff was headed by two co editors in chief. Yankee Press Education Network. 4 was the Yearbook faculty advisor. Mechem was paid a stipend of less than $2. The Yearbook is financially independent from the school and is funded entirely through the sale of the books to students and advertising. This advertisement section was largely comprised of congratulatory or commemorative ads purchased by students and their families.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTEyMjktY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-1229-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: No holiday season is complete. At issue in this case is the holiday display policy promulgated by the Department of Education (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/06/02-4174.htm">02-4174 -- UTAH ANIMAL RIGHTS COALITION V. SALT LAKE CITY CORP. -- 06/16/2004<BR></A><BR>
One of those groups was Appellant. Are Salt Lake City and certain officials who had the responsibility of determining when and where various groups would be permitted to demonstrate. The question is whether the slow pace of the permit process violated the First Amendment. <p> Almost a year before the Olympics
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/832B8C120133166A88256F95000427F2/$file/0456072.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
These findings are based on studies and police declarations from other jurisdictions. CITY OF LA HABRA The Appellants are Bill Badi Gammoh. The case was subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Appellants were unsuccessful before the district court. Close up performances using the term
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/814C319F3A66E70B8825709F00808502/$file/0250355.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Facts The issue here is the constitutionality of the crime charged in the indictment. Wired money from the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july97/96-6358.opa.html">DONALD B. V. BOARD OF SCHOOL COMM'RS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Donald B. v. Is Donald B.'s maternal parent and by state statute. Donald B. was enrolled unilaterally by his mother in a private. (9) Donald B. was. It further held that Donald B. failed to satisfy <i>McNair</i> 's third prong which limits relief to cases in which the sought after
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/99-2017.htm">99-2017 -- CLINGER V. NEW MEXICO HIGHLANDS UNIVERSITY, BOARD OF REGENTS -- 06/22/2000<BR></A><BR>
Plaintiff was subject to the University's tenure policy. Summary judgment is appropriate
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="613"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/08/984078P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Maintain that the provisions are unconstitutional and therefore the grant of preliminary injunctive relief was appropriate. I. BACKGROUND IRLSPAC and IRLC are affiliated organizations that have as one of their purposes. The mailings were reported to the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board (the Board). One of IRLC's primary expenditures of money is for the publication of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june98/97-2764.man.html">MORRIS V. CROW (6/9/1998, NO. 97-2764)<BR></A><BR>
On his claim that he was terminated in retaliation for unfavorable statements he made in an accident report and related deposition. The sheriff's office maintains that Morris was fired as the result of a sheriff's office investigation into two instances of misconduct involving Morris which occurred in August and September 1991. Contends that he was fired because of his statements in an accident report and deposition testimony in connection with his investigation of a traffic accident involving a fellow deputy in which a citizen was killed in November 1989. Was en route to an emergency call for service. He observed that the officer was traveling more than 130 mph in a 50 mph zone and that the deputy had failed to use an emergency blue warning light in violation of sheriff's office policy. When Morris was deposed in connection with the lawsuit on January 23. He reiterated his earlier observations and additionally stated that if the officer were traveling the legal speed limit. There was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/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-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19959197.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Both claims were sent to the jury. Precluded Plaintiff from maintaining a substantive due process claim based on pretextual firing. 1526 28 (11th Cir.1994). was that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2355.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Schwartz</SPAN> were on brief for appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july96/94-6699.opa.html">INTERNATIONAL CAUCUS OF LABOR COMM. V. CITY OF MONTGOMERY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>International Caucus of Labor Comm. v. Were distributing literature from a card table placed on the sidewalk when police told them to leave or submit to arrest. The district court found that The International Caucus is an organization devoted to altering the contemporary political landscape. One of its preferred ways is to place tables in public areas in an effort to attract people to take its literature from these tables. The letter stated in relevant part:<p> Your actions do not violate the laws of this city unless you impede the orderly flow of traffic in the streets and at the street corners.<p> <p> Your organization will not be allowed to set up tables or booths on the sidewalks of this city. These tables or booths would create a partial blockage of pedestrian traffic and therefore will not be allowed on the sidewalks. Your organization may set up tables or booths on private property where you have the permission of the property owner.<p> <p> The City maintains that its policy is a complete ban of any tables on all sidewalks.<p> Plaintiffs sued the City of Montgomery.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961650.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lines 5 6 the sentence is corrected to read
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961581.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: We are convened to review a decision of the district court holding two statutes one enacted by the General Assembly of North Carolina and the other enacted by the Congress of the United States to be unconstitutional. 1 is violative of the First Amendment on its face and as applied. In pertinent part: (a) No person shall obstruct or block another person's access to or egress from a health care facility or from the common areas of the real property upon which the facility is located in a manner that deprives or delays the person from obtaining or providing health care services in the facility. .... (e) This section shall not prohibit any person from engaging in lawful speech or picketing which does not impede or deny another person's access to health care services or to a health care facility or interfere with the delivery of health care services within a health care facility. John Bradley are North Carolina residents who oppose abortion for moral. Their opposition has motivated them to engage in demonstrations outside facilities in North Carolina where abortions are performed.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2001/00-15927.opn.html">PITTMAN V. COLE (10/3/2001, NO. 00-15927)<BR></A><BR>
The court declined to address whether there was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june98/97-2764.man.html">MORRIS V. CROW (6/9/1998, NO. 97-2764)<BR></A><BR>
On his claim that he was terminated in retaliation for unfavorable statements he made in an accident report and related deposition. The sheriff's office maintains that Morris was fired as the result of a sheriff's office investigation into two instances of misconduct involving Morris which occurred in August and September 1991. Contends that he was fired because of his statements in an accident report and deposition testimony in connection with his investigation of a traffic accident involving a fellow deputy in which a citizen was killed in November 1989. Was en route to an emergency call for service. He observed that the officer was traveling more than 130 mph in a 50 mph zone and that the deputy had failed to use an emergency blue warning light in violation of sheriff's office policy. When Morris was deposed in connection with the lawsuit on January 23. He reiterated his earlier observations and additionally stated that if the officer were traveling the legal speed limit. There was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan98/97-4270.man.html">BADIA V. CITY OF MIAMI (1/30/1998, NO. 97-4270)<BR></A><BR>
We affirm in part and reverse in part.</P> <P> Although the district court's decision regarding the merits of Badia's claims is not final. The court's denial of summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity is an appealable interlocutory order. <EM>See Mitchell v. Badia was required to proffer evidence which. Demonstrates that Lee violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable government official would have been aware. <EM>See Tindal v. Such discrimination would violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable government official would have known. <EM>See Nicholson v. Qualified immunity does not entitle Lee to summary judgment on Badia's discrimination claims.</P> <P> Badia's First Amendment claim turns on whether the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2001/003142.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are asked to review the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2001/00-15927.opn.html">PITTMAN V. COLE (10/3/2001, NO. 00-15927)<BR></A><BR>
The court declined to address whether there was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19974270.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Although the district court's decision regarding the merits of Badia's claims is not final. The court's denial of summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity is an appealable interlocutory order. Badia was required to proffer evidence which. Demonstrates that Lee violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable government official would have been aware. Such discrimination would violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable government official would have known. Badia's First Amendment claim turns on whether the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1127.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Harris & Cooke were on brief for appellant. Goldberg and City of Cambridge Law Department were on brief for appellees. By which we mean signs whose content relates to no commercial or noncommercial activity occurring at the premises where the sign is located.1 The City amended its ordinance in 1We cannot improve upon an earlier explication of the off site/on site distinction: An onsite sign carries a message that bears some relationship to the activities conducted on the premises where the sign is located. All forty six Ackerley signs carrying off site messages were to be removed. The relevant legal environment is further complicated by the Massachusetts Zoning Enabling Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july96/94-6699.opa.html">INTERNATIONAL CAUCUS OF LABOR COMM. V. CITY OF MONTGOMERY<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>International Caucus of Labor Comm. v. Were distributing literature from a card table placed on the sidewalk when police told them to leave or submit to arrest. The district court found that The International Caucus is an organization devoted to altering the contemporary political landscape. One of its preferred ways is to place tables in public areas in an effort to attract people to take its literature from these tables. The letter stated in relevant part:<p> Your actions do not violate the laws of this city unless you impede the orderly flow of traffic in the streets and at the street corners.<p> <p> Your organization will not be allowed to set up tables or booths on the sidewalks of this city. These tables or booths would create a partial blockage of pedestrian traffic and therefore will not be allowed on the sidewalks. Your organization may set up tables or booths on private property where you have the permission of the property owner.<p> <p> The City maintains that its policy is a complete ban of any tables on all sidewalks.<p> Plaintiffs sued the City of Montgomery.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-3217.html">BRIGGS V. MSPB<BR></A><BR>
Argued for petitioner.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>James C. Argued for respondent.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Martha B. Argued for intervenor.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>David M. Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel were <u>Jeanne E. 2002).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Because Briggs s attacks on the constitutionality of the Hatch Act are not mer
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199806/97-1417a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Linda Sher. With him on the brief were Lau rence Gold. Circuit Judge: These are petitions by Exxel/At mos. Exxel is a small New Jersey company manufacturing non gas aerosol delivery systems. Was justified in this case.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199905/98-5435a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Tom A. With him on the brief were Frank W. Assistant Attorney General at the time the brief was filed. With him on the brief were Daniel M. Was rebuffed. An institution known as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200513776.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are asked to decide whether Padrón failed to renew Vila's employment contract because she engaged in First Amendment protected speech. We conclude Vila's speech was not protected by the First Amendment and therefore affirm the district court's grant of judgment as a matter of law.1 I. Vila was a licensed attorney and member of the Florida Bar. We have determined the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Vila's claim against Padrón in his individual capacity. Vila's motion to amend was made at the last minute and failed to comply with Fed. Was then given a oneyear contract from July 1. Vila] is not re employed by the Board . . . after June 30. The contract was not drafted or reviewed by Vila or anyone else in legal affairs. They became concerned that the wording of the agenda item would give the Board the impression Zimmerman was selected after a request for proposal. An e mail explaining that they believed the wording for the agenda item was misleading and that as a matter of law MDCC could not contract for over $25.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/08/982147P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Certain words and phrases used herein are defined as follows: A. Which is used as a place of residence. Deciding that the ordinance was constitutional on its face but unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs on October 10. The district court concluded that the officers' conduct was not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5C9228AF3051340788256C840006238F/$file/0035466.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On page 3737 of the slip opinion. P. 41(a)(2) without specifying that he was requesting dismissal without prejudice. A dismissal under this paragraph is without prejudice. Rule 41 provides that orders that fail to specify whether dismissal is with or without prejudice are to be interpreted as dismissals without prejudice. Federal Practice and Procedure § 2367 (2d ed. 1994) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/96opinions/96-1040a.html">ALLEGHENY LUDLUM COR V. NLRB<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA2LTIxMDYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/06-2106-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The present action was commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in April 2006 by or on behalf of artists whose ages then ranged from 16 to 20. New York residents are adults at age 18.). That plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their claims that the challenged provisions violate their First Amendment and equal protection rights. Defendants have appealed. Contending principally that the district court erred in finding that plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their claims. Amendments to § 10 117 were adopted to expand former § 435 13.2(c)'s prohibitions by raising the age restriction on the sale of such items from 18 to 21 and by introducing a strict liability provision that prohibits persons under the age of 21 from possessing such items in certain places. The Challenged Provisions of the City Code The new or amended subsections that are challenged in this action provide as follows: (c) No person shall sell or offer to sell an aerosol spray paint can.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-4723_012.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plaintiff sued the City of Madison and various officers of the Madison Police Department (collectively
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan98/97-4270.man.html">BADIA V. CITY OF MIAMI (1/30/1998, NO. 97-4270)<BR></A><BR>
We affirm in part and reverse in part.</P> <P> Although the district court's decision regarding the merits of Badia's claims is not final. The court's denial of summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity is an appealable interlocutory order. <EM>See Mitchell v. Badia was required to proffer evidence which. Demonstrates that Lee violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable government official would have been aware. <EM>See Tindal v. Such discrimination would violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable government official would have known. <EM>See Nicholson v. Qualified immunity does not entitle Lee to summary judgment on Badia's discrimination claims.</P> <P> Badia's First Amendment claim turns on whether the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug96/95-3131.opa.html">BIDDULPH V. MORTHAM<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Biddulph v. Introduction<p> <p> Appellant Dave Biddulph is a proponent of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19974270.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Although the district court's decision regarding the merits of Badia's claims is not final. The court's denial of summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity is an appealable interlocutory order. Badia was required to proffer evidence which. Demonstrates that Lee violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable government official would have been aware. Such discrimination would violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable government official would have known. Badia's First Amendment claim turns on whether the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061636p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Fowler Nash alleged that she was discharged from her position as a legislative assistant to Harhai in violation of her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Caucus argued that it was entitled to absolute legislative immunity as Fowler Nash was employed as a legislative assistant. Her firing was therefore necessarily
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0002n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Comfort or repose of neighboring inhabitants or at a volume which is plainly audible to persons other than those who are in the room in which such device or instrument is played and who are voluntary listeners thereto. (b) Except for organized events which have received any type of permit from the City in conjunction with the event. PROCEDURAL HISTORY & FACTUAL BACKGROUND Appellants are anti abortion activists who protest at abortion clinics in Cleveland. A warrant was issued for Gaughan's arrest. He was arrested by the Cleveland police pursuant to the warrant. The charge for violating § 683.01(a) was later dismissed. Uniformed police were present during the protests and were aware that Gaughan was playing the recording. The police told him that the recording could be heard inside the clinic and gave him a citation for violating C.C.O. § 683.01(a).1 The citation stated that he was playing the recording
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052361p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. Was appointed poet laureate of New Jersey in July 2002. There is hereby established the New Jersey William Carlos Williams Citation of Merit to be presented to a distinguished poet from New Jersey who shall be considered the poet laureate of the State of New Jersey for a period of two years. Shall biennially appoint and convene a panel of four persons who are either distinguished poets or persons who represent a range of stylistic approaches in the field of poetry. In part:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug96/95-3131.opa.html">BIDDULPH V. MORTHAM<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Biddulph v. Introduction<p> <p> Appellant Dave Biddulph is a proponent of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200108/00-7221a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Peter Mitchell. Both took their posts in January 1997 and were scheduled to serve until December 31. Was removed as IUE Secretary Treasurer. Gilvin opposed the proposal on the 1 Because Gilvin's complaint was dismissed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 56. Gilvin charged that checks for those expenditures were issued with out his knowledge or approval. J.A. 1375 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-7221a.html">RON GILVIN V. EDWARD FIRE<BR></A><BR>
Kennedy argued the cause for appellee.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0176p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
After Beverly Miller was fired from her job of over 24 years as the jury pool manager for Jefferson County. She alleged a First Amendment violation on the basis that her termination was in retaliation for bringing to light various 1 No. 05 5981 Miller v. Further claimed that she was deprived of her right to due process because she was not afforded notice or an opportunity to be heard prior to her termination. Miller's claims against the officials in their individual capacities were dismissed on the basis of qualified immunity. Miller was hired to serve as the jury pool manager for Jefferson County. Soon thereafter was reappointed to the same job. Miller was classified as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/07/98-5122.htm">98-5122 -- B. WILLIS V. GOODPASTER -- 07/20/1999<BR></A><BR>
We affirm.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/feb97/96-2000.wpd.html">REVO V. DISCIPLINARY BD.<BR></A><BR>
Unless the recipient of the solicitation is a relative of (1) The Honorable Joseph F. Except as provided in Paragraph A of Rule 16 703 [allowing contact with prospective clients who are relatives or with whom the lawyer has a prior personal. Concerns an action for personal injury or wrongful death or otherwise relates to an accident involving the person to whom the communication is addressed or a relative of that person. Is a personal injury lawyer who practices in Albuquerque. Which are specifically banned by Rule 16 701(C)(4). Revo sought a declaratory judgment that the ban was unconstitutional on First Amendment and Equal Protection grounds. The case was assigned to another district judge. The district court held that New Mexico's blanket ban on direct mail advertising is an unconstitutional violation of Mr. We have an obligation to make an independent examination of the whole record in order to make sure that the speech regulation does not constitute a forbidden intrusion on the field of free expression.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/04/974390P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Entered by the district court2 pursuant to a jury verdict. 1 2 Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act is codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (1994). The facts underlying the parties' dispute are as follows. Only Pall's BB50T is sufficiently
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-6000.htm">98-6000 -- JANTZEN V. HAWKINS -- 08/31/1999<BR></A><BR>
Defendant Appellee Lewis Hawkins was the incumbent Sheriff of Canadian County. Hawkins' Sheriff Office was comprised of thirty four appointees. Who were Deputy Sheriffs. Or was in any way disloyal to him would be fired. Jantzen was active in Haugland's campaign. Moulton were fired. <p> All four Appellants sued Hawkins and the Canadian County Board of Commissioners under 42 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="600"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/11/98-2199.htm">98-2199 -- AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION V. JOHNSON -- 11/02/1999<BR></A><BR>
Which criminalizes the dissemination by computer of material that is harmful to minors. Had demonstrated that they were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that section . Which provides as follows: <p> 30 37 3.2 Dissemination of material that is harmful to a minor by computer <p> A. Dissemination of material that is harmful to a minor by computer consists of the use of a computer communications system that allows the input. Whoever commits dissemination of material that is harmful to a minor by computer is guilty of a misdemeanor. <p> The statute provides the following defenses: <p> In a prosecution for dissemination of material that is harmfu |
