Search the opinions of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal

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

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

Your query void judgments returned 904 results.

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

	OPINION/ORDER Since Knapper's attempt to void the default judgments is foreclosed by the Rooker Feldman 2 doctrine. We will vacate the district court's order and remand with instructions to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A mortgage lien was placed on both parcels of real estate as a result of one or more loan agreements Knapper entered into with Amresco Residential Securities Corporation. It was served on September 7. Giacomelli's affidavit of service recited that the complaint was served on an
	OPINION/ORDER Habeas petitioners and § 2255 movants have sought to circumvent the AEDPA's restrictions on second round collateral attacks in federal courts. One of the most popular vehicles used in the attempted end runs is a Fed. We entered an order granting hearing or rehearing en banc in three cases in order to answer some common questions that have arisen about the use of Rule 60(b) motions to obtain relief from judgments that denied § 2254 relief (in two of the cases before us). Which was after this case was submitted for decision. That is. 4) was it an abuse of discretion for the district court to deny the Rule 60(b) motion in his case? In the sequence in which the panel decisions or orders were issued in them. A. A decade ago at a retrial Stephen Mobley was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1991 murder of a Domino's Pizza employee during an armed robbery. Who had been the district attorney when the prosecution began but no longer was. He told the jury that
	01-7132 -- U.S. V. BIGFORD -- 04/13/2004 Circuit Judge. Defendant was charged with violating the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act (
	OPINION/ORDER The second concerns the District Court's use of the doctrine of laches to prevent McGlory from challenging a forfeiture proceeding in which the notice given for the forfeiture is later discovered to be constitutionally inadequate. 2 In the first appeal. The government directed notice by certified mail to the facility in which McGlory was incarcerated. That the government should have ensured that he received personal notification of the proceedings against his property. Which involved different property of McGlory's that was subject to administrative forfeiture. In whose custody McGlory was held. Due process requires that when a person is in the government's custody and detained at a place of its choosing. That
	OPINION/ORDER An amended opinion is attached hereto. We have consolidated these cases for disposition on appeal. The New Mexico Name maintains that the English judgment stemmed from an action that is repugnant to New Mexico's public policy as the judgment: (a) violates New Mexico's securities laws. (b) is based on unconscionable contracts. (e) is based on illusory contacts. Because the English system of jurisprudence is incompatible with American standards of due process. Two Utah Names also contend that the district court's approval of the English post judgment interest of eight percent per annum was incorrect. We also hold that the Lloyd's judgments are not repugnant to New Mexico's public policy. We hold that the parties in this case are diverse. I. BACKGROUND Numerous courts have summarized the basic facts applicable to the underlying litigation. These facts are not in dispute. Lloyd's is not an insurer. Rather is the regulator of an insurance market located in London. Names are passive investors in the sophisticated scheme.
	OPINION/ORDER This lawsuit is one of many brought by plaintiffs throughout the United States against Dow Chemical. In these lawsuits both Dow Chemical and DuPont have enjoyed consistent success. All the TMJ cases then pending in federal court were consolidated in the District of Minnesota. Federal jurisdiction was based on Dow Corning's bankruptcy. Are Jennifer Kocher's parents. 22 1 Before proceeding to Kocher's arguments we will address a preliminary question: do we have jurisdiction over this appeal? United States Courts of Appeals have jurisdiction over only
	OPINION/ORDER We are presented with the question of whether a bankruptcy court has subject matter jurisdiction to enter a money judgment in a nondischargeability adversary proceeding where the underlying debt has been reduced to judgment in state court. The stay was granted subject to the condition that Sasson
	99-3314 -- VANOVER V. COOK -- 07/31/2001 The award of attorneys fees was reversed on appeal to the Kansas Court of Appeals. 646 was affirmed. Holding that Vanover was collaterally estopped from relitigating the propriety of the garnishments and that Vanover's complaint was insufficient to allege claims for wrongful garnishment. BACKGROUND Vanover and Cook were divorced in Gray County. 078.21.
	OPINION/ORDER Schwartz LLP was on brief. Were on brief. Fafel argues that the injunction is void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the district court misunderstood the scope of its ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the underlying Rule 68 judgment. Judgment in Fafel's favor was not entered until approximately six months later. While DiPaola's appeal from the state court judgment was pending in the Massachusetts Appeals Court.
	OPINION/ORDER Her underlying contention is that she is the owner of certain real property. That Defendants have acted illegally in interfering with her ownership. The agreement secured the indebtedness by promising to pay Plaintiff for all sums provided if and when the Henry Ruff Property was sold. Plaintiff was the sole title holder of the Huff Road Property. The circuit court found that the Henry Ruff Property was marital property to be divided2between Mary and Edward. The circuit court failed to even address whether the 1976 reconciliation agreement was valid. The court of appeals remanded the case to the circuit court to determine whether the 1976 reconciliation agreement and any of the subsequent transfers were valid. As there was a question of whether the transfers were part of a conspiracy to deprive Edward of his rightful marital property. Should have the opportunity to testify at trial. The circuit court later determined that the conveyances by Frances and Nancy were fraudulent. The circuit court found that the 1976 conveyance from Edward to Mary was void because it lacked consideration and because it was against public policy.
	BURKE V. SMITH (5/31/2001, NO. 00-15088) That it should have set aside the dismissal as to all parties. Who was killed in a trucking accident on April 17. The plaintiffs named in the complaint are (1) Linda Burke. (4) Royal Insurance Company.
	BURKE V. SMITH (5/31/2001, NO. 00-15088) That it should have set aside the dismissal as to all parties. Who was killed in a trucking accident on April 17. The plaintiffs named in the complaint are (1) Linda Burke. (4) Royal Insurance Company.
	OPINION/ORDER That it should have set aside the dismissal as to all parties. Who was killed in a trucking accident on April 17. The plaintiffs named in the complaint are (1) Linda Burke. (4) Royal Insurance Company.2 Tammy was seventeen years old at the time of her father's death and a minor under Alabama law. Was signed solely by
	OPINION/ORDER After the Santa Ana Pueblo Tribal Court ruled that the Pueblo and the named tribal officials were entitled to sovereign immunity. The district court ruled that the tribal court's decision was entitled to preclusive effect and dismissed the Burrells' case. We hold that the district should not have given preclusive effect or otherwise recognized the tribal court's ruling. They were (1) The following facts are taken from the Burrells' complaint. The Pueblo's consent to the lease was necessary. Was required to contact the United States Department of Interior to initiate such proceedings. informed that if they conducted a successful farming operation. Were
	OPINION/ORDER Defendant appellant Bharat Patel (
	OPINION/ORDER Was struck by a vehicle owned by Amoco. She is unable to walk. There were separate claims for the estate of Linda Coles (Count I). The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in June 1974. Nicholas Smith (who had previously been one Coles' attorneys) and Security Bank & Trust were appointed co guardians of the estate of Linda Coles by the Wayne County Probate Court. The original Complaint was amended to list the plaintiffs as Nicholas Smith and Security Bank and Trust Company. A Motion and Stipulation for Entry of Consent Judgment was filed in the district court on July 8. The settlement terms were reduced to three separate consent judgments. 333.33 were paid from the recoveries of Rudolph and Gladys Coles only. Which was attended by all interested parties. The magistrate judge sought to ascertain whether the settlement was in the best interest of the child. Do you understand that if the child's claim is settled here today no further money can be asked of either Amoco or Mr.
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: Eric Noel and Sandra and Brian Hall are no strangers to the inside of a courtroom. This lawsuit is the fifth between Noel and Sandra Hall. On the ground that they should have been asserted as compulsory counterclaims in earlier statecourt litigation. Sell Red Hot Prospect a horse that was no such thing. Sandra Hall's last name was Johnson. A. State Court Litigation The unhappy collaboration between Sandra Hall and Noel resulted in four suits litigated in Washington State courts (a fifth suit was filed but never litigated): two actions concerning the mobile home in the small claims department of the Clark County District Court (eventually consolidated on appeal). Small Claims Suits Concerning the Mobile Home Two separate actions related to the mobile home were litigated in the small claims department of the district court in Clark County. Skamania County Superior Court Suit Concerning the Investment in Red While the mobile home suits were pending against him. (The Clark County suit is discussed below.).
	PORTER V. US
	OPINION/ORDER AOC was a Lake Arrowhead. WILSON 5203 The agreement provided that arbitration was to be the sole dispute resolution method. Was to be conducted pursuant to the rules of the American Arbitration Association (
	OPINION/ORDER Finding the Arbitration Agreements were unconscionable. I. BACKGROUND FNB is a national bank chartered under the National Bank Act. Which is located in Georgia. The customer would have to sign and date both the Promissory Note and the Arbitration Agreement. The type of lending transactions at issue in this case are commonly referred to as
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The district judge rejected Heep's contention that the order is either void under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) or a product of mistake under Rule 60(b)(1). Heep's attorney had withdrawn and Heep was proceeding pro se. The notice of appeal and appellate brief were served on Heep by first class mail at the address shown for her in the bankruptcy court's files. Although Heep now alleges she never received the notice or brief and that the address used was incorrect. The address was the one she gave the bankruptcy court as well as the address used by counsel representing Heep in other matters. Recognizing Heep was without representation. This decision of the district court was filed on June 17. Heep claims that she is entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(4) because the June 17 order is void. 107 (4th Cir. 1979) (stating that motions
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: Three appeals have been consolidated in this case. A trial against defendant Robert Rosenstock and an inquest to fix damages against Briggs were scheduled to begin in August 1997. Briggs was a publicly held auto leasing company incorporated in New York. Robert Genser (
	OPINION/ORDER We vacate the district court's judgment and leave in effect the state court judgment and the holding of the bankruptcy court that the state judgment debt was not dischargeable. 1988 declaring that the $7000 state judgment was nondischargeable.1 But. 1988 order of the bankruptcy court it also entered its own judgment in Dotson's favor for $7000 plus both accrued interest at the The bankruptcy court's determination that the state court judgment was not dischargeable is not an issue in this appeal. 1 IN RE: HECKERT 3 West Virginia rate of 10% per annum until June 15. Claiming the judgment was void for lack of jurisdiction because the bankruptcy court entered a judgment on an already existing state court judgment. Which was beyond the scope of the bankruptcy court's powers in the proceeding to determine dischargeability of the state court judgment.
	OPINION/ORDER Members of the Hegna family have attempted to collect a default judgment against property previously owned by Iran and currently held by the United States. Although those receiving partial payments do not have to relinquish as many
	OPINION/ORDER Members of the Hegna family have attempted to collect a default judgment against property previously owned by Iran and currently held by the United States. Although those receiving partial payments do not have to relinquish as many
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: Richard Sherman (Sherman) was the attorney for several defendants in an enforcement action brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and in other actions in which those defendants were parties. Maintaining that there was
	99-3329 -- GSCHWIND V. CESSNA AIRCRAFT CO. -- 11/29/2000 An Ohio citizen.
	00-2337 -- U.S. V. RODRIGUEZ-AGUIRRE -- 09/05/2001 The property in question was allegedly seized in 1992 pursuant to several warrants executed on homes and business properties owned by Appellants. While many of the seized items were forfeited by the United States in valid civil forfeiture actions. Appellants allege that approximately 127 of the seized items were never properly forfeited and thus should be returned to Appellants. Appellants' objections to the magistrate's recommendations were rejected by the district court when dismissing Appellants' motion. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
	OPINION/ORDER 28 U.S.C. § 2283. that this relief is improper under both the Eleventh Amendment and the We disagree. Conclude that Construing injunctive relief is proper in the circumstances of this case. relief. On the last occasion during which these parties were before us. We stated that it was
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from a bankruptcy court order denying a motion to set aside final default judgment entered against Defendants D. It is from these orders that Valdez appeals. P. 60(b)(1) (
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were Henry L. With him on the brief were Kenneth L. Was convicted by a court martial of violating a lawful order to add United Nations insignia a shoulder patch and a field cap to his basic uniform. He was troubled that wearing U.N. insignia as part of his uniform would manifest an involuntary or fictional shift in his allegiance from the government of the United States to the United Nations. New was court martialed and charged with violating Article 92(2) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (codified at 10 U.S.C. § 892(2)). Which it is his duty to obey. New also argued that the uniform order couldn't be lawful because the Army's participation in the U.N. mission was itself unlawful. The military judge a law officer presiding over the panel but not serving as one of its members rejected both sets of arguments: he concluded that the order was consistent with AR 670 1 and that the legality of the deployment was a nonjusticiable political question. New argued that the military judge erred in ruling that the lawfulness of the order was a legal question for him to decide rather than an element of the offense to be decided by the
	OPINION/ORDER It is an authority constrained by no less a power than that of the People themselves. The constitution is written.
	OPINION/ORDER That decision is the subject of the appeal in case No. 99 56498. MOD moved the district court for a determination that its judgment against Cubic was immune from attachment. JURISDICTION The denial of a motion to intervene as of right is an appealable final order. District court orders entered after the entry of judgment are generally reviewable by a separate appeal. We therefore have jurisdiction over the consolidated appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The judgment against the Iranian defendants was for Flatow sued under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (
	OPINION/ORDER Michele Adkins was involved in an automobile accident in 1983 that seriously injured her and her unborn daughter. Michele's husband was employed by a subsidiary of the American Electric Power Company. Was controlling. The Adkinses argue that Galatis is void ab initio and therefore not controlling because of an alleged lack of subject matter jurisdiction and because the decision violated the Galatises' due process rights. Michele Adkins was involved in a head on automobile accident in Licking County. She was seriously injured sustaining fractures to her femur. Michele was eight months pregnant with Lindsay Adkins. Lindsay was born prematurely and now suffers from cerebral palsy. The Adkinses maintain that Lindsay's condition is a direct and proximate result of the accident. Michele was not at fault in the collision. Was employed by a subsidiary of American Electric Power Company. American Electric was the named insured on several automobile insurance policies in effect during this time that provided UM/UIM coverage.
	OPINION/ORDER The notice was pretty important: it advised the Church of its right to redeem title to the 63rd Street property after the parcel was sold for delinquent taxes. Reasoning that Rooker Feldman was inapplicable because the Church never had an opportunity to challenge the City's acquisition of the tax deed in state court. The Church was not. Were assessed by Cook County against the property. The property was sold at a
	OPINION/ORDER The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) Rooker v. 460 U.S. 462 (1983). court while her appeal was pending. The Probate Court Orders At the heart of this case are two Colorado probate court orders that determined that Beverly's(2) elderly father. Is incapacitated and appointed defendant Gayle King as his guardian and conservator of his estate. The unfortunate circumstances surrounding the court's issuance of these orders are described in detail in Beverly's complaint. Joseph was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in mid 2004. For what was to be a short trip to visit his granddaughter. After he was released from the hospital. Which is attached to the complaint. Also states that King is his preferred guardian in the event that he is deemed incapacitated. King filed a petition under the Colorado probate code that requested a determination that Joseph was incapacitated and sought appointment as his guardian. She argued that the power of attorney was. Which is attached to the complaint.
	CHRISTOPHER VILLAGE, L.P., ET AL. V. U.S. Argued for plaintiffs appellants. Of counsel on the brief was E. Argued for defendant appellee. Of counsel were David M. This case presents the question whether a federal district court has jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment as to the government s liability for breach of contract solely in order to create a predicate for suit to recover damages in the Court of Federal Claims. We hold that district courts do not have such jurisdiction because the Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction under the Tucker Act. The predicate judgment was void. It follows that the Court of Federal Claims was not bound by this earlier judgment. On the merits. We affirm the Court of Federal Claims grant of summary judgment. We agree that the contract between the government and the appellants was unenforceable against the government because of a material breach by the appellants predating the government s alleged breach.
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: Mary Doe1 challenges the State of California's jurisdiction Pseudonyms are used to identify the mother. Who was domiciled on the Elem Indian Colony reservation at the time she was removed from Mary Doe's custody by the Lake County Department of Social Services. Which was passed in 1978 to ensure the tribes a role in adjudicating child custody proceedings involving Indian children. Codified at 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901 1963.2 ICWA provides that tribes will have exclusive jurisdiction over child custody proceedings involving Indian children domiciled or residing on the reservation
	OPINION/ORDER Arthur Hilts (collectively the Defendants) were convicted of using interstate wires for the purpose of executing a scheme to defraud Canada and the Province of Ontario of excise duties and tax revenues relating to the importation and sale of liquor. No doubt this smuggling operation was spawned to supply a black market for liquor in Canada that had been created when. The store owners were not prosecuted for violations of United States Department of Treasury Regulations which required that they record and report bulk sales of alcohol. 1 4 UNITED STATES v. Border crossings were monitored electronically. Several vehicles that were registered to drivers involved in the scheme failed to stop for a second inspection when requested. ATF agents and Royal Canadian Mounted Police also conducted surveillance of David and Carl Pasquantino and their associates loading liquor in Maryland and unloading it in Canada after it was smuggled through Canadian customs. Marked bottles of liquor were recovered in Canada. The Defendants were indicted.
	OPINION/ORDER We will affirm the District Court's confirmation of the arbitration award. I. Factual and Jurisdictional Background The parties to the arbitration are Safeguard International Partners. SIP is the general partner of SIF Management. The Agreement did not specify what 1 The partnership agreements are all governed by Delaware 3 law. court would have jurisdiction over the arbitration. Related parties who were also owed fees. SIP filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to determine who was eligible for arbitration under the Agreement. The District Court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because there was not complete diversity of citizenship between the multiple parties. Any lien from the arbitration award is released. We note that this motion might have been brought more properly under FED. Although there is not complete diversity between the parties. There is federal subject matter jurisdiction based on the Federal Arbitration Act.
	OPINION/ORDER The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. James Bolden is not happy with the City of Topeka. He alleged discrimination based on race (he is African American) and as retaliation for protected speech. On the ground that those claims were
	OPINION/ORDER That case was administratively closed by order of the District Court on August 19. The civil RICO case was not concluded. Levine was never a named party to the action. The action was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. All counts of the complaint were dismissed except for the civil RICO claim against the Litman Group. The case was also joined with a related qui tam action under the False Claims Act. Esq. was lead counsel for the Litman Group in both actions. Esq. was lead counsel for the private plaintiff in the False Claims Act case. While the RICO case was pending trial. Was appointed as Trustee for Penn W est in its case. Potter informed the District Court that
	MICROSOFT WORD - 05 CV 3823 U.S. V. ST. REGIS MOHAWK FINAL.DOC The district court lacked jurisdiction because the action was not brought as an appeal of an agency decision pursuant to IGRA § 2714. We hold that the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain the action and we affirm the dismissal. The other half shall be paid into the Treasury for the use of the Indian or tribe by or for whom it was so paid. 3 Management Company (
	MICROSOFT WORD - 05 CV 3823 U.S. V. ST. REGIS MOHAWK FINAL.DOC The district court lacked jurisdiction because the action was not brought as an appeal of an agency decision pursuant to IGRA § 2714. We hold that the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain the action and we affirm the dismissal. The other half shall be paid into the Treasury for the use of the Indian or tribe by or for whom it was so paid. 3 Management Company (
	OPINION/ORDER The district court lacked jurisdiction because the action was not brought as an appeal of an agency decision pursuant to IGRA § 2714. We hold that the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain the action and we affirm the dismissal. The other half shall be paid into the Treasury for the use of the Indian or tribe by or for whom it was so paid. 3 Management Company (
	OPINION/ORDER Weissberg & Garin were on brief. Kane and Hanify & King were on brief. Were on brief. Were on brief. The history of the conflict is of minimal import. The agreement contemplated the phasing out of the existing Charles Street jail once the new structure was in place. The new facility (the Nashua Street jail) was not completed until mid 1990 and was hard pressed from the start to cope with the Sheriff's escalating needs. The consent decree was modified by court order in 1985. He thereupon granted the Sheriff's motion to 1Notwithstanding the several emendations that have been made to the original consent decree. Apply the Act and evaluate the extent of the remediation to which the defendants are entitled. The PLRA is not a paragon of clarity. A defendant or intervenor shall be entitled to the immediate termination of any prospective relief if the relief was approved or granted in the absence of a finding by the court that the relief is narrowly drawn. Is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.
	OPINION/ORDER On the grounds that his career offender sentence enhancement was based. On state court convictions which have subsequently been vacated by the state courts because they were void. The complex factual scenario is as follows. Claiming that his state convictions were void because the sentence promised by the prosecution and imposed by the state court violated Tennessee law. He contended that his state convictions were illegal because of the aforementioned sentencing defect and therefore should not have been considered. (2) the motion advanced new grounds for relief which he should have raised in the 1996 motion. (3) his claim was not cognizable under § 2255 because the state convictions were set aside on state law rather than constitutional grounds. We hold that Watt's claim is cognizable under § 2255. I. A final ruling on a § 2255 motion is not appealable unless a district or circuit judge issues a certificate of appealability (
	OPINION/ORDER The trustees (the new trustees)1 of the Transportation Communications Interna1 tional Union Staff Retirement Plan (the Plan) and the named representatives of the class2 agreed to the elimination of cost of living 2 adjustment (
	OPINION/ORDER Before us is an expedited appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (
	98-7094 -- MAXWELL V. MAXWELL -- 05/25/1999 The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Appellant Donald Ray Maxwell. Is zero to ten years. Where state remedies are no longer available because of state procedural default. Or that a fundamental miscarriage of justice will occur if the claims are not considered. See Coleman v. He fails to demonstrate that a miscarriage of justice will occur absent review of his claim. II. Guilty Pleas to Prior Convictions The record clearly establishes that prior to the kidnaping charge. Maxwell asserts the state trial court improperly enhanced his present sentence using these prior convictions because his guilty pleas to them were involuntary and uninformed. A review of the certified copies of the judgments on the five prior convictions establishes Mr. That he pled guilty of his own free will and accord. Maxwell fails to show these judgments are in any way invalid. While guilty pleas are presumed invalid when under direct attack. Such a presumption is inappropriate in a collateral attack because it collides with the
	02-1303 -- MCKEEL V. STATE OF COLORADO -- 08/25/2003 Circuit Judge.
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: This appeal stems from a quiet title action that began in Los Angeles Superior Court but was resuscitated in federal court after the California courts ruled against appellants John and Anne Henrichs (
	OPINION/ORDER This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court sitting as an appellate court in bankruptcy. At issue is whether. A non record interest holder in real property is entitled to personal service before a foreclosure sale even though notice was mailed to the record owners and was posted on the property. Or should have known. That the purchaser was not a bona fide purchaser because of its actual knowledge of the unrecorded interest. We will affirm. The house was occupied by two of Thomas Bacon's children. Liberty Savings Bank began foreclosure proceedings against Thomas and Duane Bacon in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court.[fn3] Liberty's attempts to serve notice on Thomas and Duane Bacon personally were unsuccessful. Recited that a copy of the complaint was posted on the house on March 16. 1991 notice was posted at the house pursuant to the Common Pleas Court's order. Graves was served on November 16. 1992 holding that the motion was not promptly filed and that Graves did not have a meritorious defense to the claim.[fn7] C.
	OPINION/ORDER
	OPINION/ORDER
	00-1115 -- BISBEE V. MCCARTY -- 02/02/2001 The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff appellant John H. Bisbee interposed a counterclaim that was facially in excess of the jurisdictional limit of the county court. The case was thereafter transferred to Boulder County District Court. McCarty moved to remand the case to county court. That his appeal was dismissed as untimely. Was subject to a heightened pleading standard applicable to conspiracy allegations involving state actors with immunity. It is our duty as a threshold matter in this case to determine whether . The losing party in a state court proceeding is generally
	02-4126 -- SALT LAKE TRIBUNE PUBLISHING CO. V. AT&T CORP. -- 02/24/2003 Circuit Judge.
	OPINION/ORDER Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Coomer filed an Answer and initially attempted to have the case dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. A copy of the motion was forwarded to Mr. A copy of the summary judgment motion was mailed to Mr. Was again mailed to Mr. Coomer alleged that he was not informed that his former counsel. Coomer further alleged that he was not aware that Mrs. Coomer had filed a motion for summary judgment or that the motion was under advisement by the court. Coomer argued that he was not afforded the opportunity to respond to the motion that ultimately resulted in a judgment against him. We will confine our discussion to Rule 60(b). Had he known it was an evidentiary hearing. Coomer claims he would have been present. The notice of hearing clearly indicated that the hearing's purpose was to evaluate Mr. Because presentation of evidence is an elemental aspect of judicial hearings. Was in February 1997. Coomer maintains that he was never aware of Mr. Coomer acknowledges receiving after February 1997 was the April 8.
	OPINION/ORDER We have jurisdiction over this appeal from the final order of the bankruptcy court. An involuntary chapter 7 bankruptcy petition was filed against the Popkin & Stern law firm. The case was converted to chapter 11 and a trustee. Was appointed. A chapter 11 plan was eventually confirmed that provided for the creation of a
	OPINION/ORDER Stanley are inmates at Michigan correctional facilities. The attorney general may file a complaint in the circuit court for the county from which a prisoner was sentenced. Stating that the person is or has been a prisoner in a state correctional facility. That there is good cause to believe that the prisoner has assets. If the prisoner is confined in a state correctional facility. By registered mail addressed to the prisoner in care of the chief administrator of the state correctional facility where the prisoner is housed. Abbott is released from the physical custody of the Department of Corrections. Arguing that the SCFRA order was an assignment of his pension payments in violation of provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (
	OPINION/ORDER Is amended as follows: Replace the second full paragraph on page 9 with the following:
	OPINION/ORDER 1 physicians are suing many of this country's largest HMOs. The court held that certain claims were arbitrable. This order was slightly modified in In re Managed Care Litig. The district court certified a class in an order which is currently on appeal before this court. Whether the plaintiffs have adequately stated any claims. Or the merits of those claims An important point is that. It does not necessarily mean that arbitration of such a claim is prohibited or illegal. If this is done without the other party's consent. The result is a legal nullity. The first modification was in response to an inconsistency in its original opinion that the defendants pointed out. The second modification was made due to the subsequent history of 2 3 2 1 * procedural history leading up to them are not immediately relevant to this appeal. Are not being challenged here. The only claims remaining were those the court had ruled non arbitrable. The substance of these arbitration orders is not currently before us on appeal. The only important fact about the arbitration orders is that they designated some claims as arbitrable.
	OPINION/ORDER Who were tenants in outlet shopping malls. The tenant assigned to AFS exclusive control of all potential legal claims that the tenant might have against the landlord. The district court concluded that the contractual arrangements were
	99-1344 -- WEINMAN V. FIDELITY CAPITAL APPRECIATION FUND -- 08/21/2001 Any and all additional parties who either have joined or will join the said Committee. Circuit Judge.
	OPINION/ORDER Although the decision to enforce a non final tribal court judgment is a matter of discretion. Federal courts will ordinarily err on the side of enforcement of such judgments in the name of comity. We will not enforce a tribal court judgment. The regulatory authority of the tribe is often the issue which looms largest. This case is no exception. These appeals require us to examine the regulatory authority of the Navajo Nation over the activities of a nonmember of the tribe when the regulated entity is another independent sovereign acting in its governmental capacity. Although the district court's judgment was ultimately in their favor. The preliminary injunction is interlocutory in nature. Much of the preliminary injunction is now moot. Defendants are nearly all entitled to sovereign immunity. The specific defendants in that case relevant to these appeals were as follows: San Juan County. SJHSD is a special service district organized pursuant to Utah Code § 17A 2 1304 (1999). Is tasked with providing health care services to the citizens of San Juan County.
	OPINION/ORDER The government alleged that Krilich violated Section 301 of the CWA by discharging fill material without a permit into wetlands on two Illinois sites that he was developing: the Royce Renaissance site in Oakbrook.
	OPINION/ORDER It is well settled that courts will not disturb final judgments unless the moving party demonstrates the existence of extraordinary circumstances.
	OPINION/ORDER Luckeroth & P rez Gonz lez was on brief for appellant. Bird & Hestres was on brief for appellees. This matter is before the Court on appeal from a decision rendered by Judge Juan M. Those pleadings were filed in supplementary proceedings in which Apparel sought to enforce an arbitration award rendered against Amertex Enterprises Ltd. (
	98-2258 -- SERVANTS OF THE PARACLETE V. DOES -- 02/03/2000 (2) in denying its second Rule 60(b) motion because the underlying declaratory judgment is not a final order. Have filed a motion to dismiss these appeals on the grounds that a party cannot use a Rule 60(b) motion to extend the time to file an appeal. Paul owed the Servants a duty to defend and was liable to the Servants for one third of the stipulated defense costs. That the breach of duty to defend was reasonable. Paul covered any damages the Servants were legally obligated to pay the victims.
	OPINION/ORDER Winners have yet to be declared in an election for two seats in the Albany County. Along with two candidates who have since dropped out of the case. The district court should have dismissed the voters' suit for lack of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 subject matter jurisdiction in light of earlier state court litigation over the absentee ballots. This court should vacate the district court's preliminary injunction because the voters have not sufficiently established that their constitutional claim is likely to succeed. Although we are unpersuaded by the Board's arguments. I. BACKGROUND This appeal is the latest installment in litigation that began in 2003 over elections for the Albany County Legislature. By then it was too late to hold the November 2003 election in accordance with the substitute plan. Which would have required voters to file a new request for such ballots. The election was close: according to the complaint. All four candidates petitioned the New York Supreme Court in Albany County to have various absentee ballots invalidated.
	OPINION/ORDER I. IDC was an architectural/engineering/construction firm which managed the design and construction of embassy facilities for the United States Department of State (
	OPINION/ORDER We must piece together what effect the rulings on relief have had as judgments were entered. As retroactive relief was granted. As appeals were filed. All three defendants have appealed the district court's order of February 26. Absolutely and irrevocably guarantee(s) and become(s) surety to Bank for the prompt payment of all sums now or hereafter due to Bank from Borrower . . .. * * * The Obligation of Guarantor hereunder shall continue in full force and effect until thirty (30) days after Bank shall have actually received written notice of Guarantor's intention to terminate this Guaranty sent by certified or registered mail. This Guaranty shall nevertheless continue in effect and Guarantor shall remain liable for any Obligation which was incurred by Borrower prior to such date of termination. Which is the result of any renewal. GWA was represented to ConBank as being a single accounting firm with offices in both New Jersey and Florida. GWA's two
	OPINION/ORDER The lease is a 30 day lease. Concluding that the allegations of illegal drug activity were too remote to be a factor here but that Hunter had violated her lease by not reporting On the morning when oral argument was scheduled for these appeals in St. Hunter's counsel informed the clerk's office by telephone from Des Moines that he was unable to attend due to illness. Noting that the federal court had already determined that the termination of the lease was proper. Asserting that it was no longer equitable to give that judgment prospective application because the state court had since ruled that the notice of termination was inadequate due to its failure to provide written notice of a 7 day window to cure the alleged The 2003 Iowa Legislature added a new subsection 5 to this statute. A municipal housing agency established pursuant to chapter 403A may issue a thirtyday notice of lease termination for a violation of a rental agreement by the tenant when the violation is a violation of a federal regulation governing the tenant's eligibility for or continued participation in a public housing program.
	OAKES V. HORIZON FIN., S.A. (7/31/2001, NO. 01-10025) Oakes and Muka argue that the district court erred by denying the Rule 60(b)(4) motion because the district court's 1986 order vacating the registration of a foreign judgment was void as the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. They contend that a judicial action was never commenced because a complaint was never filed. There was no pleading properly before the court on which to rule. The following are the facts leading up to the Rule 60(b) motion. Oakes registered that judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1963 with the federal district court in Florida by filing a certificate from the Texas district court verifying that the judgment was final. Arguing that the judgment was not final because. There was no appeal.
	OPINION/ORDER After David Bening and Alfred Harre were unable to collect separate judgments of $260. The judgments were later affirmed in Harre v. Appellees were meanwhile unable to collect on them and moved for a creditor's bill and equitable garnishment. Appellees alleged that Muegler was concealing property and assets and had insufficient property to satisfy the judgments and that they had tried to collect through various writs of execution which were all returned unsatisfied. That those life insurance proceeds had been interpleaded and were in the custody of the clerk of the district court. That Muegler was scheduled to receive fees from the insurance proceeds for his representation of Glover. Nangle to appear to respond to the allegations in the motion and indicated that the merits of the motion for a creditor's bill would be decided after they appeared and discovery was had. The final hearing on the motion was held in September 1996. The notice of appeal was filed on May 8. 1997. 22 testimony of Muegler and Nangle from a separate trial was also presented in which they described the typical manner in which they worked together and how they split fees.
	OPINION/ORDER Sine's role in the scheme was to reassure individuals that they were lending money to a legitimate real estate investor and that millions of dollars in legitimate collateral protected them in case of default. Once the scheme started to unravel and it became clear that the collateral was worthless. Claiming that it was as much of a surprise to him as to anybody else that the collateral was illusory. Such use of the judge's statements was highly improper. He convinced victims that they were lending money to fund various real estate projects conducted by Alpha Funding Group. Of which Panthaky was president. Sine was the trustee of Alpha Trust. The
	OPINION/ORDER The confirmation order was vacated pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4). Made applicable in bankruptcy cases by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9024.1 The bankruptcy court granted the Motion to Vacate on the basis that Educational Credit Management Corporation (
	OAKES V. HORIZON FIN., S.A. (7/31/2001, NO. 01-10025) Oakes and Muka argue that the district court erred by denying the Rule 60(b)(4) motion because the district court's 1986 order vacating the registration of a foreign judgment was void as the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. They contend that a judicial action was never commenced because a complaint was never filed. There was no pleading properly before the court on which to rule. The following are the facts leading up to the Rule 60(b) motion. Oakes registered that judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1963 with the federal district court in Florida by filing a certificate from the Texas district court verifying that the judgment was final. Arguing that the judgment was not final because. There was no appeal.
	OPINION/ORDER ORDER The government's Motion to Change Wording of Opinion is GRANTED. 2007 is hereby amended as follows: 1) On slip op. 4792. The final two sentences of the paragraph beginning
	OPINION/ORDER That the PUC lacked jurisdiction to determine whether they were in compliance with their federal certificates. That the PUC had threatened enforcement action against the Plaintiffs
	OPINION/ORDER Seeking to have a tribal judgment of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Court of Appeals declared null and void. The bank now argues that the tribal courts lacked jurisdiction over the Longs' discrimination claim and that it was denied due process by the tribal proceedings. I. The Long Company is a family farming and ranching business incorporated under the laws of South Dakota and located on the Cheyenne River Sioux Indian Reservation. Who are both enrolled members of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe (Tribe). Who was not a tribal member. The parties disagree about whether his shares were distributed to Ronnie Long. 2 but it is undisputed that the Longs have majority ownership of the company. In his will Kenneth purported to devise his interest in the company and his land on the reservation to his four children. Noting that it has filed a creditor's claim against the estate and asserting that Kenneth's interest in the company was never distributed by the probate court. The estate was still in probate at the time of the district court judgement. 22 1 The bank is a South Dakota corporation with its principal place of business outside the reservation.
	OPINION/ORDER On the brief was Ronald L. Of counsel was Donald E. With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were Michael J. The Board determined that
	OPINION/ORDER Seeking a declaration that the Defendant justices' failure to recuse themselves from two cases pending before the Michigan Supreme Court violated their Fourteenth Amendment due process right to a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal because the justices were biased against them.1 The district court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction The Plaintiffs also named John Ferry. Who is responsible for regulating the Michigan Supreme Court's calender. Is absolutely immune from injunctive relief under the judicial immunity doctrine. It nonetheless would have abstained from entertaining the Plaintiffs' suit on the basis of the Younger abstention doctrine. Both judgments were appealed. Which was granted by a unanimous Order entered on April 8. Gilbert argued that recusal was necessary because the probability of actual bias on the part of the justices was too high to be constitutionally tolerable. Which was denied. Alleging the same grounds for recusal as were raised in the Gilbert motion for recusal.
	OPINION/ORDER 1 all commissioners of insurance or Mike Pickens is a defendant on ly in the action brought by First Tennessee Bank. Therefore is a party only to Appeal No. 03 5521. 1 The Honorable Gordon J. Who were sued in their official capacity as receivers for various insolvent insurance companies (collectively. Because it lacked jurisdiction or because it should have declined jurisdiction in its discretion. While at the same time controlling the unregistered brokerage that was supposedly investing the large cash reserves that insurance companies typically have on hand. He was funneling the money to overseas bank accounts. Frankel was the subject of a four month. Bank accounts used in Frankel's money laundering scheme were held by the insurance companies at both AmSouth. The Receivers argue that the Banks were negligent in not realizing the massive fraud that those accounts were being used to commit. The Receivers concluded they might have claims against AmSouth. That tolling agreement was extended six times. Negotiations were ongoing.
	OPINION/ORDER We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm the district court on the alternative ground that the judgment is subject to attachment under section 201 of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (
	OPINION/ORDER This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > In re Olympia Holding Corp. United States Court of Appeals. The carriers were given the option of identifying the shipper by code. That such tariffs are therefore invalid. Has instituted several adversary proceedings against shippers who were identified by code in PIE tariffs.
	DRILL SOUTH, INC. V. INT'L FIDELITY INS. CO. (12/7/2000, NO. 99-6100) Circuit Judges.
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge. This is the second appeal in this case. I. Background Gabriel Rodriguez Aguirre and Eleno Aguirre were convicted by a jury of multiple drug offenses and money laundering and sentenced to 360 and 235 months imprisonment. Which was amended on June 29. Rule 41 was amended and reorganized. What was formerly Rule 41(e) is now found at Rule 41(g) with minor stylistic changes. The motion must be filed in the district where the property was seized. We will continue to refer to the rule as Rule 41(e). (2) Their convictions were affirmed on appeal. (4) which the Aguirres claimed were seized but never judicially or administratively forfeited by the government. We determined the Aguirres had standing and the doctrine of laches was inapplicable. Because the record was insufficient to determine whether the Aguirres' motion was timely. The Aguirres were challenging the prior judicial forfeiture proceedings and therefore. The court lacked jurisdiction because Rule 41(e) is not the proper vehicle for challenging a judicial forfeiture.
	00-4026 -- LECATES V. BARKER -- 11/16/2000 The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff appellant Jefferson E. Claimed to have relied to his detriment on certain promises or fraudulent misrepresentations made to him by defendants Richard A. The first was a suit by the Isaacsons against Boyd Corbett. LeCates sought but was denied leave to intervene on behalf of Walker in that suit. His motion was granted. Knowing that it was obtained by fraud and deceit. That they were harassing him through their collection activities. DISCUSSION The Rooker Feldman doctrine provides that federal courts. 415 16 (1923).
	OPINION/ORDER This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > In re Olympia Holding Corp. United States Court of Appeals. The carriers were given the option of identifying the shipper by code. That such tariffs are therefore invalid. Has instituted several adversary proceedings against shippers who were identified by code in PIE tariffs.
	OPINION/ORDER Were on brief.
	OPINION/ORDER The question presented by this appeal is whether the District Court for the District of New Hampshire was correct in dismissing. In their 1983 suit plaintiffs have alleged that the Town effectuated an uncompensated and hence unconstitutional
	DRILL SOUTH, INC. V. INT'L FIDELITY INS. CO. (12/7/2000, NO. 99-6100) Circuit Judges.
	DANIEL A. LINDSAY V. U.S. Argued for defendant appellee.
	97-1250 -- U.S. V. ALL MONIES FROM ACCOUNT NO. PO-204,675.0 -- 10/29/1998 The United States alleged that the funds in two defendant bank accounts were the proceeds of drug trafficking and money laundering activities conducted by the Reyes Torres family of Ecuador. A Notice of Arrest and Procedure (
	97-1440 -- U.S. V. 51 PIECES OF REAL PROPERTY ROSWELL (NEW MEXICO) -- 07/17/1998 Austin was indicted. A business trust organization organized under the laws of Nevada and which the government contended was the alter ego of Mr. Notice of the seizure and forfeiture proceedings was sent to Nitsua and to Mr. Holding that the
	OPINION/ORDER Which are small loans with interest rates averaging 400 500% APR due on the next payday. This appeal presents the question of whether the State of Georgia may regulate a narrow segment of agency agreements between in state payday stores and out of state banks or whether the Georgia Act in issue is preempted by § 27(a) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (
	OPINION/ORDER Circuit Judge: Richard Sherman (Sherman) was the attorney for several defendants in an enforcement action brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and in other actions in which those defendants were parties. Maintaining that there was
	OPINION/ORDER Whether the obligors on unmatured promissory notes can obtain declaratory relief against the obligees of those notes and have the notes declared void and unenforceable. Whether transactions involving investment securities are covered under section 9.2(a) of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade 2 Practices and Consumer Protection Law (
	OPINION/ORDER With him on the briefs were John M. With him on the brief were Wilma A. With him on the brief was Arthur B. Farris was on the brief for amicus curiae Home School Legal Defense Association. Holding that it violates the fundamental rights of minors and their parents and is unconstitutionally vague. Rehearing en banc was granted. Determining that juvenile crime and victimization in the District was a serious prob lem and growing worse unanimously adopted the Juvenile Curfew Act of 1995. The curfew contains eight
	OPINION/ORDER Many layers of complex procedural issues have beclouded this initial claim. We will affirm the District Court's decision regarding the as2 applied challenge. This rather prolix explanation of the procedural twists and turns of this case is necessary to understand our decision. The case was decided in two phases. The first phase ended in October 1994 when WCJ Mickey found Bass was serving in the course and scope of her employment when she fell. To determine whether Bass was actually injured by the fall. Was whether Bass's back pain was from a preexisting injury. WCJ Michael Rosen was hired to fill Mickey's position. Her cases were turned over to him. Bass was not notified of this change. Which was then reviewed and signed by Perry and issued more than five years after Bass filed her claim. Finding that her testimony was not credible as to what 1. The Judges assumed the handling of this case after the record was closed and they had no opportunity to observe the claimant. Were otherwise incapable of properly evaluating her credibility.
	01-2301 -- U.S. V. HAHN -- 03/04/2004 Hahn was convicted of marijuana and firearms violations and sentenced to forty years' imprisonment. We hold that we have subject matter jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Part III.C of the Per Curiam opinion is an opinion concurring in the result.
	GEN. TRADING, INC. V. YALE MATERIALS HANDLING CORP. This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Gen. Sr. was president and principal shareholder.<p> Three months after the litigation commenced. Which was dismissed by the bankruptcy court. The district court suit was referred to a magistrate judge for completion of trial and final disposition. Jr. were not found liable to Yale.<p> Subsequent to the magistrate judge's final judgment. As well as claims raised by the new transferees who were impleaded in the supplemental proceedings.<p> II. <i>FACTS</i><a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-7026.html">PATRICK J. GRIFFIN V. SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS<BR></A><BR> Argued for respondent.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AFEE2304A90E4CFC882571DA00788818/$file/0416449.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Employees may not waive rights or claims arising under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/03/03-1888.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 03 1954 and that was more favorable to him than the contested judgment. Are not in dispute. Lowe's wife was a retired employee of a company that was acquired by McGraw Hill. The company's retirement plan was merged into the McGraw Hill plan. The waiver that the plan had was signed by Mr. His signature was neither witnessed nor notarized. On his copy there was no check mark in the single life annuity box. As there was on the plan's copy. There was no response. It was not until March of 2003 that the judgment that the plan has appealed was entered. That determination is left to the discretion of the district judge. The plan's delay in giving Lowe documents to which he was clearly entitled was egregious. 03 1954 McGraw Hill plan is a substantial entity that cannot claim to lack the resources necessary for processing document requests expeditiously. The question is not presented be a mitigating circumstance. Lowe were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/869670FD772466768825731A008228BA/$file/0355015.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2007 is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 6405. The Ministry argues that the Cubic judgment is not a blocked asset under TRIA because Executive Order 12. The reasoning in those cases is inapplicable here. The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm the district court on the alternative ground that the judgment is subject to attachment under section 201 of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/01/99-5058.htm">99-5058 -- READ V. KLEIN -- 01/09/2001<BR></A><BR> He maintained that the decree was entered after service by publication and thereby violated his due process rights. Read's claims against the defendant state court judges are barred by the Rooker Feldman doctrine. <u>See</u> <u>District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Read's claim against his ex wife and her lawyer on the ground that they are not state actors. <p> <center><u>I. The decree determined that service by publication was proper. Read was the father of the parties' child. That he was responsible for child support. <p> Mr. Read was $32. Reasoning that the defendant judges and the defendant prosecutor were entitled to absolute immunity and that Ms. Dunn and Shannon Davis were not state actors and thus not subject to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1997/97a1694p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Since we have jurisdiction. We will affirm the judgment of the district court. ALT Corp. and AWIC were in the business of using and promoting Wolman Salts for the treatment and preservation of wood. Alcoa and CBI were heavily involved in recommending and implementing the merger. All of ALT's capital stock was redeemed and canceled and ALT was soon dissolved. Environmental damage was discovered at numerous sites where ALT had operated wood treatment plants between 1934 and 1954. Beazer notified Alcoa that it considered Alcoa a potentially responsible party for the costs Beazer was incurring at the ALT sites. Finding that Alcoa was not an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-2239.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which we have consolidated for decision. Aurora Christian Schools Ocean Atlantic is a real estate development company that is incorporated in Virginia and maintains its principal place of business in Alexandria. Will Counties three of the suburban </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2000/981113.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kelt was to repay Horizon with interest. Horizon was to receive half of Kelt's profits. Deglau was to get an annual salary of $80. Kelt's stock and all of its assets were pledged as security for this loan. The Loan Agreement was negotiated by Deglau's lawyer. The terms of the loan agreement are disputed. Will be discussed below. 000 line of credit if it was personally guaranteed by Deglau and his wife. The note itself was signed in blank. It was eventually filled out to reflect a $200. He was personally liable for the additional $100. He tells us he was assured verbally that the Guaranty would apply only to the $200. Horizon was experiencing financial turmoil. Was 1. Citations to the Appellant's Appendix will be indicated by R.[page]. 3 eventually taken over by the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) and later by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).2 In 1990. The FDIC advised Deglau that he was in default on the 1985 Kelt note for about $1.3 million. A familiarity with judgment by confession as undertaken in Pennsylvania is essential to the decision of this case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/93-4491.opa.html">GEN. TRADING, INC. V. YALE MATERIALS HANDLING CORP.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gen. Sr. was president and principal shareholder.<p> Three months after the litigation commenced. Which was dismissed by the bankruptcy court. The district court suit was referred to a magistrate judge for completion of trial and final disposition. Jr. were not found liable to Yale.<p> Subsequent to the magistrate judge's final judgment. As well as claims raised by the new transferees who were impleaded in the supplemental proceedings.<p> II. <i>FACTS</i><a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/05/063496P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (DAC) seeking to have the judgment that DAC had obtained against it in state court set aside for lack of service and lack of personal jurisdiction. Summonses were served on Victor Lee. A judgment was entered against Skit and Uni Skit for $1. Skit argued that it did not have minimum contacts with the forum state and that it had not been made aware of the lawsuit until late 2004. The clerk refused to file it because the underlying motion to set aside the judgment appeared to have been untimely. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 2 1 Skit then filed this diversity action in federal district court seeking to have the state judgment against it declared null and void on the grounds that it was obtained without jurisdiction and without service of process. DAC argued that the federal action was barred by res judicata. Arguing that the state circuit court's decision was not entitled to preclusive effect because Skit had not had a full and fair opportunity to appeal it due to the clerk's refusal to file the record. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/10/98-6168.htm">98-6168 -- MEHDIPOUR V. CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY -- 10/06/1998<BR></A><BR> The case is ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiffs Frank Mehdipour and Ali Mehdipour. The district court's grant of summary judgment was void because they neither authorized nor agreed with such admission. Concluding it was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200702/05-5062b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Louis R. Graham J. 3 Jenkins were on the brief for amicus curiae Global Rights in support of appellants in Nos. 05 5062. With him on the briefs were Barbara J. Land were on the brief of amicus curiae Omar Deghayes in support of the detainees. Morton Sklar was on the brief of amicus curiae The World Organization for Human Rights USA in support of the detainees. David Overlock Stewart was on the brief of amici curiae Legal and Historical Scholars in support of the detainees. Hafetz was on the brief of amici curiae British and American Habeas Scholars in support of the detainees. Were on 4 the brief for amicus curiae Federal Public Defender Habeas Corpus Counsel in support of the detainees. Meister were on the brief for amicus curiae the National Institute of Military Justice in support of the detainees. With him on the briefs were Paul D. Attorney at the time the briefs were filed. Samp were on the brief of amici curiae Washington Legal Foundation and Allied Educational Foundation in support of the United States of America. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/97-6015.htm">97-6015 -- U.S. V. MADDEN -- 12/31/1997<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Raymond D. Madden was imprisoned following his conviction for distributing phenylacetic acid. He now challenges the judgment entered in a civil forfeiture proceeding against certain real property the government alleged was used to facilitate the commission of the drug offense for which he was convicted. The forfeiture proceeding and prior forfeiture challenges are set forth fully in our opinion affirming the district court's denial of his Fed. Madden claims the civil forfeiture judgment entered pursuant to an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/96-4190.htm">96-4190 -- ADAMS V. GENERAL ACCIDENT ASSURANCE CO. OF CANADA -- 12/30/1997<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043400np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal of three orders of the District Court arising from a pre trial discovery protective order entered on the joint request of the parties. We will dismiss in part and remand in part. Defendants contend the restriction was limited to communications that would violate the protective order. While this motion was pending. Defendant Sherry Freebery was indicted on unrelated federal charges. I think you will only compound the problem by discussing this matter until we've aired it and discovered whether or not there's substance to the allegations that are made. He emphasized the protective order was entered on the joint motion of the parties. The sealing order and press enforcement order were entered to enforce the protective order. We conclude we do not have jurisdiction to review the August 20. We conclude we have jurisdiction to review the August 20. We will remand for the District Court's further consideration. 4 II. We have jurisdiction to review all final decisions of the district courts. (2) resolves an important question that is unrelated to the merits of the underlying case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1651.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Richard Schwartz were on brief for cross plaintiff. Was indicted and convicted in 1985 of wire fraud. Serrano's misdeeds have been extensively chronicled elsewhere. 3 5 (1st Cir. 1989).1 The primary victim of Serrano's fraud was Home Federal Savings and Loan Association ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1758.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Snow & Hahn was on brief for appellant/cross appellee Focus Investment Associates. Sheehan and Wistow & Barylick Inc. were on brief for appellee/cross appellant American Title Insurance Company. Kelly & Murphy were on brief for appellees Tobak and Abrams & Verri. Bruzzi was on brief for appellee Owen B. 000 damage award on Focus's contract claim may have resulted from erroneous instructions and should therefore be vacated. Both motions are now known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="475"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991979.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Asset freezing injunction on the United States' allegations that the defendant oncology service providers defrauded the Medicare and CHAMPUS1 programs and thereafter were engaging in complex reorganizations and transfers of assets to insulate themselves from liability. Concluding that because both money damages and equitable relief are sought in this case. The controlling authority is not Grupo Mexicano but Deckert v. Doctors Colkitt and Derdel are physicians specializing in radiation oncology. The United States alleges that the defendants claimed reimbursement on bills for radiation oncology services that were not provided or ordered by the physician and on bills for unnecessary radiation oncology services. Count V 8 alleges that payments were made to defendants under a mistake of fact. Count VI alleges that all actions of the defendants were actions of Colkitt under an alter ego theory. Profits </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/05/00-6459.htm">00-6459 -- CARPENTER V. SAFFLE -- 05/02/2001<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> This case is before the court on Gregory Allen Carpenter's application for a certificate of appealability ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-3183.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291. Background Nancy Bear is an enrolled member of the Kickapoo Tribe and lives on the Tribe's reservation in Kansas. Count I requested a decree dissolving a partnership of which Bear was a member and an accounting that would divide the partnership assets. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> [ ] 60 254(b) final judgment should be entered on Count II of plaintiffs' Petition (For Partition). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jun2004/Jun04/03-30751-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> In failing to find that Forest and Zurich were solely responsible for Mr. This Court concludes the district court was correct in finding that LOAIA did not apply such that the waiver of subrogation by Ace was valid. BACKGROUND Terry Hudson was formally employed by Coastal Production Services. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B952F4F1F178785B88256C4700553C4F/$file/0255030.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Federal courts are precluded from reviewing state court decisions. It is necessary for us to determine whether this court has jurisdiction to review this issue. It is obvious that the appeal from the district court's ruling is an appeal from an interlocutory order. The parties were ordered by the district court to continue discovery and pursue other preparation for trial on the three remaining issues. We must determine for ourselves whether we have jurisdiction. This court will not consider a question upon which a panel has ruled in the same case. This `law of the case' doctrine is `applicable to the question of our jurisdiction to consider an appeal.' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C2FA846BC59E91E088256ED80082334D/$file/0215449.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> James Monroe was the general partner. Monroe and his associates siphoned off money that Gagan was entitled to. The judgment was affirmed on appeal.1 Monroe did not pay Gagan. Gagan was frustrated in his attempts to execute on the judgment. The district court held that the turnover order was a proper exercise of its jurisdiction over the judgment debtors through use of its contempt powers. The Seventh Circuit did not reach the issue whether the transfer from Monroe to his wife was fraudulent. A judgment so registered shall have the same effect as a judgment of the district court of the district where registered and may be enforced in like manner. 9668 GAGAN v. Is a community property state. They have lived in Arizona. LaJunta claimed in moving to intervene that the property on which Gagan sought to execute is community property in which she has an interest. Her theory was that the judgment was void for want of jurisdiction. Because she was not joined in the Indiana action against her husband. So Gagan's judgment is void as to both of the Monroes for lack of due process. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0206p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This program was funded in part by the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government (LFUCG). Numerous former teenagers who participated in Micro City Government now claim that LFUCG continued to support the program even after learning that Berry was sexually molesting them. Although several procedural issues are raised. The key issue is whether to vacate two orders dismissing earlier class action lawsuits against LFUCG brought by Berry's victims. The purpose of the program was to provide part time summer employment for disadvantaged area youth. Berry was subsequently convicted on 12 counts of sodomy and abuse of minors in criminal proceedings brought by the Commonwealth of Kentucky. They allege that LFUCG officials were informed of the abuse on a number of occasions. LFUCG continued to fund MicroCity Government and is alleged to have actively concealed Berry's behavior. Page 3 allege that LFUCG retained Berry as the director of the program even after LFUCG officials were aware of the abuse. That at least one Mayor of Lexington refused to cut off funding or expose Berry because doing so would not have been </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/11/03-3084.htm">03-3084 -- YISRAEL V. RUSSELL -- 11/28/2003<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff Yericho Yisrael. That it did have jurisdiction to dissolve the marriage. He asserts that the federal court was required to evaluate whether the Kansas state court had jurisdiction to enter its orders in the divorce proceedings and that the jurisdictional issue is separate and apart from the merits of the divorce orders. Its additional rulings were void. Which were filed with court permission. <p> <center> <u>Standards of Review</u> </center> <p> We review de novo a district court's decision to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. <em>Kenmen Eng'g v. Because plaintiff is representing himself on appeal. His pleadings will be liberally construed. <em>Haines v. If a plaintiff could have raised a constitutional issue in a direct appeal of the state court order. Because the relief he seeks from the federal court is an order setting aside the state court orders. His federal claims are inextricably intertwined with those orders. <em>See</em> <em>Kenmen Eng'g</em>. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972209.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are called upon to decide whether a final unappealed judgment is rendered invalid by the district court's allegedly erroneous exercise of jurisdiction to determine defenses asserted under the Negotiated Rates Act of 1993 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/28A251630141413088256C850058FEB8/$file/0135957.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was inadequately pled. Not that he was a citizen of that state (which he was). Inc. was a Montana corporation. Not that it was incorporated in Montana and that its principal place of business is Montana (which it was and is currently). Both of whom are citizens of Montana. The parties were diverse. The case was originally assigned to United States District Judge Paul G. A confession of judgment was entered against Cleveland. The file was then closed. It was assigned to a different district court judge than the judge who sat on the closed tort action. Of the individual parties and was therefore inadequate to establish diversity jurisdiction. What the court did next is the subject of this appeal. That all the parties to the closed tort action were not present. INC. ally were diverse. Although the dismissal was without prejudice on its face. It is effectively a dismissal with prejudice and a final decision from which plaintiff is entitled to appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 1218 (9th Cir. 1983) (dismissing appeal from an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/231135295B45B74088256C3D00602467/$file/0156879.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The idea animating AB 1890 was that deregulation would foster competition in electrical generation. The goal of AB 1890 was to create a deregulated market in which price would be established by competition and consumers could select their electrical power supplier. Stranded costs are those costs an electrical supplier incurs in anticipation of serving customers that later become unrecoverable because the supplier either cannot The legislation is summarized in Cal. LYNCH charge a rate that allows cost recovery or is unable to sell sufficient power. This most typically occurs when there is a shift in utility rate philosophy from a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTAxNjgtcHJfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-0168-pr_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (2) that plaintiff's suit is not barred by the rule of Preiser v. Which is incorrect in certain respects. The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the official caption accordingly. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 district court defines the contours of that right. That </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200611582.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: At issue today is whether the district court erred in dismissing. We conclude that the district court did indeed have subject matter jurisdiction. Have various usury laws that generally prohibit such high interest loans. No one doubts that when so called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/96-3266.htm">96-3266 -- NEUSTROM V. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. -- 09/21/1998<BR></A><BR> Appellant Asplundh Tree Expert Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/jan96/95-1143.html">STUBBLEFIELD V. WINDSOR CAPITAL GRP.<BR></A><BR> The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Stubblefield was an employee of the Embassy Suites Hotel in Denver. After he was terminated. Approximately four weeks before the matter was set to go to trial. If within 10 days after the service of the offer the adverse party serves written notice that the offer is accepted. An offer not accepted shall be deemed withdrawn and evidence thereof is not admissible except in a proceeding to determine costs. If the judgment finally obtained by the offeree is not more favorable than the offer. The fact that an offer is made but not accepted does not preclude a subsequent offer. Which shall have the same effect as an offer made before trial if it is served within a reasonable time not less than 10 days prior to the commencement of hearings to determine the amount or extent of liability. any costs in connection with the acceptance of th[eir] Offer of Judgment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/96-3266a.htm">96-3266A -- NEUSTROM V. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. -- 09/21/1998<BR></A><BR> Kansas for Appellee Union Pacific Railroad Company. <p> A corrected copy of page one of the opinion is attached for your convenience. <p> Very truly yours. Appellant Asplundh Tree Expert Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/96-3266b.htm">96-3266B -- NEUSTROM V. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. -- 09/21/1998<BR></A><BR> It is hereby ORDERED that the petition for rehearing is DENIED. <p> The court has determined. Expenses which were liquidated in amount as of October 1. Is AFFIRMED. <p> The opinion is otherwise unchanged. A copy of the amended version is attached to this order. <p> ENTERED FOR THE COURT <p> David M. Appellant Asplundh Tree Expert Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/10/971114P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case ultimately was dismissed. The License Agreement was revised by an August 5. Provided prior written notice to Concept was given. Concept was unable to redeem the substitute debenture. Equitable forfeiture was granted on December 19. Each of which is challenged by Klipsch on appeal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2110.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Must be nurtured if it is to retain its vitality. These issues are whether the automatic stay precludes a state court from undertaking ministerial acts after a bankruptcy filing. What acts are exempt under that rubric. Saying that its post petition actions had been </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/12/98-1354.htm">98-1354 -- STINSON V. CITY OF CRAIG (COLORADO) -- 12/23/1999<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> In July 1997. The City later contended that the contract was void and refused to close on the sale. The district court concluded that the contract was void because the city council was required by state law to pass an ordinance approving the sale. 1291 and reverse and remand for further proceedings. <p> The City of Craig is a home rule city and. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0263p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> REVERSE the district court's denial of the writ with respect to Petitioner's sentence because Petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel during the mitigation phase of his sentencing. 1 No. 04 3207 Haliym v. Marcellus Williams and Joann Richards were stabbed to death in their apartment located at 49th and Central in Cleveland. Was visiting his father. At the time and was also stabbed. Was indicted on April 6. A motion for leave to file a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity was granted. At approximately 10:00 p.m. as he was leaving his father's apartment to go to the store. He was approached by three men who were in an orange Chevette. Was in the apartment. Speights advised appellant that Williams was in. The three entered and were seated. Richards was present with her baby. At that point Speights was knocked down. He was able to observe appellant stabbing Richards. Michael was stabbing Speights. Also present in the apartment was seven year old Albert Richards. He was in the bedroom and came out in response to the noise and observed the stabbings. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C740557C88F27A1888256D3A00540B8C/$file/9956762.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the briefs. Were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Were on the brief for cross appellees Jack Lawn. Were on the brief for amici curiae International Human Rights Organizations and International Law Scholars. That Alvarez </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=07-1000.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for relief are (1) After examining the briefs and appellate record. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. The [second amended complaint] alleges that George and Powell attempted to collect a judgment that the Burnetts allege is invalid. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkxOThfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9198_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> To protect the collateral estoppel effect of a judgment of a District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. injunction bars the biological father of an adopted child The from relitigating the questions of whether his parental rights were validly terminated by a Texas state court decree and whether the adoption decree of the Texas state court should be set aside. Background Woosley is the biological father of Kyle Smith ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/05/03-4020.htm">03-4020 -- MARSDEN V. FIRST NATIONWIDE MORTGAGE CORPORATION -- 05/27/2004<BR></A><BR> Is challenging numerous </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1791.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellants. <P> <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0285p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was converted later to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. While his bankruptcy was pending. We will refer to the transfer as an assignment. Although its actual legal status is indeterminate. This first lawsuit sought a declaration that the assignment was valid and enforceable. The bankruptcy court found removal was appropriate because the state court action was inextricably intertwined with the bankruptcy case and related. G.A.D's bankruptcy case was converted to a Chapter 7 proceeding. Response from Eglinton was due fifteen days later. Claims she did not have notice that the court would hear the motion to dismiss in addition to the notice of removal on that day. The burden is on the movant to bring herself within the provisions of Rule 60(b). We </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/993828.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It was located in an area zoned as a Residential Low Density District in the City of Lebanon. Was considered a valid non conforming use. The agreement was actually assigned to Parkview by one of its principals. 2 use permit from a city zoning officer to operate a 70 bed personal care home at the Oakwood location as a continuation of the existing non conforming use. Two residents of the neighborhood where Oakwood was located filed an appeal with the City of Lebanon Zoning Hearing Board (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BD958018C0E975E088256E5A00707B86/$file/9916346.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> District Judge: We have before us the question of whether the district court erred in dismissing appellant debtors' complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the basis that reaffirmation and settlement agreements entered into by appellantdebtors during prior bankruptcy proceedings bar their later action against the same creditor for alleged violations of the automatic stay and discharge provisions of the U.S. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1291. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTM0MjYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-3426-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Where he was eventually 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 found. Viertel moved to vacate the default judgment principally on the ground that service of process was invalid under the Hague Convention. He argued that service was improper because the French authorities did not complete the required Certificate of service. The Burda We now hold that: (1) service of process in this case complied with the Hague Convention because the police report completed by the French authorities who effected service was an adequate substitute for the formal Certificate. A few days after the complaint was filed. attempted personal service on Viertel and his companies in New York because the companies operated out of offices in New York and Viertel maintained an apartment there as well. service attempt. Was unsuccessful. Viertel and his companies were ultimately traced to France. Who eventually settled and is not a party to this appeal. Blumenberg was later criminally prosecuted and convicted in connection with this scheme. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-6227.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appeals the district court's denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) motion seeking to vacate a default judgment entered against him on the grounds that it was void for lack of jurisdiction. Attached to the complaint were copies of the notes and security documents in question. Craighead moved for the default judgment to be vacated for lack of jurisdiction because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/99-1230.htm">99-1230 -- DREXLER V. KOZLOFF -- 04/13/2000<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Burt Kozloff appeals from the district court's denial of his Fed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1307.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Nathaniel L. With him on the brief was Brendan E. Patent and Trademark Office ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jun2004/Jun01/02-30760-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs claim those rights as successors in interest to 96 mineral servitudes that were created before the United States purchased the land in the 1930s. We need not reach the merits of Plaintiffs' cross appeal regarding attorneys' fees since plaintiffs are no longer prevailing parties.1 I. Prevailing party status is a prerequisite attorneys' fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b). 21 * to recovering merits of this factually dense case. The holder of that servitude has the right to enter the property and extract the minerals.4 Louisiana law has long provided that a mineral servitude is extinguished by prescription resulting from ten years' nonuse.5 The period of prescription on mineral servitudes begins to run on the date a Frost Johnson Lumber Co. v. R.S. § 31:21 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971667A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Each alleged she: (1) was delayed in receiving a firearm. (2) was not promoted. (3) was not selected to attend the police academy operated by the Vir Judge Ervin heard oral argument in this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. 2 ginia Commonwealth University (the Police Academy). (4) was discharged. Because she is a woman.1 Johnson alone alleged a sexual harassment claim. Both oral and written examinations are required. Overall supervision of the Department was assigned to Walter H. Johnson alleges that she was constructively discharged. 3 (Department Supervisor Miller). Overall supervision of the Department was assigned to S. The decision to recommend an individual for promotion to a rank above corporal was made by a panel of individuals from both inside and outside VUU. While the Department's Chief of Police was not a member of this panel. Chief Wells was responsible for the daily operation and administration of the Department. Chief Wells was authorized to select who among the Department's officers could attend the Police Academy.2 Of relevance to this appeal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1402b.html">NEXT WAVE PRSNAL COMM V. FCC<BR></A><BR> Olson argued the cause for petitioners/appel lants.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200106/00-1402b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Thomas G. Klee were on the brief for amici curiae Senator Robert G. With him on the brief were Christopher J. With him on the brief were Michael F. Is bound by the usual rules governing the treatment of such obligations in bank ruptcy. Con gress also directed the Commission to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B09036D899850C9588256A68005A3498/$file/9916346.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> District Judge: We have before us the question of whether the district court erred in dismissing appellant debtors' complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the basis that reaffirmation and settlement agreements entered into by appellantdebtors during prior bankruptcy proceedings bar their later action against the same creditor for alleged violations of the automatic stay and discharge provisions of the U.S. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1291. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="442"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Jun2004/Jun01/02-30786-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs claim those rights as successors in interest to 96 mineral servitudes that were created before the United States purchased the land in the 1930s. We need not reach the merits of Plaintiffs' cross appeal regarding attorneys' fees since plaintiffs are no longer prevailing parties.1 I. Prevailing party status is a prerequisite attorneys' fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b). 21 to recovering merits of this factually dense case. The holder of that servitude has the right to enter the property and extract the minerals.4 Louisiana law has long provided that a mineral servitude is extinguished by prescription resulting from ten years' nonuse.5 The period of prescription on mineral servitudes begins to run on the date a Frost Johnson Lumber Co. v. R.S. § 31:21 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200602/04-3152a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Kenneth L. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Booker argues there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction and that his sentence must be vacated and remanded in light of Booker v. One member of the arrest team asked Booker what he was doing outside. Booker responded that he was looking for his Newport cigarettes. Booker was charged in a four count indictment for unlawful distribution of cocaine base. The government introduced evidence that the gun was loaded. Although Booker's fingerprints were on neither the gun nor the Newport pack. Expert testimony that guns and drugs are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200515890.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A fibrous form of blast furnace slag that resembles asbestos and is used for insulation and similar applications.1 Starting in mid 2004. About six weeks after service was effected. Or vacate the 1 See 2 SHORTER OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY 2864 (5th ed. 2002). 2 SARL is the French abbreviation for a term used to describe a private company similar to an American limited liability company. 2 judgment. Concluding that Eurisol was subject to specific personal jurisdiction in Alabama. I Rule 60(b)(4) allows a litigant even one who does not initially appear to collaterally attack a judgment on the ground that it is void due to lack of personal jurisdiction. This is because </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5E837DBE8AB0EBC388256E5A00707AD2/$file/9916814.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We are asked to decide whether the decision of a state administrative law judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-5220.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal from a district court order denying Appellant Richard Lee Cothrum's motion to declare its prior judgment void under Fed. The tortuous procedural history of this appeal is as follows: On May 21. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Seeking to present new evidence that the limitations period should have been tolled. P. 60(b)(4) for relief from the district court's order transferring his Rule 60(b)(2) motion on the ground that it is void. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. 1344 (10th Cir. 2002).(1) (1) It is an open question in this circuit whether a certificate of appealability (COA) under 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2). Because were a COA required we would grant one to Mr. Cothrum is probably correct that we and the district court erred in the treatment of his Rule 60(b)(2) motion. Which purported to present new evidence that the limitations period should have been tolled. Addressed the <hr> substantive attacks on his state court conviction that were made in the habeas application. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2002/002458.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was unconstitutional. The District Court viewed Coltec as seeking to escape the effects of its earlier agreements in order to benefit from the ruling in Eastern and denied Coltec's attempt to reassert its constitutional claims or to have its liability for Coal Act premiums reduced to zero. The background of the Coal Act is thoroughly reviewed in Eastern Enterprises v. Coltec was assigned 249 retirees as of February 1. The first four counts of the complaint claimed that the Act was unconstitutional as applied to them under the Fifth Amendment's takings and due process clauses because the plaintiff companies had not signed the relevant agreements. The terms were established in a contemporaneous separate written agreement (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/00-3254.htm">00-3254 -- WOODARD V. JEFFERSON COUNTY -- 08/31/2001<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Dave Woodard. Jurisdiction in federal court is based on diversity of the parties. <em>See</em> 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011553.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We will refer to the cases as having been brought by D'Elegance and Malaco. 1 S & D LAND CLEARING v. Although these current appeals have not been formally consolidated. They are factually interrelated to such a degree that we conclude it is appropriate to resolve them in a single opinion. Commenced supplemental proceedings to enforce the judgment against D'Elegance and ordered Appellants not to transfer any property of D'Elegance that was not exempt from execution. The challenges to the March 16 and July 3 orders are unreviewable as interlocutory. The district court did not err in allowing supplemental proceedings and the order not to transfer D'Elegance's property was appropriate under such proceedings. The small amount of C & D debris Malaco was allowed to remove was the least profitable.3 Malaco encountered other difficulties. Including D'Elegance's efforts to hire away Malaco's truck drivers with promises of higher pay and warnings that Malaco did not have a contract and was not going to get paid. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1933.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Adelson</U> were on brief. Navares</U> was on brief. At issue is whether a state. May be subjected to the ancillary enforcement jurisdiction of the federal courts on a theory that the judgment debtor in an action originally based on diversity is the alter ego of the state. We conclude that the state cannot be so subjected to federal court subject matter jurisdiction unless there is an independent basis for such jurisdiction.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0171p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A portion of the jury's verdict relating to incentive compensation was later stricken by the district court pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Determined that the transition from the former to the latter occurred when the jury's verdict was entered by the court as a judgment on May 16. Central was party to an Exclusive Agency and Distributor Agreement (referred to by the parties as the Alliance Agreement) with a division of the Monsanto Company called the Solaris Group. If either Scotts or Central was successful in purchasing the Solaris Group. The specific percentages that each company would have of each brand would depend on which company succeeded in purchasing the Solaris Group. It was never reduced to writing. It was allegedly an oral agreement. With the particulars </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2000/993234.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Does the District Court have mandamus jurisdiction over the Territorial Court? The jurisprudence is clear that jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus lies in cases where potential jurisdiction exists. We further conclude that the ROA's command that the relationship between the District Court and local courts mirror the one between state and federal courts is not a bar to the District Court's exercise of mandamus power because the District Court retains appellate jurisdiction over the Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands. Which precludes dismissal of criminal cases absent a judicial finding that the dismissal is in good faith. Because this judgment is reserved to prosecutors under the old common law power of nolle prosequi. Rule 128(b) is a substantive rule of law rather than a procedural rule that the local court is authorized to promulgate under the ROA. The local rules of the Territorial Court apply the Federal Rules in circumstances in which there are no valid rules to the contrary. The argument that this rule also has a substantive component is not without force. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1544.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> AutoZone argued that the agreement could not be performed within a year and was therefore void under the Colorado statute of frauds. 113 (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. As we have noted. Unless such agreement or some note or memorandum thereof is in writing and subscribed by the party charged therewith: (a) Every agreement that by the terms is not to be performed within one year after the making thereof. Because the alleged agreement was not in writing. The agreement was void under 38 10 112(1)(a). Is an oral agreement void when: (1) the agreement contemplates <hr> performance for a definite period of more than one year but (2) allows the party to be charged an option to terminate the agreement by a certain date less than a year from the making of the agreement and when (3) the party to be charged has not exercised that option to terminate the agreement? </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9650FC414B77635E88256A24005BACDB/$file/9916814.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We are asked to decide whether the decision of a state administrative law judge ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept98/96-6845.opn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We must determine in this appeal whether a bankruptcy court can look behind a prior consent judgment and whether there are genuine issues of material fact with respect to actual or constructive fraud against creditors. Plaintiff Appellant Donald Dionne ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/064854np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will likewise dismiss Ajjahnon's appeal. A detailed account of the facts underlying Ajjahnon's claims is unnecessary. Ajjahnon alleged she was denied due process as a result of the state courts' decisions and that the state courts had violated her civil rights in ruling against her. Our review of the district court's dismissal order is plenary. The familiar Rooker Feldman doctrine is applicable here. Lower federal courts cannot entertain constitutional claims that have been previously adjudicated in state court or that are inextricably intertwined with a state adjudication. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1051.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was penalized with a $5. Calvert alleged that the prosecutions were malicious. Calvert's claims against Judge Brinkley were barred by judicial immunity and the claims (1) After examining the briefs and appellate record. This case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. Who is proceeding pro se. He admits that his pleadings have been inartful. Points out that he is not a lawyer and is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/April2003/014272u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Both parties appealed.1 We reverse the District Court's ruling that an exclusionary clause in the parties' insurance contract is void as against public policy. Viola was involved in an accident while riding his motorcycle. The motorcycle was insured under a policy issued by Dairyland Insurance Company which provided underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits in the amount of $100. Resulting in a collision. 1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 2 Hovis's insurance company tendered its policy's bodily injury liability limit to Viola. A bench trial was held in November 2001. Oral argument before our Court was scheduled for November 21. Was cancelled prior to that date and the case held in abeyance pending the opinion of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Prudential Prop. and Cas. Colbert was submitted to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on a petition for certification of questions of law from our Circuit. One of these questions asked whether the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1277.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND The epic facts of this dispute are well known to the parties and are set forth in numerous court orders. We only briefly summarize them here. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> In 1986. Ebel had </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-9005.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.A.</SPAN> were on brief. 522(f)(2)(C) clarifies that judgments authorizing the sale of mortgaged premises are not judicial liens subject to avoidance under § 522(f)(1). Background</STRONG></CENTER> </P> <P> The facts of this case are undisputed. The Debtors were property owners in. Judgment was entered against the Debtors in the amount of $12. While these state court proceedings were progressing. Claiming that the Bank's judicial Lien impaired an exemption that they were entitled to under 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(1) and (5). Statutory Interpretation</STRONG></CENTER> </P> <P> This appeal forces us to determine whether mortgage deficiency judgments are excluded from avoidance under § 522(f) by virtue of § 522(f)(2)(C). Is a question of law that we review de novo. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/mar96/95-4016.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. CUCH<BR></A><BR> The movants in these consolidated cases were both convicted in federal district court of federal crimes committed on land in eastern Utah that we had determined to be part of the Ute Indian Tribe's Uintah Reservation. The United States Supreme Court declared that the lands in question were not part of the Uintah Reservation. The issue is whether the Hagen decision both can and should be applied prospectively only with respect to convictions on collateral review. Utah).(1) The course of the litigation is as follows: In 1976. Challenges to federal jurisdiction during that time were dismissed or decided on the authority of Ute Indian Tribe. State v. (1) The details of the tribe's claims are extensively covered in the various opinions addressing the matter and need not be repeated here. Was collaterally estopped from relitigating the Reservation boundaries. The movants in the instant cases are Indians sentenced to federal prison for crimes committed in violation of federal law during the time the Ute Indian Tribe decisions were in effect. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/04/032103P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Held that Nooner's substantive claims were without merit. Although we conclude that the district court erred in finding that Nooner's motion to dismiss his petition was knowing and voluntary. Was washing clothes at a Little Rock laundromat at approximately 1:30 a.m. on March 16. An element of which was the use or threat of violence. That the murder was committed for pecuniary gain) and no mitigating circumstances. Nooner was sentenced to death by lethal injection. While the petition was pending. We directed the district court to reexamine its decision and determine whether Nooner was competent to withdraw his petition. The district court determined that Nooner was competent to withdraw his petition and granted his request. The district court also addressed the merits of Nooner's petition and concluded that his stated claims were without merit. (2) that Arkansas' victim impact statute is constitutionally infirm. We first examine the district court's factual finding that Nooner was competent to withdraw his habeas petition. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept98/96-6845.opn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We must determine in this appeal whether a bankruptcy court can look behind a prior consent judgment and whether there are genuine issues of material fact with respect to actual or constructive fraud against creditors. Plaintiff Appellant Donald Dionne ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200315756.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although it is unnecessary to refer to them by name. Recomm's business was carried on. The lease assignments were without recourse. The laws governing Chapter 11 proceedings are codified at 11 U.S.C. §§ 1101 1174. Several reorganization plans were proposed. Only the third and fourth plans are relevant here. Were served with a copy of the Third Amended Plan in June 1997. The Third Amended Plan purported to modify the leases of all </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200601/04-5382a.pdf">O:\OPN\RAY\PIERSALL V. WINTER\PIERSALL V. WINTER V16 FINAL.WPD<BR></A><BR> With him on the briefs were Matthew S. Higgins were on the brief of amicus curiae The National Veterans Legal Services Program in support of appellant. With him on the brief were Kenneth L. 1998 then Lieutenant Commander Piersall was the Executive Officer and Command Duty Officer of the USS La Jolla. The final agency action under review is in fact the decision of a designated representative of the Secretary of the Navy approving the recommendation of the Board. * 3 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8CC65C83A65CF51E88256BB1006D0E60/$file/9956956.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Appellee Jason Rutz was a listed creditor in his stepfather's appellant Lon McGhan bankruptcy proceedings. The state court in which that action was filed ruled that Rutz's action could proceed because Rutz had inadequate notice of the earlier bankruptcy proceedings. Reasoning that McGhan's desire to relitigate an issue already heard in state court was insufficient cause to reopen the case. We conclude that it was an abuse of discretion for the bankruptcy court to decline to reopen McGhan's bankruptcy case. The bankruptcy court was required to reopen the proceedings to protect its exclusive jurisdiction over the enforcement of its own orders. McGhan was charged with five counts of sexual molestation of Rutz. At the time the charges were 6703 filed. Rutz was 12 years old. Any creditor wishing to have a debt characterized as nondischargeable must file a complaint alleging nondischargeability of the debt. His claim is automatically discharged pursuant to § 523(c)(1). Although debts for intentional torts such as Rutz's claim ordinarily are not dischargeable under § 523(a)(6) of the code. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1996/96a1412p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. INTRODUCTION Hyatt Corporation is the manager of a resort hotel on St. The district court had subject matter jurisdiction under either 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2) (action between citizens of a state and citizens or subjects of a foreign state) or 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(3) (action between citizens of different states in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties). We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise plenary review over the grant of partial summary judgment and abuse of discretion review over the court's transition order. Great Cruz was looking for a company to maximize the economic potential of the resort. Hyatt was reticent to commit the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/08/993007P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although the petition appears to have been the culmination of a long standing neighborhood power struggle. The details of this hard fought battle are not relevant to this appeal. Shortly after this order was issued. Sought to reverse the disincorporation primarily on the grounds that the petition was actually a request for a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D8524371EDD4FDAB8825733A004BEA0C/$file/0655964.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We consider whether a class arbitration waiver in New Cingular Wireless Service Inc.'s standard contract for cellular phone services is unconscionable under California law. Whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts a holding that the waiver is unenforceable. We hold that the waiver is unconscionable. That the invalidation of the contract provision is not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. Alleging that he and similarly situated plaintiffs ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/May2004/May19/03-20608-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is an appeal of the district court's reversing in part. There was a foreclosure sale of property owned by Cueva that was part of a bankruptcy proceeding and therefore subject to an automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362. The following facts were found by the bankruptcy court in its Memorandum Opinion entered July 24. Are undisputed. The real property that is the subject of this appeal is located at 6006 Memorial Drive in Houston. The note was secured by a lien on the Property. The lien was assigned to Norwest Bank Minnesota. Cueva's bankruptcy proceeding actually was filed on On December 7. Settle & Pou were the attorneys and the authorized agents for Appellees Norwest. Thus those parties were charged with notice of the bankruptcy three to four hours prior to the foreclosure. Bustamante and Campbell were the successful bidders at the foreclosure sale. That the sale was subject to bankruptcy by the debtor. The Property was purportedly conveyed to Bustamante and Campbell by deed dated December 7. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1F1B12AF0DC569A4882572D4007F613A/$file/0456799.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whether that litigation is pending at the trial level or on appeal. The terms of the agreement are not part of the record on this appeal. It is undisputed that as part of the deal. IN RE: HARBIN 5245 Harbin filed a cross complaint for a declaratory determination that he was not personally liable for any breach of the consulting agreement. While the trial court's ruling on Harbin's declaratory judgment motion was still pending. The trial court set aside the jury's original verdict and held that Harbin was not personally liable for breach of the consulting agreement. While his state appeal was pending. The bankruptcy court found the plan feasible under 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(11) because Harbin's allowed creditors were to be paid in full.2 Sherman. Sherman argued that Harbin's plan was not feasible under section 1129(a)(11) because it did not reserve an allowance for Sherman's claim should he prevail on appeal. Harbin would not have sufficient assets to cover Sherman's claim and would be forced into further liquidation or reorganization. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BCF336EBF7A5753488256D5100821E1A/$file/0055585.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: At the heart of this case is a disappointed litigant's attempt to obtain in federal court the very relief denied to him in state court. Is the functional equivalent of an appeal of the state court decision. A result that is inconsistent with the Rooker Feldman doctrine. A federal district court is without subject matter jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the judgment of a state court. The case was transferred to then Superior Court Judge William Rylaarsdam. Bianchi's appeal was assigned to a panel that included nowJustice Rylaarsdam. At the time Bianchi's case was assigned to be heard before the appellate panel. Once the motion is made. The judge is automatically disqualified. No assessment of prejudice is undertaken. 1 BIANCHI v. Claiming that Justice Rylaarsdam's presence on the panel violated his federal and state constitutional right to due process and was contrary to California procedural rules. Bianchi sought to have the Court of Appeal vacate its opinion and reassign his appeal to a different panel. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/01-1157.htm">01-1157 -- U.S. V. GRAHAM -- 07/10/2002<BR></A><BR> Established the following facts: <p> In June 1999 Detective Kirk McIntosh ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2636_019.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These cases are before us again: this time the issue involves forum selection clauses. 000 were subject to arbitration. Before us now the question is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/055371np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The District Court found that issues essential to all of Alevras's claims had been litigated in a prior petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and were therefore precluded from relitigation. We will affirm. Alevras was arrested on February 19. His request was granted. Was assigned to Alevras's case. A status conference for the matter was set for July 1. The letter was returned undelivered about one week later. No notice of appeal was filed in the fraud and false claim case. Judge Greenaway held an evidentiary hearing and found that Alevras's account was untrue. Should have recused himself because he had communicated with representatives from pretrial services ex parte regarding Alevras's failure to appear on July 1. Judge Greenaway first considered whether there were grounds to void the waiver provision. Alevras sought to have Judge Greenaway removed from his case. This court found that it could not revisit the order requiring repayment because the issue should have been brought on direct appeal. That Alevras had not provided any evidence showing that Judge Greenaway was biased. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-3120.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> L.P. were parties to a retail installment contract ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="409"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7065C02EE95FFE4B882572C8004AB6F9/$file/0456799.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whether that litigation is pending at the trial level or on appeal. The terms of the agreement are not part of the record on this appeal. It is undisputed that as part of the deal. IN RE: HARBIN 4557 Harbin filed a cross complaint for a declaratory determination that he was not personally liable for any breach of the consulting agreement. While the trial court's ruling on Harbin's declaratory judgment motion was still pending. The trial court set aside the jury's original verdict and held that Harbin was not personally liable for breach of the consulting agreement. While his state appeal was pending. The bankruptcy court found the plan feasible under 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(11) because Harbin's allowed creditors were to be paid in full.2 Sherman. Sherman argued that Harbin's plan was not feasible under section 1129(a)(11) because it did not reserve an allowance for Sherman's claim should he prevail on appeal. Harbin would not have sufficient assets to cover Sherman's claim and would be forced into further liquidation or reorganization. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="405"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1572.html">SPENCER WILLIAMS, V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <U>Janice R. Of counsel on the brief were <U>Richard J. ) are entitled to back pay and future cost of living pay increases under the Ethics Reform </P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="405"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012337.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Plaintiff Jane Holmes Dixon is the Bishop Pro Tempore of the Diocese of Washington. Edwards is an ordained Priest of the Church who claims entitlement to the office of Rector of St. A declaration that Father Edwards is not the Rector of St. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="405"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/036146.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Revoked the probation she was serving for a prior offense. Reid's ensuing appeals were unsuccessful. Petitioner's conviction was obtained by the unconstitutional failure of the prosecution to disclose evidence to petitioner. Specifically that no presentence report was prepared despite the judge's request for one. 3. Petitioner's conviction was obtained by a violation of her privilege against self incrimination when the judge heard evidence from the probation officer concerning her participation in treatment for substance abuse and kleptomania. The court determined that Claims 2 and 3 were procedurally defaulted and that Claim 1. Was meritless in light of Reid's representations at the plea hearing </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="405"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/09/962705P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> United States District Court for the District of South Dakota. 2 1 The background facts have been stated in our prior opinions. The South Dakota Supreme Court held that the state courts were bound by the district court's order granting the defendants injunctive relief. On the ground that those prior final decisions were void because they were entered in violation of the Eleventh Amendment. The motion will not succeed merely because the same argument would have succeeded on appeal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="405"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2002/00-16138.opn.html">ALABAMA POWER CO. V. UNITED STATES DEP'T OF ENERGY (9/24/2002, NO. 00-16138)<BR></A><BR> An offset against future payments that Exelon (like all other utilities that produce nuclear waste) is obligated to pay into</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="405"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200605/05-7098a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Kenneth L. On the briefs was Steven D. With him on the brief was Eric A. That its failure to respond earlier was due to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="405"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3738_017.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Incorporated (Globe) was liquidated under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. Argued that the lien was avoidable under 11 U.S.C. § 545(2). The facts of this case are not in dispute. The case was converted to Chapter 7. Gouveia was appointed Trustee for the Debtor's estate. The lien was properly perfected by its filing. The proceeds of the sale were paid to the trustee. The bankruptcy court found that there was no genuine issue of material fact and granted summary judgment to the trustee. The relevant language of § 545(2) provides: The trustee may avoid the fixing of a statutory lien on property of the debtor to the extent that such lien ... (2) is not perfected or enforceable at the time of the commencement of the case against a bona fide purchaser that purchases such property at the time of the commencement of the case. This power is not absolute. 549 of this title are subject to any generally applicable law that (A) permits perfection of an interest in property to be effective against an entity that acquires rights in such property before the date of perfection[.]. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="405"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-4044.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="405"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2004/031790np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court also held Levine's objection to the claim of the Litman Group was untimely. We will affirm. When Levine was unable to repay these loans. Judgment was opened. He would have reevaluated his decision to purchase the stock. Levine also maintained there was no obligation to pay back the money he borrowed from the Litman Group to rectify the financial deficiencies exposed by the HUD inspection because the Litman Group still owned the Wilkins House at the time of the inspection. McCarthy also testified that Levine knew there was no HUD approval and still wanted to proceed with the transaction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). A. State court judgments are given the same full faith and credit by federal courts as would be given by the courts of the states from which they are taken. A federal court may refuse to honor a state court judgment if the judgment was void ab initio. The Supreme Court allowed a debtor to challenge a state court judgment in bankruptcy court on the ground that the judgment obtained by fraud was void ab initio for procedural reasons. 308 U.S. 295. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="405"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1387.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. Plaintiff's real argument on appeal is with that portion of the order which purported to hold that the plaintiff was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="405"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-6275.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. The two appeals are consolidated. I. Background The following facts were established at trial. The application form (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. That she was taking the prescription drug Tamoxifen at the time she applied. Tamoxifen is a medication often prescribed for cancer treatment. Is frequently prescribed for patients even after they are cancer free. It would not have issued the policy. Wright's representations on the August 2000 application that she did not have cancer were. Wright had cancer on the date she applied for the policy and on her opinion that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="405"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054565np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Will affirm for the reasons set forth below. We affirmed the District Court's conclusion that Appellants' claims were barred by. We will reverse only if the District Court's decision </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="405"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-6293.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> O'Brien. This case is the latest in a long running dispute between Moshe Tal. The powers of an urban renewal authority are exercised by commissioners. 11 Okla. One statutory requirement is that the plan allow private developers the opportunity to obtain redevelopment contracts. 11 Okla. The Bricktown redevelopment plan was amended in 1997 as the MAPS <hr> Sports Entertainment Parking Support Redevelopment Plan. The City's intended use was public parking. Which was modified on October 2. The final decision was made by the City Council only after two years of public meetings. Inc.'s land had been impermissibly taken for private use and the redevelopment contract was awarded amid </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="405"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-2105_030A.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Facts No. 04 2105 The basic facts underlying the present appeal have been recounted in this court's earlier decisions. Michael Shakman was an independent candidate seeking election to the Illinois Constitutional Convention. The class alleged that the defendants maintained a patronage system under which government employment decisions both hiring and retention were based on the prospective (or current) employees' support of Democratic candidates. We concluded that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="405"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/07/99-5226.htm">99-5226 -- READ V. DUNN -- 07/14/2000<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Appellant Michael R. Read argues that the bankruptcy court should not have given full faith and credit to the default judgment entered against him in the state divorce proceeding because the notice by publication Dunn used for service was insufficient to vest the state court with personal jurisdiction over him. We have jurisdiction under 28 . Read and Dunn were married in 1987. Was born during the marriage. Arguing that he was never properly served in the divorce action and that the state court had no jurisdiction to enter a default judgment against him. The state court held in May 1997 that Read was properly served under state law and the divorce decree was valid. That Read had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the alleged jurisdictional defects in the state courts and was collaterally estopped from raising the same issues again in the bankruptcy proceeding. <u>See</u> <u>id.</u> at 113 16. The bankruptcy court further concluded that Oklahoma laws providing for notice by publication are constitutional. <u>See</u> <u>id.</u> at 116 17. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="405"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/07/98-6446.htm">98-6446 -- MITCHELL V. CITY OF MOORE, OKLAHOMA -- 07/11/2000<BR></A><BR> While this suit was still pending before the district court. Captain Mitchell's employment was terminated. Arguing the summary judgment order was <em>res judicata</em> as to the issues in arbitration. The current case is actually four appeals. Captain Mitchell was an active member of the Fraternal Order of Police (Union). Conceivably formed the background for his claims that future disciplinary actions were based on anti union animus and thus violated his First Amendment rights: <p> Captain Mitchell has frequently expressed interest in assuming a more responsible position within the Police Department. Chief Storm's concern about his relationship with the Union was well founded. Who is responsible for hiring and firing the Chief of Police and other city employees. The City Manager informed President Tipps such a vote would have no impact on his decision to retain Chief Storm and the publicity surrounding the vote would damage the police department's chances of obtaining new facilities in an upcoming bond or sales tax election. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="405"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1868.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ramirez & Ramirez were on brief. Dominguez & Totti were on brief. The Executive Order is reproduced in an appendix to the district court's rescript. Each agency was directed </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="405"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/07/963417P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We relate the facts of this case in somewhat more detail than is customary. Finn are enrolled members of the Band. When Pemberton was secretary treasurer of the Leech Lake Reservation Business Committee (LLRBC). Brown was one of three district representatives on the LLRBC. Finn was the Band's legal counsel.3 Before 1985. 1985 would have increased the previous year's property casualty premium from $122. The Band could </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="405"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2001/99-13138.man.html">MADE IN THE UNITED STATES FOUND. V. UNITED STATES (2/27/2001, NO. 99-13138)<BR></A><BR> Whether certain kinds of international commercial agreements are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="405"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1182.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Benitez & Peral were on brief. The servers examined records filed with the Puerto Rico Department of State and determined that the resident agent for both corporations was Barbarossa's wife. Arguing that service was improper because the summons had been left at Barbarossa's home rather than delivered personally to him. This time arguing in both the freight and demurrage cases that Ortiz was not served and that in any case Ortiz was not the resident agent for one of the corporations. The defendants attempted once again to have the default judgments set aside. Arguing once again that it had not been properly served because Ortiz was not its resident agent. Concluded that there was nonetheless no </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="405"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199913138.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whether certain kinds of international commercial agreements are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="405"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199913138.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whether certain kinds of international commercial agreements are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="405"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200016138.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> An offset against future payments that Exelon (like all other utilities that produce nuclear waste) is obligated to pay into the Nuclear Waste Fund ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="405"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-5013.html">KEVIN CONWAY V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for defendant <span class=SpellE>appellee</span>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='mso layout grid align:none. Holding that the Internal Revenue Service s ( IRS s ) deficiency assessment was timely and rejecting the taxpayer s other contentions.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span><u>Conway v. A New York lawyer who had represented the taxpayer and provided investment advice.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Alter told the taxpayer that he and several other members of his law firm were planning to invest in the partnership and recommended that the taxpayer invest as well.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Alter did not provide the taxpayer with the partnership s offering memorandum nor any other document relating to the partnership at the time.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Although a tax opinion about the project was prepared by another New York law firm. Mso bidi language:AR SA'>[1]</span></span><![endif]></span></span></a> a tax partnership is treated as a pass through entity.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Although administrative and judicial proceedings concerning partnership items are conducted at the partnership level. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="405"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0145A2213934B8818825734D0052C73A/$file/0515031.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The royalty payments provided for in this contract are the subject of the present dispute. The contract at issue is unambiguous as to the duration of the royalties. The parties agree on their intent at the time it was formed. All the evidence is thus in accord with a single interpretation that Tinnell would relinquish all rights to Zilactin. The product has been improved since it was developed in 1976 and is now sold under the brand name Zilactin. Which is the subject of a patent application. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="405"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032025p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On behalf of themselves and their clients who are specifically identified in and/or whose claims are affected by Pretrial Order No. 2778. The Sixth Amendment was approved by the District Court in Pretrial Order ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="405"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2002/00-16138.opn.html">ALABAMA POWER CO. V. UNITED STATES DEP'T OF ENERGY (9/24/2002, NO. 00-16138)<BR></A><BR> An offset against future payments that Exelon (like all other utilities that produce nuclear waste) is obligated to pay into</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="405"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041376np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because res judicata is an affirmative defense. The basis for dismissing this case on res judicata grounds was not apparent on the face of the complaint. We will reverse the District Court. The partnerships were referred to collectively as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="405"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4ECFFB4755716A108825713E004E20DC/$file/0415581.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 15 U.S.C. § 1.1 The district court found that Plaintiffs' claims were released by the class action settlement in In re Visa Check/Mastermoney Antitrust Litig. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm. We hold that issue preclusion bars Plaintiffs from re litigating the WalMart courts' determination that Plaintiffs' price fixing claims were properly released. That Plaintiffs' claims are extinguished by the Wal Mart settlement because the two actions share an identical factual predicate. Facts and Procedural History Plaintiffs here purport to represent all merchants nationwide who currently have a contract with one or more of Visa and MasterCard's member banks for credit and debit transactions. It is necessary to 1 Unless otherwise noted. All statutory references are to 15 U.S.C. 3304 REYN'S PASTA BELLA v. This is how a typical sales transaction works. The 1.6% discount is the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="405"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044603np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. The details of Untracht's claims and the protracted history of the case are well known to the parties. Who is a surgeon. While his appeal to the Appellate Division was pending. The District Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the ground that Untracht's claims were precluded by the Chancery Division's prior decision. Untracht's privileges at the hospital were restored. Untracht's reappointment application was denied at the end of 1992. He was subsequently banned from applying for reappointment for five years. While the litigation regarding his April 1990 suspension was pending in the state courts. 2 concluding that Untracht's claims were barred by the Rooker Feldman doctrine.3 See Fed. P. 12(h)(3) (noting that a court shall dismiss an action </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="405"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2001/99-13138.man.html">MADE IN THE UNITED STATES FOUND. V. UNITED STATES (2/27/2001, NO. 99-13138)<BR></A><BR> Whether certain kinds of international commercial agreements are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="405"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-7044a.html">A. LASHAWN V. BARRY JR. MARION S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="405"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-6025.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court concluded Valley View's federal claims were precluded by the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion due to a defense it raised in related state litigation brought by Duke. Preclusion is generally a knotty issue. We will refer to them collectively as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="376"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0275p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Contending that the confirmed plan was binding and. That relief was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Holding that the discharge had been obtained in violation of the creditor's substantial due process rights and was therefore not merely illegal. Excepting the aforementioned education loans from discharge will impose an undue hardship on the debtor and the debtor's dependents. Confirmation of debtor's plan shall constitute a finding to that effect and that said debt is dischargeable. Ruehle was 26 years old. Because that procedure was not followed in this case. Her Chapter 13 plan was confirmed in October 1998. The order discharging the debt is void. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="376"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BD82194097E1066888256C3000546E6D/$file/9999018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Where Williams was staying. They went to a 7 Eleven where Owens was sweeping the parking lot. Saying: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="376"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/06/02-6347.htm">02-6347 -- U.S. V. BALK -- 06/13/2003<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Michael B. The notes were secured by a second mortgage on certain real properties located in Woodward County. There is no dispute that Mr. Judgment was entered. <p> On October 9. P. 60(b)(4) for relief from the summary judgment on the grounds it was void.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="376"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982673.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Thirty two of the units were known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="376"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/04/98-5000.htm">98-5000 -- STEWART V. U.S. TRUSTEE -- 04/22/1999<BR></A><BR> 707(b) is constitutional. <em>In re Stewart</em>. 707(b) is not void for vagueness and does not violate the equal protection guarantees of the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The monetary consequences of his entering a fellowship are appreciable. Perinatology graduate would have ranged from $100. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="376"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2004/033018p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Claudia Librett ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="376"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-6311.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court found that there were no facts suggesting he actually assumed his mother's mortgage or that Countrywide extended him credit. The district court found there were no genuine issues of material fact concerning Mr. The District Court order granting summary judgment to the defendants is VACATED for want of subject matter jurisdiction to address the merits of Mr. Crutchfield purported to notify both Countrywide and MERS that he was exercising his right to rescission pursuant to TILA. The court held that the Oklahoma default judgment was not void for lack of proper service. Crutchfield's argument that there was insufficient evidence of the relationship between MERS and Countrywide to warrant summary judgment as a matter of res judicata. Crutchfield responded that there was sufficient evidence of a <hr> consumer credit transaction to survive summary judgment. Finding that there was no evidence of either a consumer credit transaction or a written assumption. Crutchfield would not have rescission rights under TILA. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="376"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2001/004141.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is also one of first impression in this Circuit. The issue is whether the debt to a State of a bond surety for a defendant who fails to appear is dischargeable in the surety's Chapter 7 bankruptcy. We decide the question here only in the context of the case before us: The bond surety is a relative of the non appearing defendant. We will reverse the District Court's decision. Was charged in Philadelphia. Bail was set at $1 million. Are jointly and severally bound to pay the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the sum of ONE MILLION dollars ($1. WE are bound by the CONDITIONS of this bond as shown on both sides of this form. Then this bond is to be void. It is not clear why the court did not enter a judgment in the amount of $900. Is not before this Court and we do not address it. 4 You may reduce your financial responsibility by producing the defendant forthwith and filing a petition with the Clerk of Quarter Sessions to vacate. When David was released on bond. Such debt was not in fact dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="376"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/12/01-4074.htm">01-4074 -- U.S. V. BROWN -- 12/07/2001<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Defendants L. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="376"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2004/031146p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> USVI 00820 and motion seeking to amend the judgment in Selkridge I to indicate that the grant of summary judgment was without prejudice to filing a new lawsuit. We determine that we are without jurisdiction to hear an appeal of the grant of summary judgment in Selkridge I because an appeal was not timely taken. While we conclude that Judge Moore should have recused himself before entering the order granting summary judgment in Selkridge II and the order denying Selkridge's Rule 60(b) motion in Selkridge I. Given that our independent plenary review convinces us that the results reached were required as a matter of law. We will affirm both December 23. I. Background Selkridge was enrolled in a group insurance plan with Omaha during the period in which she was employed by the Virgin Islands Telephone Company and its successors. The motion contended that all of Selkridge's claims arose </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="376"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/99-2070.htm">99-2070 -- JUDA V. NERNEY -- 04/17/2000<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff Olaf Peter Juda. Juda was arrested off the coast of California for attempting to ship hashish from Asia to Canada. The conviction was affirmed on appeal. <u>See</u> <u>United States v. While Juda was in federal custody. The district court was to determine on remand whether the twenty month delay between seizure of Juda's real property and commencement of forfeiture proceedings against a $150. If the government is aware that an interested party is incarcerated. It is required to attempt to serve him with notice in prison).<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="376"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/11/98-3142a.htm">98-3142A -- PRO FINANCE INC. V. SPRIGGS -- 11/16/1998<BR></A><BR> The corrected lower court case numbers are as follows: <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="376"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec2000/001733.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> S 261.10(k): </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="376"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011443.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are reserved to the States respectively. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="376"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0373p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> For Appellees. * An interim opinion was filed in this matter on September 22. The court is now filing this more detailed opinion. 1 No. 06 4216 Morrison. He did not qualify as an independent candidate because he was affiliated with a political party. Morrison claimed that the Ohio statutory provision violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and those of his would be voters because it was allegedly overbroad. There is no reasonable basis for Morrison to claim in good faith that he is not affiliated with a political party. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="376"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQwODMtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-4083-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Have jurisdiction to adjudicate a 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 taxpayer's challenge that the notice of foreclosure provided by the taxing authority of a state is constitutionally inadequate. We conclude that the district courts have jurisdiction. Whether the taxpayers in this consolidated appeal were provided with constitutionally adequate notice. The sole case to resolve the dispute on non jurisdictional grounds is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. A central Vermont town. plaintiff owned real property and was delinquent in paying property taxes. Plaintiffs assert that the local taxing authorities failed to notify them adequately of the pending foreclosure and subsequent public sale of their property.1 Plaintiffs complain that it is fundamentally unfair. Elizabeth Luessenhop Elizabeth Luessenhop (Luessenhop) was the owner of two parcels of land located in the Village of Champlain. Her permanent address was 2944 At times during 2002. It was her practice to pay a sufficient amount of the back taxes to avoid losing title to her property. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="376"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1470.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although the details of the marriage are neither known to us nor relevant to our case. After the motion was granted in July. That the trial court's orders were void because the method of service of process violated his due process rights. His attorneys to show cause why they did not deserve to have Rule 11 sanctions imposed on them. The doctrine is a recognition of the principle that the inferior federal courts generally do not have the power to exercise appellate review over state court decisions. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="376"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2001/004141.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is also one of first impression in this Circuit. The issue is whether the debt to a State of a bond surety for a defendant who fails to appear is dischargeable in the surety's Chapter 7 bankruptcy. We decide the question here only in the context of the case before us: The bond surety is a relative of the non appearing defendant. We will reverse the District Court's decision. Was charged in Philadelphia. Bail was set at $1 million. Are jointly and severally bound to pay the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the sum of ONE MILLION dollars ($1. WE are bound by the CONDITIONS of this bond as shown on both sides of this form. Then this bond is to be void. It is not clear why the court did not enter a judgment in the amount of $900. Is not before this Court and we do not address it. 4 You may reduce your financial responsibility by producing the defendant forthwith and filing a petition with the Clerk of Quarter Sessions to vacate. When David was released on bond. Such debt was not in fact dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="376"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0013p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that the Local was not entitled to relief from the $637. She was suspended in August of 2001 because of a poor attendance record. That Ameritech was terminating her employment due to excessive absences. The Local reviewed Burrell's records and determined that there was no reasonable basis to believe that arbitration would reverse Burrell's termination. Burrell's complaint in its entirety reads as follows: This charge is being filed against the Union/ and President for failure to provide representation in arbitration to keep my job. I was terminated after disability. I was given misinformation by Union Steward Arlington Guy. I was told that if I go out on long term disability this would allow for me to by pass date of satisfaction. Because this is what happen[ed] to him. When I took his advice I was terminated after we had the meeting with Human Resource. She also called me on the telephone to inform me that the case would be closed and they were unable to help me. The reason that I feel wronged is that when I filed the case with the Civil Right Commission there I was told that the other people I mentioned in the charge[s] had also been dismissed for going over the disability threshold which means more than three disabilities in a rolling year. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="376"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/06/972365P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> After a three week trial in which 104 witnesses testified and approximately 200 exhibits were introduced. Defendants Craig Scott Keltner and Charles Bruce Nabors were convicted by a jury of a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Both defendants were also convicted of conspiracy to commit extortion and robbery and interstate transportation of stolen jewelry. Nabors was convicted of mail and wire fraud. Keltner was convicted of structuring a cash transaction. Fern Kilgore's Ford Bronco was stolen. Kilgore's Bronco was rammed into a Radio Shack store during a burglary in January 1991. Several compatible walkie talkies and police scanners were stolen from the store. A police scanner guide of the brand sold exclusively by Radio Shack was later recovered by law enforcement from Keltner's car. Where Nabors obtained the type of microphone for which he was looking. The internal components of one such microphone were identified as similar to the microphone used on a hoax bomb device involved in an extortion and robbery attempt of the Woodland Bank in Tulsa. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="376"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002540.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> District Judge: Plaintiff appellant Bruce Foster challenges the district court's determination that the French company with which Foster contracted did not have sufficient contacts with South Carolina to support the assertion of personal jurisdiction over this company and one of its officers. The contract at the heart of this dispute was negotiated. Foster contends that he is entitled to continuing fees for his work in obtaining the licenses. Appellees counter that Foster has been paid all that he is owed and that any rights Sierra Madre and BSF had to the licenses were voided on December 19. Appellees assert that Foster is not entitled to continuing fees. Alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment.2 Arletty and Abadie were served copies of the summons and complaint in both French and English pursuant to the Hague Convention. Arguing that it was void for want of personal jurisdiction. Concluding that the court did not have personal jurisdiction over the appellees. It is this order Foster appeals. A. Waiver The requirement that a court have personal jurisdiction is grounded in the Due Process Clause. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="376"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/08/003499P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1974 while it was zoned for commercial use. The property was rezoned for residential use pursuant to the enactment of a city ordinance. Ace brought an action in federal court which was voluntarily dismissed on the grounds of lack of ripeness. Louis which was dismissed because Ace did not have standing to challenge the ordinance. The This case was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 2 4 magistrate judge concluded that the City violated Ace's procedural due process rights and awarded Ace $1.00 in nominal damages. Federal district courts are prohibited from exercising jurisdiction over appeals from state court decisions and general constitutional claims that are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="376"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0428p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is whether and to what extent the availability of Rule 60(b) is restricted by the limits imposed on the filing of second or successive habeas petitions by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="376"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6110E37D1BB6235888256F0A005794A0/$file/9999018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended to replace all of the text in sub section </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="376"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034871np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We must determine if we have appellate jurisdiction to decide whether the District Court erred in denying the defendant's qualified immunity summary judgment argument. We possess jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a qualified immunity summary judgment 2 argument where the issue is one of law. We do not have jurisdiction to hear such an interlocutory appeal where the issue concerns the district court's identification of the facts that are not genuinely disputed. 147 (3d Cir. 2002) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="376"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1726.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellant. P.C. was on brief for appellees. Piccicuto commenced this adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy court which sought to have a judgment debt owed him by debtors appellees Ralph E. Because we find that summary judgment should have been entered for Piccicuto. Which was a tenant of several units (including two basement units) of the property. Sheehan's had been a tenant at will therein. Who informed him that the contemplated deal with the Driscolls was too good. That there would be no assignment unless he and the landlords were paid $50. Jeffrey Dwyer interfered with these efforts by telephoning the brokers and informing them that the leases were invalid. Whenever Piccicuto's rent payments were a day or so late. None of which was substantiated to the point of police or court action. All of these proceedings eventually concluded with judgments in Piccicuto's favor. 4 4 Piccicuto was not able to sell the property and. Although all defendants were represented at trial. The memorandum clearly states that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="376"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/055221np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will reverse. Based on East Hill's representations that the building was too small for large. 2) that a temporary injunction against all tented events at East Hill was therefore warranted. That the resolution of the Planning Board was legally binding on the parties. Were the Planning Board's resolution found to violate the Constitution or federal law an issue inextricably intertwined with what was before the Planning Board would necessarily void the state court's conclusion. The Rooker Feldman doctrine states that the Supreme Court of the United States is the only federal court that may properly exercise appellate jurisdiction over state court judgments. May be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari where the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States is drawn in question or where the validity of a treaty of a statute of any State is drawn in question on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution. Or immunity is specially set up or claimed under the Constitution or the treaties or statutes of. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="376"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/034391.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was being considered de novo by a North Carolina superior court at the time of the federal sentencing. Because execution of the state sentence was stayed pending the trial de novo. It should have assessed only one criminal history point under § 4A1.1(c). Because this error was harmless. Two of these points were attributable to the prior sentence of a North Carolina district court for misdemeanor larceny. Martin pleaded guilty in a North Carolina district court to misdemeanor larceny and was sentenced to sixty days imprisonment. The case was still pending in superior court when the Probation Office prepared its presentence report in Martin's UNITED STATES v. Martin was categorized as a Category III offender. Her applicable guideline range was fifty one to sixty three months imprisonment. The question before us is whether a prior sentence imposed by a North Carolina district court pending a trial de novo in a North Carolina superior court qualifies as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="376"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2062.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because Vlasek was seventeen years old at the time. A minor estate was opened on his behalf and the settlement proceeds were delivered to the estate. The estate was closed. 561.88 was turned over to Vlasek. 2 No. 02 2062 Over the next few years. All four properties were mortgaged. She alleged Vlasek was the father. An Illinois state court found that Vlasek was the child's father and ordered him to make semi monthly $1000 child support payments. It appears that back in 1993 while his child's mother was still pregnant. Determined the transfers were voidable. He later claimed that at the time of the bankruptcy's filing in August 1996 he was mentally incompetent a result of a closed head injury suffered in the automobile accident. The orders that Vlasek also sought to void through dismissal would have included (i) the order setting aside the four real estate transfers. Pursuant to a motion to compel brought by the bank that was foreclosing on that property. Never sought to appeal or stay any of these individual orders at the time they were rendered. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="376"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2CAB83C3C4E9A2E18825732F00586C71/$file/0610424.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Brigitte Riedl was convicted of various offenses in 1999. She contends that the money laundering statute under which she was convicted is unconstitutionally vague. That there was insufficient evidence that her activities affected interstate commerce. To follow Riedl's suggestion under the circumstances of this case would transform the extraordinary writ of coram nobis into a free pass for attacking criminal judgments long after they have become final. BACKGROUND Riedl was convicted by a jury in November 1999 on various counts. The jury also found that nine properties Riedl owned were involved in the money laundering and hence subject to forfeiture. The officers later told Riedl that they had begun selling drugs and were flush with cash as a result. Which in turn were used as deposits for the purchases of various properties Riedl owned. Riedl was present each time the cashier's checks were procured. The officers told Riedl they were purchasing her properties with drug money. Riedl was finally arrested. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="376"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0414n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We granted a certificate of appealability on the issue of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="376"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1994/94a0761p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> National Union and Gulf sought to rescind insurance policies which they had issued and under which City Savings and the RTC were seeking coverage. National Union and Gulf were jurisdictionally barred from raising certain affirmative defenses to the RTC's counterclaim. We will affirm the district court's holding that under FIRREA the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over National Union and Gulf's declaratory judgment action. We will reverse the district court's holding that under FIRREA National Union and Gulf are barred from raising affirmative defenses to the counterclaim. Sent a letter to National Union and Gulf providing notice that City Federal might have suffered a loss covered by the insurance policies as a result of dishonest or fraudulent acts of City Federal employees. City Federal was declared insolvent by the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="376"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021013.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. RINCKWITZ The trustees who were elected after the 1991 COLA was enacted later learned that the decision to enact the 1991 COLA was based upon an incorrect valuation of the Plan's liabilities. The trustees sued their predecessors for breach of fiduciary duty and sought a declaration that the 1991 COLA was void. The district court ruled in favor of the trustees and declared that the 1991 COLA was void as to all retirees. The trustees sought a declaration that the 1997 rescission of the 1991 COLA was appropriate and binding on all Plan participants or. That the 1991 COLA was void as to all Plan participants. Although Devlin who was retired when the 1991 COLA took effect was initially named as a representative for the Retiree Subclass. Another class representative was substituted for Devlin. The settlement provided that any disputes concerning the settlement were subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="376"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1976.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 10. Cullen & Resnick were on brief for 604 Columbus Avenue. Gottlieb were on brief for Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. *Of the Third Circuit. This is a case involving a failed loan transaction that well illustrates Polonius' advice. Among which were the property owned by the Trust itself and properties of the Trust's principal beneficiary. Of which Millicent Young was sole beneficiary. The Young Family Trust was a named plaintiff in the adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy and district courts below. The Bank was declared unsound by Massachusetts banking officials. The FDIC was appointed 7 receiver. In February 1991 was substituted as defendant appellant in the district court. That the FDIC was entitled to raise the defenses available to it under the doctrine of estoppel established in D'Oench. The district court vacated that part of the bankruptcy court's judgment that was premised on the secret agreement by one of the Trust's principals to provide kickbacks to a Bank officer. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="376"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/12/01-2210.htm">01-2210 -- BROWN V. FINZEL -- 12/06/2001<BR></A><BR> Appeals the district court's sua sponte dismissal of her claim that her 1973 divorce was void. Therefore dismissed her complaint for failure to state a claim upon which she was entitled to relief. The Equal Protection Clause in an attempt to collaterally impeach her divorce decree issued from a District of Columbia Superior Court in 1973.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="359"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/96-4598.man.html">BEL-BEL INT'L CORP. V. COMMUNITY BANK OF HOMESTEAD (12/15/1998, NO. 96-4598)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> This case is one of many arising out of the bankruptcy of a Florida tomato farming operation owned by Joe Torcise.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="359"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200401/02-7086a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="359"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/96-4598.man.html">BEL-BEL INT'L CORP. V. COMMUNITY BANK OF HOMESTEAD (12/15/1998, NO. 96-4598)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</P> <P> This case is one of many arising out of the bankruptcy of a Florida tomato farming operation owned by Joe Torcise.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="359"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2002/00-12809.opn.html">BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS V. MCIMETRO ACCESS TRANSMISSION SERVICES (1/10/2002, NO. 00-12809)<BR></A><BR> We are asked to review two orders of the Georgia State Public Commission (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="359"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1996/96a1258p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> AS THEY ARE TRUSTEES OF THE LONG BAY TRUST v. AS HE IS THE COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. AS SHE IS THE COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY AND PROCUREMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS. AS HE IS THE COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. AS SHE IS THE COMMISSIONER OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS. We are faced with several interrelated jurisdictional issues arising out of appellant Long Bay Trust's inverse condemnation action filed in the District Court of the Virgin Islands and the Government of the Virgin Islands' ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="359"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTQ0OTlfc28ucGRm/05-4499_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="359"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FF43FB23AFC4323A88256E3E0061BBB6/$file/0016922.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND This is another in a long line of cases involving the Central Valley Project (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="359"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/10/99-1534.htm">99-1534 -- AMOCO OIL CO. V. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY -- 10/31/2000<BR></A><BR> This court then dismissed the appeal as moot and remanded the case to the district court for further examination of the facts surrounding EPA's withdrawal of the FAO and for a determination of whether vacatur of the district court's dismissal order is the proper remedy under these circumstances. Background</strong></center> <p> The facts of this case are closely connected with events that occurred as a result of a separate action brought under RCRA. Although EPA was never a party to this action. Provided certain conditions were met. <p> The case at issue arises specifically out of facts surrounding an agreement between Amoco and EPA during the settlement negotiations in the Wyoming case. We also asked the district court to determine whether vacatur is proper. We have routinely reviewed a district court's denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. <u>Servants of the Paraclete v. We have applied de novo review in this context only in cases of Rule 60(b)(4) motions challenging the validity of the underlying judgment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="359"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/004059.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Where there was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="359"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2002/00-12809.opn.html">BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS V. MCIMETRO ACCESS TRANSMISSION SERVICES (1/10/2002, NO. 00-12809)<BR></A><BR> We are asked to review two orders of the Georgia State Public Commission (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="359"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200312113.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The City of Day tona Be ach requ ested an e videntiar y hearing to determin e the mer its of Pau l Smalb ein's 42 U .S.C. § 1 983 claim s in orde r to establish w hether S malbein and M illis were e ligible for § 1988 (b) attorn ey's fees. Becaus e we fin d that Sm albein and Millis are prevailing parties under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Were v iolated fo llowing his arrest in a night clu b parkin g lot. Sma lbein claim ed that he was de prived o f his due process rights. The compla int was la ter amen ded to allege eleven counts and named Claudia Smalbein and Edward Millis as plaintiffs after the death of Paul Smalbein.2 After mediation. All issues raised in the amended complaint were settled except for payment of attorney's fees and taxa ble costs. A nd the p arties jointly noticed th e district co urt of the ir 2 We note that Paul Smalbein's death was unrelated to the facts of this case. 3 agreement. Both the motion and the request for an evidentiary hearing were denied as premature because a final settlemen t had no t yet been r eached. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="359"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2079.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLP</SPAN> were on brief. Holt</SPAN> was on brief. Emblematic of unsettled political conditions that have plagued the Middle East for many years. On the ground that they were entitled to a binding determination of sovereign immunity (including appellate review of any unfavorable decision) before being forced to bear the burdens of litigation.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="359"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/99a0425p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judges. 1 2 In re Fordu COUNSEL No. 97 3936 No. 97 3936 In re Fordu 31 will not disturb a lower court's findings with respect to sanctions unless a clear abuse of discretion is found. There was no abuse of discretion by the bankruptcy court. There is no evidence. Sanctions under this provision appropriately may be awarded when an attorney advances an argument that is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="359"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044172p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court adopted a Report and Recommendation that recommended granting summary judgment to Liberty Mutual based upon the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that asbestosrelated personal injury claims asserted against Treesdale and PMP are one occurrence under the terms of the disputed insurance policies and that a Non Cumulation provision in those policies precludes stacking coverage. We will affirm. Several thousand asbestos exposure claims have been filed against Treesdale to date. The asbestos claims are typically filed by steel workers who worked in the open hearth part of steel mills and others who claim to have had contact with the open hearth. Liberty Mutual issued primary liability policies to PMP is a division of Treesdale. Both will be referred to as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="359"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/01/01-6285.htm">01-6285 -- BURGER V. SCOTT -- 01/15/2003<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Petitioner Derek D. Because we conclude that equitable tolling should have been applied in this case. Background </strong></center> <p> Burger is currently serving a fifty year sentence for robbery with a . He was considered for parole in December of 1996. He was denied parole on each occasion. The Oklahoma law regarding parole consideration was amended to lengthen the period of reconsideration after the denial of parole from one to three years for . While his petition was date stamped as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="359"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001454.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Were voided. The facts underlying this appeal are not in dispute. That lawsuit emanated from an automobile accident in which Smith was at fault. The Real Property's assessed value is $64. Of which half may be said to have accrued to Smith. It is encumbered. For which Smith is jointly and severally liable. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="359"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/02/044029P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which money was never refunded by the proposed sellers when the conveyance was not completed. The agreement was only effective in the event The Honorable Richard H. United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. 2 1 approval was received. 056.14 for the trust land even before Secretarial approval was obtained for the transfer. The Cudmores agreed to return Thorstenson's payments attributed to the trust land in the event that conveyance of the trust land was not ultimately approved by the Secretary. Was not part of this suit) for fraud and breach of contract over the land sale. After the evidence was presented to the jury. Were not recorded. Based upon his We have no information regarding the nearly fifteen year lapse between the originating contracts and the creation of the escrow account. 3 2 understanding that it was dismissed without prejudice. This ruling was never appealed. D. State Court Proceedings Against Virginia Cudmore Grover died in February 1997 and Virginia tentatively received a life estate in the trust property under the terms of Grover's Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)approved will. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="359"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200412/03-3105a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Kenneth L. Vargas is serving a lengthy sentence for committing federal crimes. He filed an action to have his conviction set aside. Only two of which </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="359"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044449np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction to review the final decision of the District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will affirm. That dismissal of the complaint on the basis of the Rooker Feldman doctrine was required.1 While recognizing that a pro se plaintiff would ordinarily be afforded an opportunity to amend the complaint or show cause why the action should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The District Court likewise concluded that Chajkowski failed to demonstrate that reconsideration of its dismissal decision was warranted. An order was thus entered on November 2. Lower federal courts cannot entertain constitutional claims that are inextricably intertwined with a state adjudication. A federal claim is inextricably intertwined with a prior state adjudication if: The Rooker Feldman doctrine embodies the principles set forth by the Supreme Court in Rooker v. If the relief requested in the federal action requires determining that the state court's decision is wrong or would void the state court's ruling. Then the issues are inextricably intertwined and the District Court has no subject matter jurisdiction to hear the suit. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="359"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/08/953515P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court2 concluded that Magna's September 1991 attachment of these assets was valid. Which are inadequate to satisfy both judgments. The assets in dispute are Landmark Bancshares Corporation Stock (Landmark stock) in the Saetteles' account at Oppenheimer & Co. While each suit was pending. Which permits prejudgment attachment where the defendant is not a resident of Missouri. Which permits prejudgment attachment where the defendant is about to remove his property from the state. The facts supporting each ground for attachment were included in the affidavit. The petition for the writ of attachment was granted on September 20. Solely in order to protect whatever claim it may have against </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="359"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FA4076A9316CF89888256FD300012147/$file/0216511.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Persons whose stock was escheated to the state sued to get it back. The dismissal was for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).1 No material disputes of fact have been asserted as to jurisdiction. So we proceed on the basis of the allegations of fact in the complaint.2 Although this case was filed as a class action. It is by two individuals against the state controller. The property was treated as unclaimed because for three years these two individuals did not cash dividend checks. Or otherwise communicate to the companies in which they owned stock.3 Intel and TWA provided the State of California with lists of shareholders who were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199806/96-1449a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Baumann were on brief. Were on brief. Were on the brief. Cosentino were on brief. Hochberg and Judith Jurin Semo were on brief. Royalties are apportioned among eight classes of claimants. In Phase II awards are made to individual copyright owners within each of the classes. The panel's proposal is then forwarded to the Librari an. Each of the petitioners here is a disappointed class claim ant challenging the Librarian's Phase I distribution of royal ties collected for the years 1990. Because our review of the Librarian's decision is limited. I. BACKGROUND In 1974 the Supreme Court ruled that a cable television system's retransmission of non network copyrighted pro graming to markets distant from those to which it was originally broadcast was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1103.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Louis S. Of counsel on the brief was Jeffery A. With him on the brief was Martin L. Of counsel on the brief was Manotti L. The primary feature of the invention is an insert within the body of the bat that improves the bat's hitting properties. Element 26 is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july97/95-4731.opa.html">GOLDEN DOOR JEWELRY CREATIONS, INC. V. LLOYDS UNDERWRITERS NON-MARINE ASS'N<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Golden Door Jewelry Creations. Leach was not added as a loss payee.<p> On February 10. Holding that the facts did not support reformation under Florida law and that the Consignors' interest in recovery was subject to the policy's conditions and exclusions. <i>Golden Door III. That the payments were unethical and in violation of Rule 4 3.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The court thus held that the Consignors could recover pursuant to the legal liability provisions because the coverage exclusions were severable and only precluded the recovery of the assured who arranged the theft. <i>Golden Door V. The Consignors have no direct right of recovery and their interests are subject to the terms and exclusions of the policy. The Consignors are barred from recovery where the named insured cannot recover or where the policy has been breached. (2) recovery is barred because the district court previously granted summary judgment to Lloyds against the named assureds </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/20412228970C35F288256C76007C64F5/$file/0155953.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 11556. Wright is distinguishable because. No assessment was made against the individual partners. Although an action against the partnership would have been timely. The only relevant question in Wright was whether the statute of limitations applicable to the partners should be tolled while the limitations period was tolled with respect to the partnership. Judges Kleinfeld and Graber have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. The United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) filed proofs of claim against Debtors for unpaid employment taxes assessed against a partnership in which Debtors were general partners. The IRS's claims were properly disallowed because (1) the IRS cannot collect a partnership's tax deficiency directly from the partners without first making individualized assessments against the partners or obtaining judgments against the partners holding them jointly and severally liable for the partnership's tax debts. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/984265.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> No. 98 4265 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The government appeals that decision and argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish that Mrs. It was not long thereafter that Mrs. Perry's crimes was $556. 197.15. 2 Perry's thefts were discovered. Perry was clinically depressed. II </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/05/02-6153.htm">02-6153 -- U.S. V. BORREGO -- 05/20/2003<BR></A><BR> Borrego was driving a tractor trailer with an empty flatbed trailer on Interstate 35 in Oklahoma City. Martell was a passenger in the tractor trailer. Police Officer Daimon Alexander believed the tractor trailer was following another vehicle too closely. A significant amount of cocaine was found in the cabin of the tractor trailer during a consensual search. Borrego and Martell were indicted for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute. Their motions to suppress the evidence discovered during the consensual search and to dismiss the charges against them were denied. Borrego and Martell entered pleas of guilty to the conspiracy charges under conditional plea agreements. <p> <center>II.</center> <p> <em>Fourth Amendment Violation (Borrego and Martell)</em> <p> Borrego and Martell contend all evidence seized during the traffic stop should have been suppressed because Officer Alexander violated their Fourth Amendment rights.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1342.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appeals the district court's sua sponte dismissal of her claim for lack of jurisdiction under the Rooker Feldman doctrine.(1) We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. 1291. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Bergman is a federal prisoner and the mother of minor child KWB. Her petition was denied. Bergman's sole avenue of recourse was to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court under 28 U.S.C. 1257. Arguing that she was denied due process because she was not given adequate notice of. The district court concluded that its jurisdiction was foreclosed because Ms. Determined that she was attempting to challenge the juvenile court's decision by appealing to a lower federal court. Bergman argues that Rooker Feldman is not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug98/97-6023.opn.html">STEANS V. COMBINED INS. CO. OF AM. (8/4/1998, NO. 97-6023)<BR></A><BR> Order prohibiting future punitive damages awards was not binding on Aldridge and Williams and that Aldridge and Williams did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the orders enjoining their state court claims for punitive damages. The aggregate amount of the settlements agreed to be paid is four and a half times Combined's entire statutory profits earned during the whole of the ten year period between 1985 and 1994 in the State of Alabama. . . . The ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages paid in these settlements is more than 125 to 1. . . . The payment by Combined of the amounts it has either paid or agreed to pay is sufficient to punish Combined for the alleged Misconduct and to deter Combined and others from similar Misconduct in the future. . . . This Court will retain jurisdiction of this case for purposes of enforcing this Order and the settlement of this case. Evidence relating to Combined's operation in the entire state of Alabama.</P> <P><U>Id.</U> at 7.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/09/016020P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lurie was a general and managing partner of the firm. Debtor's bankruptcy case was commenced on March 26. Debtor then converted the case to one under chapter 11 and Appellee Robert Blackwell ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct97/96-6696.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AT ROUTE 1, BRYANT, ALABAMA<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. The government subsequently amended its complaint to include among the items sought to be forfeited several automobiles and currency belonging to Michael Hamilton.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/09/02-6198.htm">02-6198 -- DAVIS V. U.S. OF AMERICA -- 09/10/2003<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2002/97-2618.ord2.html">UNITED STATES V. SIGMA INT'L, INC. (8/6/2002, NO. 97-2618)<BR></A><BR> We were informed the parties had negotiated a settlement of the case. Which was part of the agreement. We now have before us the appellants' motion to vacate the 1997 judgments of conviction and sentence of each of the defendants in this appeal. We grant that motion. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C9D33A3EF8BC665C88256D95005BFD72/$file/9899002.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> STEWART 12713 I It is the raw material from which legal fiction is forged: A vicious murder. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0221a-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These are three consolidated appeals from judgments of the district court allowing the bankruptcy trustee to avoid mortgages held by the defendants. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). Our review is de novo. We must decide whether the trustee was entitled to avoid the three mortgages under Ohio law. A bankruptcy trustee </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct20/03-41377-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because this Court finds we do not have appellate jurisdiction to review either the judgment of acquittal or the denial of the motion for reconsideration of the suppression. Which Agent Jesus Garcia ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C49E8C23A000055288256CA2007AA2C8/$file/0156735.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was wrongly decided by the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. A wide variety of actions to enforce debts of the bankruptcy petitioner are subject to the automatic stay. There then follows in Section 362(b) a list of types of actions against the debtor which are not automatically stayed. Claims that have been declared nondischargeable by a bankruptcy court are not among the eighteen kinds of listed actions to which the automatic stay does not apply. Providing that: (1) the stay of an act against property of the estate . . . continues until such property is no longer property of the estate. (2) the stay of an any other act . . . continues until the earliest of (A) (B) the time the case is closed. The time the case is dismissed. Or 70 IN RE: CADY (C) if the case is a case under chapter 7 of this title concerning an individual or a case under chapter 9. The time a discharge is granted or denied. 11 U.S.C. § 362(c). The property against which the creditor seeks to enforce a debt </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-6377.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Michael Kokoski is incarcerated in West Virginia serving sentences for a 1994 conviction for employing a person under age 18 to distribute lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) and a subsequent conviction for escape from a federal institution. Both convictions were in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia and were affirmed on appeal by the United (1) After examining the briefs and appellate record. The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Kokoski was temporarily housed at the federal transfer center in Oklahoma City. He sought to have his convictions set aside because of (1) alleged constitutional defects in the seizure of evidence used to secure his drug conviction and (2) the involuntariness of his guilty pleas in both cases. He explained that he sought relief under 2241 because a motion under 2255 was inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. It found no basis for concluding that 2255 was inadequate or ineffective in this case and therefore determined that Mr. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-51304.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We agree with the district court that this action is barred under the Rooker Feldman doctrine. Because appellant is Pursuant to 5TH CIR. The Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Those judgments are not void for lack of jurisdiction so as to fall within an exception to the doctrine. When the federal </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012090.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Opinion filed 9/19/02 is reinstated. Opinion filed 9/19/02 is vacated. That it is void for vagueness. Was summarized more fully in Bryant I. A regulated abortion clinic is defined as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011823.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 1 the paragraph is corrected to begin </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2000/99-13880.man.html">BOLIN V. STORY (9/6/2000, NO. 99-13880)<BR></A><BR> Plaintiff Lloyd Thompson was convicted of a drug conspiracy in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Thompson's conviction and sentence were affirmed by this Court in an unpublished opinion on July 15. Thompson asserts that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2002/014052.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is principally owned by Thomas O. The substantive claims asserted by the parties are actually relatively simple: the Coffeys claim that Kool Mann owes them the balance remaining of the $5 million purchase price from the sale of LCSDI. While Kool Mann contends that it is entitled to a number of set offs against that balance because of alleged misrepresentations by the Coffeys as well as certain other deductions. It is the tortured procedural history of this matter which makes this appeal exceedingly and unnecessarily complex. We have detailed only those facts that bear on our current disposition.1 In light of the protracted nature of this litigation and the length of time and judicial resources it has consumed. We have taken it upon ourselves to determine the value of the Coffeys' proof 1. The facts of this case have been well documented in a number of previously published opinions. We have done so even though under normal circumstances we might have been inclined to remand to the District Court for a remand to the Bankruptcy Court to recalculate the damage figures. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2002/013016.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to review the district court's denial of a motion to suppress physical evidence that the defendant filed before entering a conditional guilty plea under Fed. It was later discovered that the 911 call was placed by 12 year old Diane McKnight. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. The girl was later identified as Diane McKnight. McKnight told the officer that her mother and her mother's boyfriend were inside the apartment fighting. After announcing that he was a police officer. Again announced that he was a police officer. The officer asked Bennett where the other person was. Bennett told him that no one else was upstairs. Her voice was shaky and she appeared upset. He was carrying a black school bag. Officer Azzarano handcuffed Myers' hands behind his back as he was lying face down on the floor and proceeded to pat him down. Myers responded that it was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-4219.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Federal District Judge Tena Campbell was mandatorily disqualified from sitting on this case. Therefore all orders she entered were void as a matter of law. 2. Tax injunction and Quiet Title Act claims against the United States should not have been dismissed for failure to comply with administrative filing requirements. 3. Individual federal defendants named in the action should not have been dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. <hr> 4. The district court should not have dismissed defendants on the basis of res judicata. 5. The district court should not have dismissed defendants on the basis of statute of limitations. 6. The district court should not have dismissed defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction. 7. The district court should not have dismissed claims against Eli Lilly & Company. The district court should not have dismissed plaintiffs' Administrative Procedures Act (APA) claims against the State of California. 9. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B4E80A1093259F1E88256A1F005EB230/$file/9916109.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Albanos obtained a loan from Norwest which was secured by a mortgage on real property. Which may have been the Albanos principal residence. 1 At a later date. The loan was refinanced with Norwest and continued to be secured by the real property. There is no dispute that the Albanos received notice of those proceedings. Their default was entered. It declared that the mortgage was valid. That it was foreclosed. That the Albanos were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1139A.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ortiz Alvarez</SPAN> were on brief for the Municipality of Adjuntas. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1139REVOPN.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ortiz Alvarez</SPAN> were on brief for the Municipality of Adjuntas. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/06/00-6329.htm">00-6329 -- WILLIAMS V. HARGETT -- 06/05/2001<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Petitioner seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) in order to appeal the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1998/98a1962p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Whiteford argues that Rooker Feldman is inapplicable because no state court addressed the merits of his claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. S 1291 because the district court's dismal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1970.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/00-6116.htm">00-6116 -- LANE V. OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT -- 08/03/2000<BR></A><BR> The Oklahoma County court failed to issue a default judgment to which he was entitled and the Oklahoma Supreme Court failed to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Oklahoma County court to enter the judgment. Lane sought </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1713.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Xifaras & Bullard was on brief. Toomey and Lehane were on brief. It is said that coming events SELYA. 118 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug96/94-5084.opa.html">MACCAFERRI GABIONS, INC. V. DYNATERIA INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Maccaferri Gabions. J bid for and was awarded the general contract for Section 5 of the project. Which are stone filled wire mesh baskets used in erosion control and other earth retention projects. Maccaferri was paid in full for those materials. The sureties on those bonds were James Sugg and Ruben Ham. It further began re engineering its production line to produce the extra large gabions needed for the project.<p> Because of the large size of this order and because Maccaferri was unsure of M &. Maccaferri delivered on June 2 what was supposed to be the first of several shipments of gabions. Although most of the gabions had not yet been incorporated into the project so that the Corps was not contractually bound to pay W &. A was supposed to pay for any gabions delivered to the site within thirty days of their delivery. A was in serious trouble. Maccaferri was never paid the balance due on its June. Nor were a large portion of those gabions ever incorporated into the project. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/96opinions/96-1045a.html">AULENBACK INC V. FHA<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3779_031.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That motion was denied. Facts Spamhaus is a non profit company limited by guarantee and organized under the laws of the United Kingdom. It is an internet watchdog group in the business of identifying and blocking internet </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/02/99-8047.htm">99-8047 -- U.S. V. LIBRETTI -- 02/17/2000<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Defendant. Libretti was charged with multiple gun and drug violations under 21 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/10/962543P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was an occupant of a semi tractor truck owned by his father. Rodney was seriously injured in the accident. Canal's claim against Rodney Ashmore was tried before the district court without a jury. The district court identified three issues pertinent to the question of whether coverage exists under the policy: (1) whether Rodney was an employee of Dale Ashmore at the time of the accident. (2) whether Rodney was driving the truck 2 with Dale's permission at the time of the accident. (3) whether the policy's Occupant Hazard Exclusion is unenforceable as contrary to Arkansas public policy. The district court exercised its equitable discretion to refrain from considering the first two factual issues whether Rodney was either an employee or the driver of the truck at the time of the accident out of deference to the concurrent Mississippi state court proceedings. The OHE endorsement is printed in decidedly larger type than the policy and is on a separate page. The OHE endorsement specifically states that it is part of the policy to which it is attached. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1998/98a1883p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we conclude that the Gullas' claims are not barred by that doctrine. The Gullas were first informed of the Board's approval in July 1994 when Lindencreek notified them that construction of the subdivision would interfere with their spring. Which was located on land within the new subdivision. The Gullas further alleged that the Board's decision to approve the Lindencreek subdivision was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052253p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case presents the Court with the issue of whether neighboring property owners who allege that their property values will be diminished and their neighborhood blighted by the construction of a storage facility have standing to sue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The focus of this case is the propriety of the Darby Township Zoning Hearing Board's ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-2044.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Hunter & Altshuler were on brief for appellants. Begel and Friedman & Babcock were on brief for appellee. Holding that because the notice requirement of Rule 55(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was not observed. Because Appellants provided strong evidence that the damage award was erroneously calculated. Particularly the licenses and inventory of a Maine corporation which was in default on its obligations to Plaintiff Appellee Key Bank of Maine ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/10/98-1414.htm">98-1414 -- U.S. V. AHLENIUS -- 10/19/1999<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec99/98-5266.man.html">AM. BANKERS INS. CO. OF FLORIDA V. NORTHWESTERN NAT'L INS. CO. (12/30/1999, NO. 98-5266)<BR></A><BR> These payments satisfied personal injury claims asserted against Dow by women who had received silicone breast implants.</P> <P> Dow was directly insured by Hartford through two policies: (1) a comprehensive general liability policy of $1 million on a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/01/01-1069.htm">01-1069 -- CRUMP V. U.S. -- 01/30/2002<BR></A><BR> The property in question was Crump's residence. Appellees Michael Pippin and Judy Pippin ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1998/98a1798p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction to review thefinal orders of the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. The Secretary of Banking at the time of the events we describe was Sarah W. This 1991 agreement was prompted when Meritor proposed that its 12% Subordinated Capital Noteholders ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec2000/00-15981.ma2.html">SIEGEL V. LEPORE (12/6/2000, NO. 00-15981)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/02/01-3157.htm">01-3157 -- ROGLER V. STANDARD INSURANCE CO. -- 02/28/2002<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff Edar Y. Rogler is appealing. Rogler was working as an attorney in California. Rogler failed to execute proper authorization forms for the release of medical records so that Standard could continue to evaluate whether she was disabled. The doctor who performed the evaluation concluded that she was able to return to work as an attorney and that there was no reasonable basis to support a disability claim. <p> Standard's quality assurance unit subsequently reviewed the termination of Ms. The medical information in her file indicated that she was capable of working as an attorney. Rogler that there were material omissions in her policy application concerning her past medical history. Rogler was not disabled from working as an attorney. Which is referred to above. <p> Ms. A hearing on the motion was held before the magistrate judge on September 29. The parties further agreed that the policy was thereafter void. Both checks were subsequently negotiated.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/03/98-6310.htm">98-6310 -- MEHDIPOUR V. CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY -- 03/05/1999<BR></A><BR> The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff Ali Mehdipour. 1291 and affirm. <p> We have occasion to once again revisit segments of the tortured history of these proceedings. <em>See. We dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order was not final or otherwise immediately appealable. They contended under Rule 60(b)(4) that the 1995 order was erroneous and therefore void. Finding it was not filed within a reasonable time and the facts did not demonstrate the exceptional circumstances needed to vacate a judgment under either Rule 60(b)(4) or 60(b)(6). <p> In reviewing the district court's determination that its judgment is not void under Rule 60(b)(4). Setting aside a judgment on voidness grounds is narrowly restricted. We recognize that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19945084.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> W & J bid for and was awarded the general contract for Section 5 of the project. Which are stone filled wire mesh baskets used in erosion control and other earth retention projects. A Maccaferri was no claims arise out of that contractor with whom Maccaferri previously had dealt. M & A also delivered performance and the sureties on those bonds were James Another contractor. Because of the large size of this order and because Maccaferri was unsure of M & A's creditworthiness. Maccaferri delivered on June 2 what was supposed to be the first of several shipments of gabions. Although most of the gabions had not yet been incorporated into the project so that the Corps was not contractually bound to pay W & J for their inclusion. M & A was supposed to pay for any gabions delivered to the site within thirty days of their delivery. By mid August it became apparent that M & A was in serious trouble. Maccaferri was never paid the balance due on its June. Nor were a large portion of those gabions ever incorporated into the project. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19954731.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Leach was not added as a loss payee. 1 Other companies also intervened but have been dismissed during the course of this litigation. Holding that the facts did not support reformation under Florida law and that the Consignors' interest in recovery was subject to the policy's conditions and exclusions. That the payments were unethical and in violation of Rule 4 3.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The court thus held that the Consignors could recover pursuant to the legal liability provisions because the coverage exclusions were severable and only precluded the recovery of the assured who arranged the theft. The Consignors have no direct right of recovery and their interests are subject to the terms and exclusions of the policy. The Consignors are barred from recovery where the named insured cannot recover or where the policy has been breached. (2) recovery is barred because the district court previously granted summary judgment to Lloyds against the named assureds Credini. The district court incorrectly computed the prejudgment interest from the date of loss rather than from the date that the payments were due. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19955137.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was formed and received all of the assets and liabilities of Barth Industries. Which was the sole shareholder of Barth Industries. The remaining one percent interest was acquired by BIC 2 1 of the contract. Therefore was liable under the theory of promissory estoppel for Barth's nonperformance. We conclude that the court should have granted Nesco judgment as a matter of law. Manufactures semi finished polymer opthalmic lenses that are used in the production of eyeglasses. These lenses are created by an assembly line process. The assembly is inspected and then heated and cured until the Corporation. The final judgment in this case was entered against Barth Industries. The lens is removed from the mold assembly through a process called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19955137.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Therefore was liable under the theory of promissory estoppel for Barth's nonperformance. Was formed and received all of the assets and liabilities of Barth Industries. Which was the sole shareholder of Barth Industries. The remaining one percent interest was acquired by BIC Corporation. The final judgment in this case was entered against Barth Industries. We conclude that the court should have granted Nesco judgment as a matter of law. Manufactures semi finished polymer opthalmic lenses that are used in the production of eyeglasses. These lenses are created by an assemblyline process. The assembly is inspected and then heated and cured until the monomer solidifies into a plastic lens. The lens is removed from the mold assembly through a process called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19966696.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The government subsequently amended its complaint to include among the items sought to be forfeited several automobiles and currency belonging to Michael Hamilton.1 A second forfeiture proceeding was filed by the government against an automobile and currency belonging to John Marvin Lawman that had been seized from the Hamiltons' property. Criminal proceedings were instituted against Michael Hamilton and John Lawman for illegal drug trafficking based. The claimants were represented by Charles A. The initial charges against Hamilton and Lawman were dismissed in September. They were reindicted. The civil actions were stayed pending the disposition of the criminal cases.3 Hamilton and Lawman were convicted in November. Have remained incarcerated since that date. One year after the stay of the civil actions was imposed. No criminal indictment was pending against either Hamilton or Lawman. 2 the district court strike all claims to the properties involved in the forfeiture cases. It is undisputed that McGee also was suspended from practicing before the United States District Court in Alabama beginning July 6. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19972618.ord2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We were informed the parties had negotiated a settlement of the case. Which was part of the agreement. We now have before us the appellants' motion to vacate the 1997 judgments of conviction and sentence of each of the defendants in this appeal. We also have before us a motion by attorney Michael Rubinstein for a nameclearing hearing. Is not a party. Nor is he an attorney who represents a party in this appeal. His chief contention is that the harsh criticism of his conduct in the Sigma I and Sigma II panel opinions amounts to a disciplinary sanction in the nature of a public reprimand. Which was imposed without his having notice or an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him and to be heard about them. He argues that due process dictates that he have a name clearing hearing and asks that we direct the district court to hold one. Thereby indicating that he was being formally reprimanded. The decisions that Rubinstein relies on to support his position are mostly from cases in which attorneys were saddled with formal sanctions ranging from disqualification. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/97-5127.htm">97-5127 -- LAWRENCE V. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY -- 01/15/1999<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff brought suit seeking to recover for fire losses allegedly covered by a homeowner's policy issued by defendant and for bad faith breach of contract by defendant. Plaintiff responded by arguing that the policy's provision regarding misrepresentation is broader than permitted by Okla. 4803 and therefore is void. She alleged that even if the provision is valid. Summary judgment is appropriate </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/12/98-9502.htm">98-9502 -- MATLOCK V. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD -- 12/03/1998<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Petitioner Bertha L. Because the Board's decision is supported by substantial evidence and is legally correct. Petitioner claimed she was the widow of decedent. A hearing officer determined that petitioner was not the legal widow of decedent. His conclusion rested on two findings: (1) petitioner's marriage to decedent was void because decedent was already married to Donna Matlock (formerly Waldon) at the time. Petitioner's subsequent marriages and that of decedent were presumed valid. This petition for review followed. <p> Petitioner and decedent were both married on numerous occasions. Some of these marriages were valid. Others were not. Donna Waldon was granted an interlocutory decree of divorce from Robert Waldon in California. Donna Waldon and Robert Waldon were granted a final judgment of divorce in California. <p> August 27. Petitioner and decedent were granted a decree of divorce in Tulsa County. The divorce decree between petitioner and decedent was set aside in Tulsa County. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug98/97-6023.opn.html">STEANS V. COMBINED INS. CO. OF AM. (8/4/1998, NO. 97-6023)<BR></A><BR> Order prohibiting future punitive damages awards was not binding on Aldridge and Williams and that Aldridge and Williams did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the orders enjoining their state court claims for punitive damages. The aggregate amount of the settlements agreed to be paid is four and a half times Combined's entire statutory profits earned during the whole of the ten year period between 1985 and 1994 in the State of Alabama. . . . The ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages paid in these settlements is more than 125 to 1. . . . The payment by Combined of the amounts it has either paid or agreed to pay is sufficient to punish Combined for the alleged Misconduct and to deter Combined and others from similar Misconduct in the future. . . . This Court will retain jurisdiction of this case for purposes of enforcing this Order and the settlement of this case. Evidence relating to Combined's operation in the entire state of Alabama.</P> <P><U>Id.</U> at 7.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec99/98-5266.man.html">AM. BANKERS INS. CO. OF FLORIDA V. NORTHWESTERN NAT'L INS. CO. (12/30/1999, NO. 98-5266)<BR></A><BR> These payments satisfied personal injury claims asserted against Dow by women who had received silicone breast implants.</P> <P> Dow was directly insured by Hartford through two policies: (1) a comprehensive general liability policy of $1 million on a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1999/977552.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Asserting that Herre Bros. was bound to the 1995 agreement. The threshold issue is whether these appeals and cross appeals should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Further explanation of the procedural posture of this case is necessary. The district court determined that Herre Bros. was bound to the 1995 collective bargaining agreement with the Union because its conduct after it withdrew its bargaining rights from the SMCA invalidated that withdrawal. We determined that the August 27 Order was not final within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. That the portion of the order directing specific performance was immediately appealable as an interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. The appeals at issue here were filed in response to two district court orders entered after the August 27 Order. The district courtfiled another order in which it corrected clerical errors contained in the judgment that was filed pursuant to the September 19 Order. Otherwise the substance of the September 19 and September 23 Orders is identical. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/09/013859P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Gisslen argues that the district court erred in its determination that his claims are barred by the Rooker Feldman doctrine. Their first encounter was a condemnation proceeding which resulted in the City obtaining a sewer easement on Gisslen's property. The City was required to maintain the easement. United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 2 1 City Council was still interested in acquiring the property. That he was not interested in selling his property to the City because he intended to build his family's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/97-6322.htm">97-6322 -- WELCH V. CREDIT ADJUSTMENT CO. INC. -- 09/22/1998<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants on her several claims of violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and related state law claims. 984 n.7 (10th Cir. 1994) (holding issue not raised in opening brief on appeal is waived). <p> First. Plaintiff argues that defendants violated the FDCPA because the Oklahoma state court default judgment in the collection action against her was void. Plaintiff maintains that venue was improper because Oklahoma law requires that the action involving an assigned claim be brought in the county of plaintiff's residence. We will not address this argument on appeal because plaintiff did not first present it to the district court. <u>See</u> <u>Walker v. Plaintiff argued that defendants were in violation of 15 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200612/05-5052a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> O:\Slip\WP\2006\05 5052 Smalls15a.odl.wpd
	BMC INDUS., INC. V. BARTH INDUS., INC. (11/18/1998, NO. 95-5137) Therefore was liable under the theory of promissory estoppel for Barth's nonperformance. A jury resolved the breach of contract and promissory estoppel issues in favor of BMC. We conclude that the court should have granted Nesco judgment as a matter of law. Manufactures semi finished polymer opthalmic lenses that are used in the production of eyeglasses. These lenses are created by an assembly line process. The assembly is inspected and then heated and cured until the monomer solidifies into a plastic lens. The lens is removed from the mold assembly through a process called
	UNITED STATES V. CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AT ROUTE 1, BRYANT, ALABAMA This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > United States v. The government subsequently amended its complaint to include among the items sought to be forfeited several automobiles and currency belonging to Michael Hamilton.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0029p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is an Ohio prisoner serving a life sentence following his state court conviction for rape. Relying on our ruling in Abela that the time to file a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is tolled until the conclusion of the 90 day period for seeking Supreme Court review of a state court denial of post conviction relief. Stokes asserted that his earlier habeas corpus petition filed pre Abela was improperly dismissed as untimely by the district court. Individuals like Stokes were permitted to file timely petitions for issuance of the writ of habeas corpus at any time prior to April 24. AEDPA further provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug96/94-5084.opa.html">MACCAFERRI GABIONS, INC. V. DYNATERIA INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Maccaferri Gabions. J bid for and was awarded the general contract for Section 5 of the project. Which are stone filled wire mesh baskets used in erosion control and other earth retention projects. Maccaferri was paid in full for those materials. The sureties on those bonds were James Sugg and Ruben Ham. It further began re engineering its production line to produce the extra large gabions needed for the project.<p> Because of the large size of this order and because Maccaferri was unsure of M &. Maccaferri delivered on June 2 what was supposed to be the first of several shipments of gabions. Although most of the gabions had not yet been incorporated into the project so that the Corps was not contractually bound to pay W &. A was supposed to pay for any gabions delivered to the site within thirty days of their delivery. A was in serious trouble. Maccaferri was never paid the balance due on its June. Nor were a large portion of those gabions ever incorporated into the project. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002137.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> District Judge: In this appeal we are asked to decide whether a debtor who has filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy may </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0173p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Page 2 Plaintiffs' action was not ripe in part. Substantive Facts Plaintiffs are landowners along the old Milan Canal in Erie County. LLC were all parties to a prior state court proceeding in which Erie County Metroparks sought a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs possessed no property interest in a 150 foot wide corridor along the old canal. Metroparks claimed to be the valid assignee of an infinite duration leasehold interest in that corridor and was interested in transforming the corridor into a recreational trail. The only lands owned by the Milan Canal Company at the time the Lease was executed lay within the boundaries of the Kneeland Townsend property and the Ebeneser Merry property. Plaintiff Wikel Farms was not a party to the prior state court proceeding. Wikel Farms is currently involved in an appropriation action brought by Erie County Metroparks against Wikel Farms in state court. Which is Metroparks' estimated valuation of the disputed property. That suit is not yet resolved. Was final in September 2002. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june98/97-4143.man.html">UNITED STATES V. BIRO (6/17/1998, NO. 97-4143)<BR></A><BR> Alon and Arce were convicted of conspiring to send electronic surreptitious surveillance devices ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200310725.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendants herein proceeded to trial and were found guilty. I. This trial clearly demonstrates the inherent danger in a multi defendant conspiracy prosecution that individuals who are not actually members of the group will be swept into the conspiratorial net. Because the government is permitted broad prosecutorial discretion to prove the conspiracy. The likelihood exists that those who associate with conspirators will be found guilty of a crime that they have not intended to commit. This danger is compounded when the grand jury indicts on one theory of the illegal conduct. We have seen such conspiracy prosecutions before. The district court was persuaded to permit the government to proceed upon the assumption that the controlling law of mail fraud would change prior to the end of trial. Was both irrelevant and highly prejudicial. We held that fundamental due process was denied the defendants and vacated their convictions. In violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371.1 The defendants were alleged to have used the United States mails in furtherance of a scheme and artifice to defraud McDonald's Corporation (McDonald's). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200314051.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With some assistance from a Georgia company of which he was CEO. A friend all of whom are also defendants in the case in violation of Georgia's fraudulent transfer statutes. This is Chepstow's appeal. During the pendency of that action sometime between February 2001 and May 2002 Chepstow acquired all of Tapir's rights in the action and was substituted as the plaintiff. To a Georgia limited partnership of which Hunt and his wife are general partners. A public company of which Hunt is CEO and in which he owned more than 20% of all outstanding shares. The district court issued an order dismissing Count 1 of the complaint on the ground that the enactment of the UFTA without a savings clause preserving § 182 22 not only repealed that provision insofar as future events were concerned. The district court ruled in the alternative that even if § 18 2 22 were not repealed by the UFTA. The court reasoned that because Horizon was neither a debtor nor a transferee. It was not subject to liability under 4 an aider and abettor theory for claims brought pursuant to § 18 2 22. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/12/02-7021.htm">02-7021 -- VANDERBILT MORTGAGE V. IMOTICHEY -- 12/19/2002<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance. Our review is de novo. <em>See</em> <em>EEOC v. 514 (10th Cir. 1998) (while denial of new trial is generally reviewed under abuse of discretion standard. . its determination on that question is reviewed <em>de novo</em> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec2000/00-15981.ma2.html">SIEGEL V. LEPORE (12/6/2000, NO. 00-15981)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C03/03-41377-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because this Court finds we do not have appellate jurisdiction to review either the judgment of acquittal or the denial of the motion for reconsideration of the suppression. Which Agent Jesus Garcia ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2002/97-2618.ord2.html">UNITED STATES V. SIGMA INT'L, INC. (8/6/2002, NO. 97-2618)<BR></A><BR> We were informed the parties had negotiated a settlement of the case. Which was part of the agreement. We now have before us the appellants' motion to vacate the 1997 judgments of conviction and sentence of each of the defendants in this appeal. We grant that motion. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2062.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> An excessive force claim is subsumed in an unlawful arrest claim. We reject the notion that an excessive force claim is subsumed in an unlawful arrest claim in the facts presented by this case. These Defendants' motions for partial summary judgment were denied without prejudice pending further discovery. Covington were dispatched to Plaintiffs' residence. Rick Cortez was asleep when he was suddenly awakened by noises and lights in his fenced (1) Plaintiff Rick Cortez is actually the husband of the babysitter Tina Cortez. <hr> back yard. He repeatedly inquired what was going on. Placed him in the back of a patrol car where he was subjected to questioning. Tina Cortez was awakened by her husband as he got out of bed. The officer placed her in a separate patrol car where she was subjected to questioning. Miranda warnings are required for custodial interrogation occasioned by an arrest. Rick Cortez also informed the officers that his handcuffs were too tight and caused excessive pain. Despite his declaration and the fact that Rick Cortez supposedly was not under arrest. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200611209.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Return of Service filed by the process servers asserted that service of process was attempted in Martin's medical office in January 2000. A subsequent state court evidentiary hearing regarding the sufficiency of service revealed that Martin was treating patients at a hospital away from his medical office during the time the process server allegedly attempted to serve Martin. Martin's bankruptcy case was subsequently converted to a case under Chapter 7. Asserting that the default judgment was void for failure of service of process and that he never received the Note. An order is final and appealable if it resolves a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/01/97-5117.htm">97-5117 -- U.S. V. MARTIN -- 01/30/1998<BR></A><BR> The case is ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Defendant Jackie Lynn Martin. 3559(c). <p> Martin was sentenced on June 13. He contended one of his predicate convictions was void because the governing juvenile statute which permitted him to be sentenced as an adult had been found to be violative of the Equal Protection Clause by mandating sex based discrimination. <u>See</u> <u>Kelley v. Stated the proper procedure was to proceed with the appeal and that the constitutional question could be decided in another proceeding. The motion was referred to the panel for consideration after briefing on the merits. <p> In his brief on appeal. Martin contends (1) the case should be remanded because one of the predicate convictions is void. (2) one of the predicate convictions is stale. The government's response brief specifically requests this court to grant a partial remand for the purpose of ascertaining whether one of the predicate convictions is void. <p> Rule 35(c) permits the district court to correct a sentence as a result of technical. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-51351.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under * The Cadle Company (Cadle) filed a lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging constitutional due process violations in connection with the issuance and enforcement of a 1996 contempt decree which culminated in a $461. The only issues raised on appeal concern whether the district court erred in assessing the allegations of the complaint and whether Cadle's claims are barred by Rooker Feldman. Although the district court was required to accept the allegations of the complaint as true. The district court was not required to accept as true the legal conclusion that the state court judgments were void for lack of jurisdiction. Cadle's due process argument is a constitutional claim arising in a state proceeding that is to be resolved by the state courts. We also note that it is undisputed and apparent from the allegations of the amended complaint that the challenged contempt orders were issued by a court with jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter and jurisdiction to enter the judgment rendered and which had the capacity to act as a court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov98/95-5137.man.html">BMC INDUS., INC. V. BARTH INDUS., INC. (11/18/1998, NO. 95-5137)<BR></A><BR> Therefore was liable under the theory of promissory estoppel for Barth's nonperformance.</P> <P> A jury resolved the breach of contract and promissory estoppel issues in favor of BMC. We conclude that the court should have granted Nesco judgment as a matter of law. Manufactures semi finished polymer opthalmic lenses that are used in the production of eyeglasses. These lenses are created by an assembly line process. The assembly is inspected and then heated and cured until the monomer solidifies into a plastic lens. The lens is removed from the mold assembly through a process called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/02E656A7D4B2E3FA8825725F00771BE3/$file/0536108.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The United States was liable for effecting an unconstitutional taking of Delay's cause of action when it abolished and de funded the Commission in 1981. So that the judgment against the Commission should be modified to be a judgment against the United States for which the United States Judgment Fund was liable. The Delay beneficiaries have appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I The Commission was established by Executive Order in 1967 by President Lyndon Johnson and charged with maintaining a joint plan for federal. The Delay children are beneficiaries of William Delay's estate ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2000/99-13880.man.html">BOLIN V. STORY (9/6/2000, NO. 99-13880)<BR></A><BR> Plaintiff Lloyd Thompson was convicted of a drug conspiracy in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Thompson's conviction and sentence were affirmed by this Court in an unpublished opinion on July 15. Thompson asserts that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/97-1238.htm">97-1238 -- SILVEY V. SEVERSON -- 12/22/1997<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Appellant Coral Silvey appeals the district court's order affirming an order of the bankruptcy court granting appellee trustee Robert Severson's motion for approval of sale of certain pieces of property from the bankruptcy estate of debtors Roman G. and Mary Madeleine Weninger. Silvey's claims were barred by res judicata. Silvey claims an interest have been in bankruptcy litigation since March 1989 when debtors filed for Chapter 11 protection. Silvey several weeks before filing the bankruptcy action were fraudulent pursuant to 11 . Her claims were precluded as res judicata. <p> We review a district court's conclusions of law as to the applicability of the doctrine of res judicata de novo. <u>See</u> <u>State Bank of S. A final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/12/021740P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case was tried to a jury on the issue of damages only. So we repeat it here: This case is the result of a collision between an automobile and a tractor trailer on June 30. Was killed. Carey and Purdy Brothers have admitted they are liable for Ryan Thompson's death. You will be asked to determine whether Ms. Harrison is entitled to money damages for her son's death in accordance with instructions that I will read to you later and. So that you may have some understanding of the facts surrounding Ryan Thompson's death and the wreck that caused it. The day was clear and the road was dry at the time of the accident. Ryan Thompson was on his way home after spending the night with his father. Ryan was lying down in the back seat of Mr. Their car was stopped on the westbound ramp from I 70 at the Highway 63 connector. Their car was struck from behind by a tractor trailer rig being driven by David Carey in the course and scope 2 of his employment with Purdy Brothers. Carey was traveling to Columbia from St. He was going approximately 60 65 m.p.h. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3362.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (1) The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument pursuant to Fed. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. R. 36.3. <hr> McKinnon was found guilty at an administrative disciplinary hearing of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1871EA3FD22B816A88256C0F0056939F/$file/0155953.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) filed proofs of claim against Debtors for unpaid employment taxes assessed against a partnership in which Debtors were general partners. The IRS's claims were properly disallowed because (1) the IRS cannot collect a partnership's tax deficiency directly from the partners without first making individualized assessments against the partners or obtaining judgments against the partners holding them jointly and severally liable for the partnership's tax debts. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Debtors were general partners of Marina Cabrillo Partners (the Partnership). The IRS argues that its timely assessment of taxes against the Partnership allows it to collect taxes directly from the individual partners even though no separate assessment of tax liability was made against them. Only if the levy is made or the proceeding begun (1) within 10 years after the assessment of the tax[.]. So long as the IRS brings an action to collect the taxes within three years after the taxpayer's return was filed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/10/96-4070.htm">96-4070 -- DESARIO V. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO. -- 10/20/1997<BR></A><BR> The plaintiff was a passenger in her mother's automobile when the car collided with another vehicle in Salt Lake City. Have incurred over $29. There is no dispute here regarding them. <p> Through her guardian ad litem. The insured is sued on a bodily injury claim by a member of her own household. In Wyoming it is $25. 000 (as it is in Utah). <u>See</u> Wyo. The policy was drafted by State Farm to conform with Wyoming law. Rosanna and Carly are both Wyoming residents. The step down clause is valid and State Farm is entitled to summary judgment. The step down clause is invalid under Utah law and she should be entitled to the full $100. A federal court must look to the conflict of law rules of the forum state to determine which state's law will control. <u>See</u> <u>Mountain Fuel Supply v. Given that the contract was negotiated in Wyoming. The Mitchells are residents of Wyoming. The car itself (the subject matter of the contract) was registered and garaged in Wyoming. The principal location of the automobile was Wyoming. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june98/97-4143.man.html">UNITED STATES V. BIRO (6/17/1998, NO. 97-4143)<BR></A><BR> Alon and Arce were convicted of conspiring to send electronic surreptitious surveillance devices ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july97/95-4731.opa.html">GOLDEN DOOR JEWELRY CREATIONS, INC. V. LLOYDS UNDERWRITERS NON-MARINE ASS'N<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Golden Door Jewelry Creations. Leach was not added as a loss payee.<p> On February 10. Holding that the facts did not support reformation under Florida law and that the Consignors' interest in recovery was subject to the policy's conditions and exclusions. <i>Golden Door III. That the payments were unethical and in violation of Rule 4 3.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The court thus held that the Consignors could recover pursuant to the legal liability provisions because the coverage exclusions were severable and only precluded the recovery of the assured who arranged the theft. <i>Golden Door V. The Consignors have no direct right of recovery and their interests are subject to the terms and exclusions of the policy. The Consignors are barred from recovery where the named insured cannot recover or where the policy has been breached. (2) recovery is barred because the district court previously granted summary judgment to Lloyds against the named assureds </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/40E591FE947FF24488256F79006F684C/$file/0256002.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The U.S. bankruptcy court and the U.S. district court have rendered conflicting judgments that decide the claims of the surviving spouse and that affect the distribution of the net property of the decedent's trust and probate estate. While active probate proceedings were pending in the courts of the State of Texas. In a cross appeal the surviving spouse seeks to reverse the district court's determination that the bankruptcy proceeding was not a core proceeding. Which reduced the sum she was awarded by the bankruptcy court. Incidentally we are required to determine whether the probate exception applies in a bankruptcy case. We have appellate jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Are bound by the probate exception to federal court jurisdiction and that we are required to refrain from deciding state law probate matters. No matter how the issue is framed by the parties. Howard Marshall II were initially named as co trustees of the 1982 trust. They were married on June 27. Last will and testament or conveyance in which Vickie Lynn Marshall is identified as a legatee. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2148.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Wood</SPAN> were on brief. Sullivan</SPAN> were on brief. Was on brief. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1858_015.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The substantive issues are governed by Illinois law. 2 No. 05 1858 The suit was filed. For reasons that are unclear. The foreclosure sale was not conducted until October 2004. Midwest was the high bidder. (The appraised value of the property was $170. Two or three weeks before the sale the Craddieths had obtained alternative financing that would have enabled them to retain their home: They had arranged for a loan in the form of a sale. That is. Thinking that therefore the Craddieths were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5E3B7D7DC3E67A1588256E5A00707AC7/$file/9916109.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Albanos obtained a loan from Norwest which was secured by a mortgage on real property. Which may have been the Albanos principal residence. 1 At a later date. The loan was refinanced with Norwest and continued to be secured by the real property. There is no dispute that the Albanos received notice of those proceedings. Their default was entered. It declared that the mortgage was valid. That it was foreclosed. That the Albanos were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/004269.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We also determine that the district court clearly erred in finding that Bowe's conduct was not violent and did not involve a serious threat of violence. I Bowe is a professional boxer and a former world heavyweight boxing champion. He is 65 tall and weighs 260 pounds. He was also armed with a buck knife. Bowe was located. Her upper body was covered by her pajama top. He would have killed both of them. Bowe on her left breast through a heavy jacket that she was wearing. Her attorney's secretary informed her that her attorney was not available. Her call to her brother was unanswered. Bowe also asked two elderly women who were in the restroom to contact the police to inform them that she was being kidnapped. Bowe was named in a one count indictment charging him with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2261(a)(2). That is from North Carolina to Virginia. That is. The plea agreement also provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="339"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1328.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Background The property at issue in this case is an approximate eight acre patented mining claim known as the Franklin Lode Mining Claim (Franklin). It is located in the White River National Forest. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. His interest was struck off to Pitkin County because he failed to pay the taxes. The two thirds interest in the Franklin was placed on the delinquent tax list. Because there were no bidders. It was struck off to the County through a treasurer's certificate of purchase. Copies of which were sent by registered mail to Lena Guile and Mr. When there was no response. Was recorded on October 20. Which was recorded August 17. His one third interest was offered for sale in 1908 by the Pitkin County Treasurer. Because there were no bidders. The interest was struck off to Pitkin County via a treasurer's certificate of purchase. Was later conveyed to the County in 1954 pursuant to a treasurer's deed. Plaintiff admitted that his claim is based solely on the twothirds interest in the Franklin that was retained by Mr. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1385.html">TRANSMATIC V. GULTON INDUSTRIES<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were Andrew M. Interest from the district court's initial judgment date to the remand judgment date should have been awarded at the postjudgment interest rate. The district court held that claim 1 was not proved to be invalid and was not literally infringed. That Gulton was liable for damages of approximately three million dollars in lost profits. Why certain expenses were fixed. The prejudgment interest rate awarded by the district court was several percentage points higher than the statutory postjudgment interest rate provided for under 28 U.S.C. 1961. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1295(a)(1) (1994).<p> <p> DISCUSSION<p> Gulton contends that Transmatic should have been awarded postjudgment interest for the interim period. Gulton asserts that the determination of the dividing line between pre and postjudgment interest is a procedural matter that requires us to follow Sixth Circuit law. The time when damages were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/9_opinions/90-3222a.html">USA V. CHILDRESS<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-5395a.html">FREEMAN CLYDE V. FDIC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-1169b.html">ALLI COMMTY MEDIA V. FCC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept97/95-3004.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. SCHLEI<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> Barbara Jean Bravender Ah Loo ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2002/02-14224.opn.html">MOBLEY V. HEAD (9/18/2002, NO. 02-14224)<BR></A><BR> Will determine our resolution of the issues Mobley raises in this appeal. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov99/97-5654.man.html">AGRIPOST, INC. V. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY (11/15/1999, NO. 97-5654)<BR></A><BR> <A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar96/94-9206.opa.html">ESCARENO V. CARL NOLTE SOHNE & CO.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Escareno v. The district court declined to order the substitution on the ground that the temporary administrator was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan95/94-7138.html">ROE V. ALABAMA<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Roe v. A representative of a class of persons who have sought to have their ballots counted in an action in the Circuit Court of Coosa County. That envelope must then be mailed to the appropriate county election official. <i>See</i> Ala.Code </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/96-6060.opa.html">CRAWFORD V. ANDREW SYS.,INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Crawford v. BACKGROUND<p> <p> Dwayne Davis was driving a van on an interstate highway while towing an empty flat bed trailer. That automobile was occupied by Lois and Wayne Kelley and their infant grandson. ANALYSIS<p> <p> Appellants argue that the Appellee's motion for a new trial was time barred under Rule 59(b). They maintain that the pre appeal judgment of the district court was not void. Even if it were. It is clear from this Court's decision in <i>Crawford</i> that the district court's initial judgment was unauthorized. <i>See id.</i> at 1154 (the district court </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug95/94-8335.opa.html">GRIFFIN V. KRAFT GEN. FOODS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Griffin v. The Plan provides workers with continuing health benefits and severance pay in an amount determined by length of service.<p> The Plan's benefits were conditioned on each employee's execution of a general release. Indicating that they would have to return the executed release by June 4 in order to receive their severance pay on their last day of work. The explanation accompanying the releases also gave the ages and job titles of all the Decatur employees who would be laid off and hence were eligible for Plan benefits. KGF provided no age data regarding employees who were not eligible for Plan benefits.<p> The plaintiffs sued KGF to enjoin it from requiring releases from the employees who had not yet signed them<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept97/95-3004.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. SCHLEI<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> Barbara Jean Bravender Ah Loo ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2002/02-14224.opn.html">MOBLEY V. HEAD (9/18/2002, NO. 02-14224)<BR></A><BR> Will determine our resolution of the issues Mobley raises in this appeal. </SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov99/97-5654.man.html">AGRIPOST, INC. V. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY (11/15/1999, NO. 97-5654)<BR></A><BR> <A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar96/94-9206.opa.html">ESCARENO V. CARL NOLTE SOHNE & CO.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Escareno v. The district court declined to order the substitution on the ground that the temporary administrator was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan95/94-7138.html">ROE V. ALABAMA<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Roe v. A representative of a class of persons who have sought to have their ballots counted in an action in the Circuit Court of Coosa County. That envelope must then be mailed to the appropriate county election official. <i>See</i> Ala.Code </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug97/96-6060.opa.html">CRAWFORD V. ANDREW SYS.,INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Crawford v. BACKGROUND<p> <p> Dwayne Davis was driving a van on an interstate highway while towing an empty flat bed trailer. That automobile was occupied by Lois and Wayne Kelley and their infant grandson. ANALYSIS<p> <p> Appellants argue that the Appellee's motion for a new trial was time barred under Rule 59(b). They maintain that the pre appeal judgment of the district court was not void. Even if it were. It is clear from this Court's decision in <i>Crawford</i> that the district court's initial judgment was unauthorized. <i>See id.</i> at 1154 (the district court </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug95/94-8335.opa.html">GRIFFIN V. KRAFT GEN. FOODS<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Griffin v. The Plan provides workers with continuing health benefits and severance pay in an amount determined by length of service.<p> The Plan's benefits were conditioned on each employee's execution of a general release. Indicating that they would have to return the executed release by June 4 in order to receive their severance pay on their last day of work. The explanation accompanying the releases also gave the ages and job titles of all the Decatur employees who would be laid off and hence were eligible for Plan benefits. KGF provided no age data regarding employees who were not eligible for Plan benefits.<p> The plaintiffs sued KGF to enjoin it from requiring releases from the employees who had not yet signed them<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/feb96/92-5242.html">OLCOTT V. DELAWARE FLOOD CO.<BR></A><BR> We are called upon to resolve a fourteen year old federal securities dispute raising choice of law and sanctions issues. Bernard Olcott brought this Rule 10b 5 securities action alleging he was defrauded regarding his 1976 1979 investments in four limited partnerships. I. The interminable saga we have before us began when Mr. Alleging the limited partnerships were operated fraudulently. Delaware Flood Company was the general partner of all four limited partnerships. Layton Oil Company and William Douglas Layton were the general partners of Delaware Flood Company which was itself a limited partnership. Michael Galesi was intertwined with the affairs of the other parties in several ways. He was a promoter of the four limited partnerships and a limited partner in some of them. Galesi also originally was a limited partner of Delaware Flood Company and currently is its general partner. While this case was pending. Claim must be filed no more than three years after the underlying events and within one year after the fraud is discovered. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr96/95-4071.wpd.html">UNITED STATES V. MURDOCK MACHINE AND ENG. CO.<BR></A><BR> Are. See 50 U.S.C. 1431 36 (granting agency head authority to provide extraordinary relief to a contractor when a contract is deemed essential to the national defense). The default clause provided that if the government's default termination was proper. That if the government's default termination was improper. They are the Rules pertinent to the instant case. References hereinafter will be to the Bankruptcy Act of 1898 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/05/03-4177.htm">03-4177 -- ARMSTRONG V. RUSHTON -- 05/27/2004<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Appellant Donald E. Armstrong appeals a judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of this Circuit (BAP) affirming a temporary allowance order and rejecting Armstrong's argument that the order was void because the bankruptcy judge eventually recused herself. Although we are reviewing a judgment of the BAP. The decision of the bankruptcy court will not be overturned unless we are firmly and definitely convinced that the court made a clear error of judgment or exceeded the bounds of permissible choice. <em>Moothart v. Many of which have nothing to do with the temporary allowance order that is the subject of this appeal. We have reviewed the briefs. As we have noted in several other decisions issued this day. Armstrong's motion to file a supplemental appendix is GRANTED. The judgment of the BAP is AFFIRMED for substantially the same reasons stated by that panel in its order filed May 9. Baldock</a> <p> Circuit Judge <p> <hr> <center> <b>FOOTNOTES</b> <font size=2>Click footnote number to return to corresponding location in the text.</font> </center> <p> <a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/03/03-5039.htm">03-5039 -- MOORE V. BUSBY -- 03/03/2004<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> <p> Plaintiffs. The defendants are a state trial judge and an attorney who participated in a 2001 state court proceeding in Washington County. Plaintiffs were subsequently evicted from the property in 1994 pursuant to a quiet title action filed by the purchasers (Schraders). That action was also presided over by Judge Lanning. There is no indication plaintiffs appealed that decision. <p> Shortly after their state court action was dismissed. Holding that Judge Lanning was absolutely immune for his actions in the prior court proceedings. That Judge Lanning was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity for any claims brought against him in his official capacity. P. 60(b)(4) and alleging the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter its judgment because the judge was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/03/02-1554.htm">02-1554 -- WEIS BUILDERS INC. V. KAY S. BROWN LIVING TRUST -- 03/17/2004<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> <center>I.</center> <p> Defendants appellants Kay Brown Living Trust and Ryan S. Seeking a declaratory judgment that there was no contract between the parties. Arguing that the district court's order is interlocutory and. An interlocutory order granting an injunction against an arbitration that is subject to the Act is considered 'final' at least for the purposes of appeal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/04/02-8098.htm">02-8098 -- LAWRENCE V. MAHER -- 04/17/2003<BR></A><BR> Lawrence's motion to proceed <em>in forma pauperis</em> and dismiss his appeal. <p> The district court was technically correct that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not countenance </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/03/02-4085.htm">02-4085 -- LUNDAHL V. PUBLIC STORAGE MANAGEMENT INC. -- 03/18/2003<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff Holli Lundahl appeals the judgment of the district court dismissing her claims on the basis of improper venue. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/02-2086.htm">02-2086 -- MALDONADO V. ARCHULETA -- 02/20/2003<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Petitioner appellant Manuel Maldonado. Maldonado was charged with three counts of armed robbery with a deadly weapon. Maldonado pled no contest to two counts of armed robbery and aggravated battery and acknowledged that he was the same person previously convicted of three felonies. <p> Under the plea agreement. He was to be sentenced to thirty two years' incarceration with eighteen years of the sentence suspended. Maldonado then pursued state post conviction proceedings on the ground that his sentence was improperly enhanced based on a vacated conviction and that his trial counsel had afforded ineffective assistance by misrepresenting the potential consequences of proceeding to trial. Maldonado was correct in contending that a 1973 conviction for residential burglary. Because the 1973 conviction was void. Maldonado's sentence should have been based on two prior felonies. His attorney's calculation of his potential habitual offender enhancement was off by thirty two years and that the miscalculation affected his decision to plead guilty in order to receive an actual sentence of fourteen years. <p> Without holding an evidentiary hearing. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/01/02-5089.htm">02-5089 -- GARRETT V. OKLAHOMA CORP. COMMISSION -- 01/27/2003<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Dwayne Garrett. It is clear that Garrett's glib. One line </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/12/01-8089.htm">01-8089 -- R & G ELECTRIC INC. V. DEVON ENERGY CORP. -- 12/17/2002<BR></A><BR> The Parties and the Master Service Agreement</em> <p> Devon is an Oklahoma corporation in the business of producing oil and gas. Troubleshooting services in the Spotted Horse field. <p> Two provisions of the Master Service Agreement are relevant in this case. Any customer for whom operator is performing services. The nearest well was approximately 600 feet from the CDP. The farthest was approximately one mile away. <p> On June 5. Devon knew that the Wolff CDP 12 6 was operating without methane gas detectors. Were working on the pump. Asserting that his injuries were caused by Devon's negligence. An anti indemnity statute. <p> The parties stipulated that there was no dispute as to material facts and submitted cross motions for summary judgment. G performed under the Master Service Agreement were outside the scope of the Wyoming anti indemnity statute and that application of Oklahoma law did not. Summary judgment is appropriate if </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/12/01-4130.htm">01-4130 -- OLSEN V. LAYTON HILLS MALL -- 12/11/2002<BR></A><BR> The appeal was timely under Rule 4. Although the Visa card was valid and had not expired. Appellant was unaware that his mother Donna Olsen had asked for a new card to be issued because of prior billing concerns. Discover Card informed her that Appellant was using the card fraudulently and that she should confiscate it. Who advised her that he would return with a personal check to pay for the purchases. <p> While Appellant was en route from the Layton Hills Mall to his home and back again. Appellant was charged with fraudulent use of a financial transaction card. To verify that the card was not fraudulent. Reasoning that he would be unable to determine whether the voices on the other end of the line were indeed Appellant's parents. Allow </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/10/02-3056.htm">02-3056 -- U.S. V. NELSON -- 10/07/2002<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Dana Nelson. Nelson was convicted of conspiracy to possess cocaine base with intent to distribute. Nelson's direct appeal was affirmed by this court. <u>United States v. Should have determined the amount of cocaine base. Nelson also argued that the indictment was void under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(2) because it did not charge him with all of the elements of the offense. The court treated Nelson's Rule 12(b)(2) assertion as a section 2255 motion and denied Nelson relief since his sentence fell below the statutory maximum for both counts and <u>Apprendi</u> was not implicated. <p> <center>II.</center> <p> In <u>United States v. This court held that <u>Apprendi</u> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/10/01-3244.htm">01-3244 -- MOLINA V. CHRISTENSEN -- 10/15/2002<BR></A><BR> The proposed complaint was attached to the complaint seeking injunctive and declaratory relief and included causes of action for damages against Christensen and Appellants.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/09/00-6324.htm">00-6324 -- FLORES V. U.S. REPEATING ARMS CO. INC. -- 09/26/2001<BR></A><BR> These cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Michael Flores. Was shot and permanently injured when a . It is undisputed that CARSU manufactured the Rifle in 1983. While it was still . Majority of CARSU's assets were sold to the other defendant in this case. CARSU was dissolved in . That USRAC was not liable under any theories of successor liability. That Olin was not liable under general partnership law.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/00-5226.htm">00-5226 -- YALE 41 ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP V. FIVE SHOPPING CENTER COMPANY -- 08/10/2001<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiffs appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants on their complaint alleging breach of settlement agreement and seeking enforcement of a liquidated damages' provision therein. 1175 (10th Cir. 1999). <p> The parties are familiar with the facts and we only very briefly summarize those necessary to resolve this appeal. Dill was not released. A contractual provision in which damages for breach are determined in anticipation of that breach is void unless. The provision will be deemed void even if the damage resulting from a breach would be difficult to ascertain. <em>Sun Ridge Investors. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/06/00-7090.htm">00-7090 -- GRIMSLEY V. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ATOKA COUNTY -- 06/06/2001<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Pro se plaintiffs Jimmy L. and Carolyn S. Concluding that plaintiffs' claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/06/00-6368.htm">00-6368 -- MOUNCE V. BOONE -- 06/15/2001<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Petitioner Randy Glen Mounce. 2253(c)(2). <p> Petitioner pled guilty to a charge of first degree felony murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. All of petitioner's issues were framed as claims for ineffective assistance of counsel to avoid procedural bar. The district court adopted the recommendation and denied relief. <p> Petitioner argues on appeal that: (1) life without parole was not available once the State agreed to withdraw the bill of particulars. (2) the State must be held to its promises under the terms of the plea agreement and petitioner is entitled to specific performance. Also was totally void of Fourteenth Amendment notice. (5) petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal. F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 1998). <p> We have considered petitioner's arguments in light of the record on appeal. Deny a certificate of appealability for substantially the same reasons as those set forth in the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. <p> Petitioner's application for a certificate of appealability is denied. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/06/00-4133.htm">00-4133 -- U.S. V. $860,310 -- 06/13/2001<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/03/00-6170.htm">00-6170 -- ELLIS V. CAC FINANCIAL CORP. -- 03/26/2001<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiffs Gloria F. Claud Ellis is Gloria Ellis's ex husband. Both Claud and Gloria Ellis represented that Gloria Ellis was not a guarantor for the debt owed by Claud Ellis. We must begin by considering whether we have jurisdiction over the claims raised. We will consider the issues concerning appellate jurisdiction first. <u>See. They challenge the district court's order awarding Rule 11 sanctions to defendants. <p> The jurisdictional facts are as follows. 2000 order became final and appealable when the Rule 58 judgment was entered. This is true in spite of the fact that it left the amount of Rule 11 sanctions undetermined. <u>See</u> <u>Budinich v. 2000 notice of appeal from this order was timely. Their appeal from the summary judgment order therefore is now properly before us. <p> 2. 2000 notice of appeal was ineffective to appeal from the order denying appellants' Rule 60 motion. Appellants were required to file an amended notice of appeal after the motion was resolved. <u>See</u> <u>id.</u> Rule 4(a)(4)(B)(ii). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/12/00-2021.htm">00-2021 -- PAYNE V. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION -- 12/20/2000<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff William H. The matter was heard by Magistrate Judge Lorenzo Garcia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/10/99-1341.htm">99-1341 -- U.S. ENERGY CORP. V. NUKEM INC. -- 10/16/2000<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Defendants appeal the district court's order denying their motion for final satisfaction of judgment. We affirm. <p> The facts of this case are set out in the order and judgment disposing of defendants' previous appeal. <u>See</u> <u>U.S. The dispute now before us concerns the judgment for damages and imposition of a constructive trust pertaining to contracts to purchase uranium from members of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) which were obtained by Nukem. Some of the CIS contracts were to fulfill the supply requirements of five American utilities contracts ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/09/98-2349.htm">98-2349 -- BIELICKI V. TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL CO. -- 09/06/2000<BR></A><BR> Vigil were routinely finishing their duties as private food service workers at the New Mexico State Prison when Marquis Sanchez. Terminix stipulated that Sanchez had been negligent and that Terminix was vicariously liable for his negligence. The only issues tried were the amount of compensatory damages and the propriety and amount of punitive damages. A new trial or remittitur were denied by the district court. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/99-8029.htm">99-8029 -- APGAR V. STATE OF WYOMING -- 08/02/2000<BR></A><BR> Apgar was the first female patrolman to serve in Division C. <p> Ms. Apgar on her first day some people were not happy with her assignment to the division. Apgar quickly learned one of the patrolmen who was unhappy with her arrival was Carl Clements. Patrolman Clements was assigned to oversee Ms. Apgar felt Patrolman Clements was unsupportive from the beginning and hoped she would fail. When a citizen asked Patrolman Clements who was in his patrol car. Patrolman Clements was originally assigned as Ms. Apgar felt Patrolman Clements was openly hostile toward her on the firing range. Apgar to court as was the usual practice because Ms. Apgar's interactions with Sergeant Pudge were terse and unfriendly. Apgar sensed Sergeant Pudge was uncomfortable around her. Apgar as often as he should have and provided her first performance review in a public place with another patrolman present. She also claims she was regularly excluded from </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/99-4127b.htm">99-4127B -- JOHNSON V. RODRIGUES (OROZCO) -- 08/28/2000<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/99-4127.htm">99-4127 -- JOHNSON V. RODRIGUES -- 08/28/2000<BR></A><BR> Who were joined as defendants. We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/00-3118.htm">00-3118 -- LAMBROS V. BOOKER -- 06/13/2000<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Appellant John Gregory Lambros. [and] no other modification to the court's decision to dismiss the petition is warranted. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/99-6201.htm">99-6201 -- BUSSEY V. FLOWERS -- 04/26/2000<BR></A><BR> 550.58 is void for vagueness because the term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/03/99-2116.htm">99-2116 -- NORTON V. CURTIS -- 03/20/2000<BR></A><BR> Who were represented in the transaction and subsequent proceedings by attorney Stephen Curtis. The Nortons were required to contribute money to two reserve accounts subject to joint control of the Nortons and Mazers. Among the documents held by Weststar was a special warranty deed executed by the Nortons to the Mazers. Nortons were making appropriate payments into the two reserve accounts. Curtis sent a demand letter to the Nortons stating that they were in default and requesting that they cure the default. Including that the weekly amounts paid would be forfeited if the default was not cured. The state court was informed that the Nortons disputed the underlying default and that Weststar had filed an interpleader action. Curtis argued that the contract provisions regarding release of the escrow documents were mandatory once the Mazers presented Weststar with the recorded affidavit of uncured default. Concluding there was no showing he acted under color of state law. They contend that the preliminary injunction issued by the state court was void because it was entered in . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/01/99-1007.htm">99-1007 -- HORSEBACK INC. V. TABET -- 01/26/2000<BR></A><BR> Inc. is a Colorado corporation that owns two parcels of real property (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/11/98-5043.htm">98-5043 -- HUTCHINSON V. PFEIL -- 11/09/1999<BR></A><BR> Only facts pertinent to the issues now before the Court are repeated here. <p> <strong> A. A detailed background account is necessary. Plaintiff asserted that personal jurisdiction over Defendants existed in Oklahoma because of contacts that arose when the painting was displayed at the Philbrook Museum of Art in Tulsa. That venue was improper. Plaintiff was given the right to conduct discovery limited to the issues raised by Defendants' motion and did so. <p> The sanctions at issue were imposed on Plaintiff and his counsel by the magistrate judge at the conclusion of a hearing held on August 11. Argued at length on requests that were clearly outside the scope of the discovery allowed. The stated basis for the magistrate judge's decision was that he </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/09/98-1413.htm">98-1413 -- WILLIAMS V. HENDERSON -- 09/20/1999<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Petitioner Joseph L. Because we conclude that the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-6437.htm">98-6437 -- GOODMAN V. MEDICAL ENGINEERING CORP. -- 08/30/1999<BR></A><BR> It was not its intention. The case was transferred into federal multi district litigation (MDL) proceedings in Alabama. None of the remaining defendants opposed the motions for remand. <p> The question before us is whether. The cause of action against the remaining defendants stayed in state court or was also removed to the Oklahoma federal district court automatically or by some other means. Although she now seeks transfer of the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. <p> Federal removal jurisdiction is statutory in nature and is to be strictly construed. <em>See</em> <em>Shamrock Oil &. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/06/98-4178.htm">98-4178 -- DAY V. IOMEGA CORP. -- 06/03/1999<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff Roy A. He did not show that irreparable injury would result if the requested relief was not granted. Claiming that it was fraudulent and that the district court judge was biased. The case was reassigned to a different district court judge. This court advised Plaintiff that any of his pleadings which did not comply with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Tenth Circuit Rules would be stricken and that his petition for writ of mandamus is ineffective without a proper pleading and docket fee. No parties have yet been served. <p> Having thoroughly reviewed the record and Plaintiff Appellant's brief. The district court correctly reasoned that a defendant's failure to waive process under Rule 4(d) only results in the imposition of costs subsequently incurred in effecting service when both parties are located within the United States. <u>Cf.</u> <u>Rogers v. The intent of this rule is to eliminate the costs of formal service of process while ensuring that a defendant obtains notice of the suit and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/06/98-1219.htm">98-1219 -- WOLLAN V. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR -- 06/16/1999<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff James A. P. 4(a)(1)(B) (when United States is a party. 245 (1992) (holding that federal appellate jurisdiction is conditioned on filing a timely notice of appeal). <p> The federal rules do not recognize a motion to reconsider. A motion filed after the ten day period is construed as a motion seeking relief from judgment under Rule 60(b). The time for filing a notice of appeal is not tolled. The fact that the district court granted plaintiff's motion for extension of time is not the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/04/98-2065.htm">98-2065 -- U.S. V. STARR -- 04/01/1999<BR></A><BR> She was picked up and taken to the reservation medical clinic by a passing motorist. Appellant was convicted of four counts of assault and aggravated sexual abuse by a jury and sentenced to twenty years in prison. <p> Appellant raises three claims on appeal. 2241(a) is unconstitutionally overbroad and underbroad resulting in a denial of his due process rights.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/12/98-4109.htm">98-4109 -- U.S. V. LYMAN -- 12/24/1998<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Appellants H. The action was brought at the request and with the authorization of the Internal Revenue Service pursuant to 26 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/11/98-3142.htm">98-3142 -- PRO FINANCE INC. V. SPRIGGS -- 11/16/1998<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> On February 26. Both of Appellee's Missouri petitions subsequently were dismissed. Appellant was unable to foreclose on the property due to the stays imposed by virtue of the Missouri bankruptcy proceedings. Appellant's counsel sent several notices to Appellee informing her that foreclosure proceedings were ongoing. Arguing that Appellant was not entitled to the fees and costs associated with the foreclosure because they were incurred in violation of the automatic stay. Appellant responded that it was entitled to fees and costs under the terms of the Trust Deed Note. That the foreclosure sale was valid. That Appellee was not entitled to damages. The bankruptcy court entered the following rulings from the bench: (1) the foreclosure sale was void because it was conducted in violation of the automatic stay. (2) no equitable exception to the rule that actions in violation of the stay are void applied in this case. (3) Appellant was not entitled to the fees and costs associated with the foreclosure sale. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/11/97-4099.htm">97-4099 -- SHUMATE V. PACIFIC INSURANCE CO. -- 11/02/1998<BR></A><BR> Utah law requires lien claimants to file a <em>lis pendens</em> within one year from the date work is completed unless the party against whom the lien is brought has actual knowledge of the claim. Shumate argued the lender was being inconsistent in its claims. Provided that <p> (a) the claim is first made against the insured and reported to the Company during the reporting period. <p> (b) the insured at the effective date of the policy period did not know or could not have reasonably foreseen that such acts. Or omissions might be expected to be the basis of a claim . . . . <p> The policy period was March 3. The policy period for the renewed policy was March 3. That is. Provided a claim based on the conduct is filed during the effective period and the insured </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/97-8081.htm">97-8081 -- BRADY V. OHMAN -- 07/15/1998<BR></A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/97-6125.htm">97-6125 -- DELGADO V. DEPT. OF INTERIOR -- 07/10/1998<BR></A><BR> <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/04/96-5210.htm">96-5210 -- HORNSBY V. KAISER -- 04/14/1998<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Petitioner appellant appeals the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner contends his plea was based on an agreement obligating the prosecution to recommend a three year suspended sentence. That he would not have waived these rights had he known the court would reject the recommendation. Finding his claims procedurally barred because they were not raised on direct appeal. The court rejected petitioner's claim that the procedural default was excused based on his attorney's ineffectiveness in not perfecting an appeal. Arguing there was no factual basis and the sentence exceeded the maximum allowable punishment under state law. The claims were rejected based on petitioner's failure to raise them on direct appeal. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/02/97-6283.htm">97-6283 -- STEWART V. U.S. -- 02/03/1998<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Mr. Stewart is a pro se litigator. We affirm the judgment of the district court. <p> This is the fourth action by plaintiff or his company. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/97-8032.htm">97-8032 -- BROCKMAN V. SWEETWATER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.1 -- 12/09/1997<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> This case is before us for a third time for review of the district court's enforcement of an oral compromise agreement. That if the agreement is to be enforced it must be enforced as agreed to by the litigants and cannot be modified by the district court and that the statute of frauds should have applied. The court found unpersuasive plaintiff's argument that the compromise was not enforceable because it was not reduced to writing. <u>See</u> <u>id.</u> at 1332. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/11/96-1499.htm">96-1499 -- U.S. V. PORTER -- 11/07/1997<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Keri Porter entered a conditional guilty plea to the charge of possession with the intent to distribute crack cocaine and was sentenced to 57 months' imprisonment and five years' supervised release. The single issue on appeal is whether the penalty disparity between powder and crack cocaine as provided in 21 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/10/97-6010.htm">97-6010 -- GILBREATH V. WARD -- 10/02/1997<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F416371F2333CA0E88256AE2007CDC6C/$file/9899002.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was arrested a few days later. Counsel shall escape sanctions for this glaring omission only because this court does not have the time to pursue them. 14365 offense in an especially heinous. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penatly Act of 1996 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F2BB9BB2F7E1B07E88256E5A00707D05/$file/9899002.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was arrested a few days later. Counsel shall escape sanctions for this glaring omission only because this court does not have the time to pursue them. 14365 offense in an especially heinous. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penatly Act of 1996 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EBCFF2B79550AF5688256C440054B8BA/$file/9950041.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the briefs for the appellant. Millen were on the briefs for the appellees. We must decide whether a federal district court may grant citizenship to resident aliens whose applications were rejected by the Immigration and Naturalization Service in part because of their past terrorist activities. A detailed history is in order. When the FBI discovered through intercepted phone conversations that the applicants were planning to blow up the offices of the Honorary Turkish Consul General in Philadelphia. The applicants were associ 15242 UNITED STATES v. The FBI later estimated that the bomb likely would have killed between 2000 and 3000 people. Who were Lebanese citizens and lawful permanent residents of the United States. Were duly convicted of various federal explosives offenses. Yacoubian was twenty one and Hovsepian was twenty four. Thus both were eligible for sentencing under the Federal Youth Corrections Act (FYCA). Because Yacoubian was under twenty two. Who was over twenty two. The court was required to sentence him as an adult unless it concluded that he would benefit from a sentence under the Act. § 4216. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B7F975216438AC9B88256E5A00707C67/$file/0035537.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which was enacted by the City of Coeur d'Alene. Abridges his right to free speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. 1 The district court rejected Edwards's challenge and granted summary judgment for the City after finding that the ordinance was a valid </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B1D4904866A0EA8888256D2800742225/$file/0210288.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court in which such conviction is had shall thereupon revoke. Jurisdiction is conferred on the courts having jurisdiction of the trial of such offense to make such adjudication. (emphasis added). [1] Revocation of naturalization is mandatory upon conviction of naturalization fraud in violation of section 1425. 188 (5th Cir. 1996) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5E964467A3D8845A88256C4B005410C5/$file/9935128.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Appellants are the owners of a former Seattle nightclub known at one time as the Celebrity. In fact were racially motivated. They also contend that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague and overly broad. Appellants have brought federal law claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983. 1985 and 1986 and have asserted a variety of state law claims. We hold that the district court correctly ruled that acts falling outside of the limitations period are time barred. We hold that appellants have alleged one discrete act occurring within the limitations period the decision by the City to withdraw its offer to settle its abatement action against appellants. The court should have considered the City's time barred acts against appellants. Because appellants have created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the City discriminated on account of viewpoint or race. That appellants do not have standing to assert claims on behalf of their former patrons or to obtain declaratory relief and that appellants' claims under § 1986 are time barred. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2457FDB8B7C15C2688256A9C005962B2/$file/9935936.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were not eligible for pension benefits under the NWP plans. I. BACKGROUND NWP is a private corporation formed by a group of physicians to provide medical services to members of the Kaiser Permanente Medicare Care Program (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1BA7E556D075EA0488256E5A00707C12/$file/9935936.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were not eligible for pension benefits under the NWP plans. I. BACKGROUND NWP is a private corporation formed by a group of physicians to provide medical services to members of the Kaiser Permanente Medicare Care Program (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/024575D35B3EF12488256AAF0057FB4B/$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-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/03/976066P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND The Hatchers are Iowa farmers. They owned farmland which was partly encumbered by a mortgage on which they fell delinquent. A sheriff's sale was set for January 6. Which consisted of 46 acres of land on which their residence and another building were situated. The Hatchers were able to locate yet another buyer. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/95/12/943609P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was convicted of recklessly causing the death of her child. Persons act recklessly when they </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/06/052798P.pdf">P:\DOCS\E-DOS\6-27\05-2798 MCANINCH V. KANSAS OPN FINAL 6.18.WPD<BR></A><BR> Sinclair and Wintermute were listed as directors of SNB in the application for insurance. 2 The D&O Policy provided that KBS </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/03/052798P.pdf">N:\DOCS\SUSAN\05-2798 MCANINCH V. KANSAS OPN FINAL 2.23.WPD<BR></A><BR> Sinclair and Wintermute were listed as directors of SNB in the application for insurance. 2 The D&O Policy provided that KBS </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/994021P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is before us en banc upon remand from the United States Supreme Court. Believing that it will be helpful in analyzing the issues presented. At issue were the so called </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/03/041838P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is back before the court for a second time. After the record was further developed on remand. Stone contends that the reason for its poor return was that GM had not allocated it enough of the most desirable vehicles nor a sufficient number of vehicles. That Stone received more vehicles than it was entitled under GM's standard allocation formula. Stone was obligated to provide GM with written notice if it wished to transfer the dealership. GM was required to consider and not arbitrarily refuse any proposed transfer. The franchise agreement specified factors that GM was to include in that consideration: factors such as (a) the personal. (b) whether the proposed change is likely to result in a successful dealership operation with acceptable management. Ownership which will provide satisfactory sales. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. 2 1 The contract further required GM to issue a written decision on any proposed sale within 60 days of the proposal and to include a statement of its reasons for disagreement if approval was denied. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/07/031299U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We agree with the District Court that Searcy's claims are barred by the RookerFeldman doctrine.2 Searcy's due process claims would have required the District Court to determine the propriety of Judge Clawson's rulings on jurisdiction. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/03/022619P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although they were not parties to the Ballingers' custody proceedings. The case was transferred to Arapahoe County. The case was transferred to Morgan County. That Ballinger's child support case was closed. 800 in child support and that the next payment was due in November. Ballinger alleged that his rights were violated by the state court proceedings and the individual defendants' acts under color of state law concerning his son's custody. (2) that Ballinger's claims were barred both by the applicable statute of limitations and by the Rooker Feldman doctrine. (3) that defendants Culotta and Bailey were entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. The district court found that Ballinger's claims were time barred. Applying the same standards as were employed by the district court. Ballinger contends that the district court erred in determining that his claims were time barred. We will pass Ballinger's contention that his claims are not time barred and instead affirm the district court's order on the alternative ground that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Ballinger's § 1983 action because it in effect constitutes a challenge to a state court decision. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/11/021582P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jacobsen's mortgage be The USDA has reorganized since this loan was issued and the Farmers Home Administration has now become part of the Rural Housing Service. Jacobsen did not have a right to redemption or to prevent the government from obtaining a deficiency judgment against her. It is undisputed Ms. The Secretary shall follow the foreclosure procedures of the State in which the property involved is located. To the extent such procedures are more favorable to the borrower. . . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=06&date=01&year=00">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1069.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Claims to have obtained the copyright in a bankruptcy sale. Is making and selling copies of a modified version of the program. The modified program is a derivative work. Which it does not have. From ITOFCA. 2 No. 02 1069 ITOFCA was in 1986 a cooperative corporation owned by Ford. Registration is no longer required for a valid copyright. Among the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-4186.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleging (among other things) that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to investigate and interview exculpatory eyewitnesses to the crimes of which he was convicted and for making promises in his opening statement to the jury that he did not keep. I. The offenses of which Hampton was convicted took place at a rhythm and blues concert held at the Chicago International Amphitheatre on the evening of December 29. While the last band was still playing. Denise M.1 were seated in the fifth row of the theater. None of the perpetrators was detained at the scene. No. 01 4186 3 Hampton was among the individuals that Powell identified. Hampton was arrested on December 31. He was eighteen years old at that time and had never before been arrested. Were charged with the attacks. Six of them pleaded guilty and were sentenced to the short periods of time they had already spent in jail awaiting trial. They were tried jointly before three separate juries. Asserting that his fees were not being paid and that Hampton and his family were not cooperating with him in preparation of the case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3528_021.pdf">C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\DQ_1\MY DOCUMENTS\OPINIONS\US V. WARNER AND RYAN 06-3517 OPINION AND DISSENT2.WPD<BR></A><BR> Were convicted on various criminal charges. Some of which were common and others less so. The fact that the trial may not have been This opinion is being released in typescript. A printed version will follow. * 2 Nos. 06 3517 & 06 3528 picture perfect is. It is our job. To decide whether any of the court's rulings so impaired the fairness and reliability of the proceeding that the only permissible remedy is a new trial. Their primary emphasis is on specific issues about the jury. They contend that the verdict was tainted by jurors' use of extraneous legal materials. Including the arguments that the exclusion of certain evidence was an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3517_032.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were convicted on various criminal charges. Some of which were common and others less so. The fact that the OE This opinion was originally released in typescript on August 21. 2007. 2 Nos. 06 3517 & 06 3528 trial may not have been picture perfect is. It is our job. To decide whether any of the court's rulings so impaired the fairness and reliability of the proceeding that the only permissible remedy is a new trial. Their primary emphasis is on specific issues about the jury. They contend that the verdict was tainted by jurors' use of extraneous legal materials. Including the arguments that the exclusion of certain evidence was an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-3517_026.pdf">C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\DQ_1\MY DOCUMENTS\OPINIONS\US V. WARNER AND RYAN 06-3517 OPINION AND DISSENT2.WPD<BR></A><BR> Were convicted on various criminal charges. Some of which were common and others less so. The fact that the trial may not have been This opinion is being released in typescript. A printed version will follow. * 2 Nos. 06 3517 & 06 3528 picture perfect is. It is our job. To decide whether any of the court's rulings so impaired the fairness and reliability of the proceeding that the only permissible remedy is a new trial. Their primary emphasis is on specific issues about the jury. They contend that the verdict was tainted by jurors' use of extraneous legal materials. Including the arguments that the exclusion of certain evidence was an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3819_014.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Flegles was able to use the True Value trademark and to benefit from group buying power and group billing procedures. Additional contracts were executed to secure these advances in which Flegles agreed to maintain an acceptable credit history and to remain a member in good standing of TruServ. Flegles also alleged that the January 2000 execution of the member agreement was fraudulently induced. Flegles asked the No. 04 3819 3 court to issue a declaratory judgment and to find that the agreements between the parties are null and void because of fraud and breach of contract. Finding that TruServ was liable for $1.3 million in damages. TruServ attempted to collect the debt it was owed either from Flegles (the corporation). That abstention was not necessary or proper in this case. We review de novo the district court's decision regarding personal 1 The breakdown of the total award is as follows: $77. Flegle argues that the court below should have granted her motion to dismiss because TruServ could not prove that she had the requisite </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0270n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. ADSA is a Texas non profit corporation with its only offices in Texas and Louisiana. It purports to raise funds that are used to provide education. Services to law enforcement agencies and families of persons in law enforcement who have been killed in the line of duty. Both the state court appeal and the action in Prohibition were pending when ADSA filed suit in federal court. ADSA did not have the opportunity to provide briefing on the issues or sufficient time to prepare for the telephone conference in which the issues were discussed. Because the telephone conference was not recorded. A claim raised in federal district court effectively seeks to appeal a state court judgment when the federal claim is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0258p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is a civil action brought by the estate of Melva Dee Parrott (represented by Donald Blaty) against Eagle Village. The second appeal in this case is brought by Blaty. I. Melva Dee Parrott was born on May 4. Parrott and her three siblings were removed from their parents' home and placed in the custody of Eagle Village. The civil action underlying these appeals was filed by Donald Blaty. Frontier Insurance was placed on rehabilitation1 by the New York Supreme Court. The New York court ordered that parties to all actions in which Frontier is obligated to defend a party 1 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0326n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Where all of the twenty two original plaintiffs in these actions were then employed. The plaintiffs were represented by the UAW and covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that placed them in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0297p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I BACKGROUND VTC is an Ohio corporation that was formed on December 5. Mary Ann Rabin was appointed Chapter 11 Operating Trustee for VTC. VTC confessed that it was unwilling or unable to litigate to determine which of the two plans would survive the confirmation process. The parties met to determine whether it was more appropriate to sell VTC's assets pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363 (providing that the bankruptcy trustee may use. Provided that: (1) the bankruptcy court would have confirmed the plan at least 11 days prior to that date. (3) the confirmation order would not have been vacated. [would] have been satisfied or waived. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04b0005p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. ISSUE ON APPEAL The issue is whether the bankruptcy court abused its discretion by vacating its order of dismissal and allowing Debtor to resume performance of his confirmed Chapter 13 plan. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0153p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These are three consolidated appeals from judgments of the district court allowing the bankruptcy trustee to avoid mortgages held by the defendants. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). Our review is de novo. I. We must decide whether the trustee was entitled to avoid the three mortgages under Ohio law. A bankruptcy trustee </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0075p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is one of Perry's victims. Ordered Perry to make all payments to the clerk's office so that the clerk could </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/071231p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Similar nationwide claims were consolidated by a Multidistrict Litigation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/064601p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LLC appeals from the decision of the District Court of the Virgin Islands denying HOVENSA's motion to compel arbitration on the ground that the relevant arbitration agreement is unconscionable under Virgin Islands law. Because the District Court's opinion relied on its view that it was not bound by contrary decisions of the Virgin Islands Superior Court. It is incumbent upon us to examine the restructured judicial system for the Virgin Islands following the 1984 Revised Organic Act and the 1990 amendment by the Virgin Islands legislature to 4 V.I. Disputes or controversies arising out of or relating to . . . (4) any claims for personal injury or property damage arising in any way from my presence at the HOVENSA refinery that are not covered by the [Collective Bargaining Agreement]. A copy of which is available at www.adr.org or from Wyatt. Is a contractor for HOVENSA. Edwards was injured in January 2005 due to what he alleged was HOVENSA's negligence. The parties are diverse. Edwards is a citizen of Massachusetts. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051715p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Before us now is Banks's appeal from his conviction and sentence. Banks was sentenced after the Supreme Court announced its landmark decision in United States v. Two are novel to 2 this Court. Banks raises the question whether the District Court was obligated to provide him with advance notice under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(h) of its intent. We conclude the District Court had statutory authority to issue the in personam forfeiture judgment and was not obligated to provide advance notice of its intent to vary from Banks's Guidelines sentencing range. We will affirm Banks's convictions and sentence in their entirety. Amazon.com informed him that only full retail versions of software products could be sold through his account and that sales of copied or duplicated software were prohibited. These buyers suspected that the software they purchased from Banks was illegally copied because the compact discs ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051031np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nationwide moved for and was granted a default judgment. Because Starlight cannot show that it would have a meritorious defense and because the default was the result of its culpable conduct. I. Factual Background and Procedural History We are writing here solely for the parties. That policy was based on the assumption that Starlight was simply a ballroom dance school and did not serve alcohol on the premises. Starlight's insurance policy was obtained through Zhal Deng Lee. Was unable for an extended period to perform his job as a mail carrier. Although the letter stated that Nationwide </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043835np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bolus contends that the Rooker Feldman doctrine is inapplicable because the state court never reached the merits of his claim and the state procedural barriers are contrary to state and federal constitutional protections. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because the District Court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is a final order. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court. Bolus was convicted of several felonies. Bolus served his sentence and was released. Bolus was the Republican nominee for Mayor of Scranton. The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court determined that Bolus was ineligible to hold public office due to his felony convictions and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed. The petition was denied on the ground that Bolus was no longer in custody. Bolus petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court which was denied and we denied his request for a certificate of appealability. Bolus filed a motion for reconsideration with the Pennsylvania Superior Court which was denied. 2 The present federal civil rights action was filed in August. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA1LTY4NTMtY3Zfc28ucGRm/05-6853-cv_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 0.23 AND FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. UNLESS THE SUMMARY ORDER IS AVAILABLE IN AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE WHICH IS PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT HTTP://WWW.CA2.USCOURTS.GOV/). THE PARTY CITING THE SUMMARY ORDER MUST FILE AND SERVE A COPY OF THAT SUMMARY ORDER TOGETHER WITH THE PAPER IN WHICH THE SUMMARY ORDER IS CITED. IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE ORDER ON SUCH A DATABASE. THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE REFERENCE TO THAT DATABASE AND THE DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERED. It is hereby ORDERED. ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED. This appeal is not moot because Brown challenges not only the district court's judgment of foreclosure and sale. The appeal of which would likely have been mooted by Brown's voluntary sale of his home and satisfaction of his mortgage. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc3OTJfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7792_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (4) correctly held that plaintiffs' statelaw claims were ripe for adjudication. We hold that the District Court's award of punitive damages was inconsistent with the Due Process Clause and with Illinois law. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal brought by individual and corporate defendants who. Defendants contend Plaintiffs have brought a motion to dismiss this appeal under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. Assuming the case was not arbitrable. They claim that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to conduct a trial while an appeal was pending in this Court from the District Court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration. That the District Court abused its discretion by deciding unsettled questions of Illinois law after all the federal claims were dismissed. That the Illinois claims brought by plaintiffs were not ripe for adjudication. Arguing that the District Court abused its discretion when it denied their motion to reinstate RICO claims that were previously dismissed at the behest of this Court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc3OTIgdyBFcnJhdGFfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7792%20w%20Errata_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (4) correctly held that plaintiffs' statelaw claims were ripe for adjudication. We hold that the District Court's award of punitive damages was inconsistent with the Due Process Clause and with Illinois law. Circuit Judge: This is an appeal brought by individual and corporate defendants who. Defendants contend Plaintiffs have brought a motion to dismiss this appeal under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. W e have d enied this mo tion. 1 2 that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over this case and the parties to it on multiple grounds. Assuming the case was not arbitrable. They claim that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to conduct a trial while an appeal was pending in this Court from the District Court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration. That the District Court abused its discretion by deciding unsettled questions of Illinois law after all the federal claims were dismissed. That the Illinois claims brought by plaintiffs were not ripe for adjudication. Arguing that the District Court abused its discretion when it denied their motion to reinstate RICO claims that were previously dismissed at the behest of this Court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTEyNzUtY3YucGRm/05-1275-cv.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Matteis challenge the class certification on the grounds that: [1] the class contains members who have not yet been assessed tax penalties and who (according to the Matteis) therefore lack Article III and/or statutory standing. [2] the named representatives all of whom have been assessed tax penalties do not adequately represent the interests of all class members. Some of whom have not been penalized (at least as yet). P. 23(e) in failing to provide a second opt out period when the settlement terms were finalized. Deutsche Bank argues that the district court erred in approving a provision that extinguishes any claim of a nonsettling defendant or third party against a settling defendant that directly or indirectly arises out of the tax strategies and is for recovery of amounts the nonsettling defendant or third party paid or owes to the class. While bars on claims against settling defendants for contribution and indemnity are not uncommon. Which purports to compensate a nonsettling defendant or third party for the loss of claims against the settling defendants but which fails to specify the method by which the judgment credit will be calculated. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTU1MTktY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-5519-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200416032.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: There are three central issues in this appeal. The NCA is invalid and unenforceable. In June 2003 he was promoted to director of sales. While there is some factual dispute as to whether Manuel first chose to work in North Carolina. He eventually was offered the job in Georgia. Manuel told Convergys that he was not going to work for a competitor and that he had not accepted a job with another company. Manuel filed suit against Convergys in Georgia seeking a declaration that the NCA was illegal. The Declaratory Judgment Action The decision to hear a declaratory judgment action is reviewed for abuse of discretion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19985266.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The purpose of the reinsurance contract is to diversify the risk of loss. Dow was directly insured by Hartford through two policies: (1) a comprehensive general liability policy of $1 million on a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19985266.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The purpose of the reinsurance contract is to diversify the risk of loss. Dow was directly insured by Hartford through two policies: (1) a comprehensive general liability policy of $1 million on a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19953004.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge: Barbara Jean Bravender Ah Loo ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19949206.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court declined to order the substitution on the ground that the temporary administrator was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19947138.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A representative of a class of persons who have sought to have their ballots counted in an action in the Circuit Court of Coosa County. The affidavit envelopes are held unopened until noon on election day. Review the affidavit to certify that such voter is entitled to vote and deposit the plain envelope containing the absentee ballot into a sealed ballot box. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-2029.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellee. Give me all the money and know [sic] one will get hurt. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1014.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. They claim that the lower court erroneously excluded relevant evidence and improperly retained a juror whose mental faculties were suspect. If leave is granted. Because the water fountain was located beyond the yellow line. The door to the dayroom was closed. Williams asked if the conversation could wait as his recreational period was limited and Ford could speak to him at any time. Asked: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1556.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is corrected as follows: On page 21. P.A. were on brief. P.A. was on brief. Smith testified that she was considered to be a de facto manager who. Bond nonetheless honored Smith's request and assured her that her position was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1538.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. P.A. was on brief. With whom Bourbeau and Bourbeau was on brief. With whom Stephen Dyer was on brief pro se. These four consolidated appeals are emblematic of the difficulties that courts face in dealing with the new sentencing regime. Although the call is close. We hold that Amendment 506 is a reasonable implementation of the statutory mandate. 3 is therefore valid. 762 63 (1st Cir. 1990) (explaining that the primary purposes of the Sentencing Reform Act are to provide certainty. One such set of marching orders is conveyed by 28 U.S.C. 994(h). Which provides in part: The Commission shall assure that the guidelines specify a sentence to a term of imprisonment at or near the maximum term authorized for categories of defendants in which the defendant is eighteen years old or older and [has been convicted of a violent 4 crime or felony drug offense and has at least two such prior convictions]. A defendant is regarded as a career offender if he was at least eighteen years old at the time of the offense of conviction. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1469.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is corrected as follows: On cover sheet change </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1010.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for the United States. Which Burke is now serving. Section 5G1.3(a) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines requires that a consecutive sentence be imposed for offenses committed while a defendant is serving another term of imprisonment. Burke argued that his ongoing Florida federal court sentence was illegal.1 Burke urged the Massachusetts federal court to recognize this purported illegality. Two of the robberies were committed after implementation of the Sentencing Guidelines. While four robberies were committed before the Sentencing Guidelines went into effect. Burke did not appeal from this sentence. 2 2 consecutive sentence stating: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1319.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Botti and Burns & Levinson were on brief. Craig and Macauley Professional Corporation were on brief. It is trite. A group of borrowers who complain that they were swindled. Negligence are barred by the D'Oench. Plaintiffs' affirmative defenses to the counterclaims are impuissant. None of the plaintiffs is entitled to benefit from a belated effort to interject into the decisional calculus an incorrectly computed figure contained in a writ of execution issued by a Maine state court in a related proceeding. Because two of the orders that we are reviewing arose under the aegis of Fed. The myriad plaintiffs in this civil action are bound together by what appears in retrospect to have been a serious error in judgment: they all borrowed money from the Bank in connection with the purchase of condominium units from Steven M. Although each plaintiff's predicament is slightly different. A plaintiff purchased a condominium based on multiple misrepresentations by Rostoff such as: that the unit had been completely renovated and was being sold at a substantial discount from market value. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1877A.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Molloy was on brief for defendants Arsenal Auto Repairs. Were on brief for defendant Jack Markarian. Were on brief for plaintiff appellee Aetna Casualty and Surety Company. 3 KEETON. The purpose of the scheme was to obtain payments on fraudulent insurance claims. The judgment was for Aetna Casualty and Surety Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1877.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Molloy was on brief for defendants Arsenal Auto Repairs. Were on brief for defendant Jack Markarian. Were on brief for plaintiff appellee Aetna Casualty and Surety Company. The purpose of the scheme was to obtain payments on fraudulent insurance claims. The judgment was for Aetna Casualty and Surety Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2298.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I I Plaintiff appellant Sandra Rolon Alvarado is a citizen and resident of New York. She is also a surviving daughter of Efrain Rolon Robles. The facts leading up to Rolon Robles's demise are largely uncontradicted. He was admitted to San Juan Municipal Hospital for treatment of an intestinal obstruction. That is to say. Is such that reasonable minds could not differ as to the outcome. The court of appeals is constrained in precisely the same fashion as the district court. Appellate review is plenary. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1558.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief for appellees. Of the District of Massachusetts. SUMMARY JUDGMENT SUMMARY JUDGMENT </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1127.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> There are only small exceptions pertaining to child welfare\ matters. The exceptions are not pertinent here. That provision stated that the Micmac Act\ would only be effective if certain contingencies were met. One of\ these contingencies was a requirement that the Aroostook Band\ formally certify its agreement with the act within 60 days of the\ legislature\'s adjournment. <span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1748.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Cicilline</SPAN> was on brief. Were on brief. Guez's claim was procedurally deficient. Guez was scheduled to fly on a commercial airline from the John F. Guez was carrying money to pay for a shipment of cocaine that had arrived at JFK from LMMIA on June 24. The first step towards retrieving seized property is to file a sworn claim of ownership with the agency that made the seizure here the DEA. 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(2)(A) (2003). Asserting that he was the owner of the $23. Copies of these motions were served on Rodrí. Although it was originally filed with the DEA and had not previously been before the court. <A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1091.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Mills were delinquent in their loan payments on numerous occasions. As that appeal was pending. Appellants alleged that (1) Salem Bank was not the true owner of their mortgage. The 1998 foreclosure was null and void. The <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1928.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Upham LLP</SPAN> was on brief. Taft</SPAN> was on brief. S</SPAN> were on brief. We add details only where necessary.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2553.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Garde</SPAN> were on brief for appellants. Fitch</SPAN> were on brief for appellees. Kenney</SPAN> were on brief for appellee. Were on brief for appellee United States.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2367.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LTD.</U> were on brief. The attendant facts and procedural history are somewhat more involved. Unless otherwise noted.</FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2002/013077.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Congregation Kol Ami (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2004/032977p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Though there were many factual disputes at the trial. The basic circumstances of the case are clear and we set forth the facts in the light most supportive of the district court's result. 1 The origin of the case may be traced to March 30. 000 in United States OPINION OF THE COURT Certain of the various orders and determinations to which we make reference have not been appealed. Berg's principal place of business is in Toronto. At various points in the record reference is made to other Chinese corporate entities related to Huadu. For simplicity's sake we will refer to the entities collectively as Huadu. We also note that Huadu sometimes is referred to as Hua Du. 2 3 2 1 GREENBERG. Berg was in constant contact with Hull regarding the freezer dryers' technical specifications.6 On April 20. Start up and testing of the freeze dryers.7 The freeze dryers were 6 At trial Donald Berggren. So it was a back and forth process of negotiation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2004/032437p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> His son Jeffrey Lui is the general manager of Fantasia. Lui was required to co mply with § 40 133(a)(13) of the County Code. We will affirm the District Court's decision to abstain under Younger. We will remand the case to the District Court with direction to discharge the stay and dismiss the case with prejudice. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2003/031301u.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. A brief overview of the facts of this case is helpful to understanding the procedural decision of the District Court challenged in this appeal. Hallie Ortiz was one of the four life tenants. That the parcel was not subject to the litigation. The amended complaint alleged that the 1965 Deed to Hallie Ortiz was invalid. That the three acre parcel now held by Carolyn 2 was subject to the interests created by the 1961 Deed. The remaining three elevenths remainder interest is held by the United States under the 1970 Indentures. The United States circulated a letter to the parties stating it would not attend the mediation sessions </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2004/032801p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was one of ten beneficiaries of a trust created by her uncle. The other beneficiaries sought declaratory relief in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to have the New Jersey adult adoption statute declared invalid and Maria's adoption proceedings declared null and void. I. Plaintiffs/Appellants are surviving beneficiaries of a revocable trust (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/June2003/022392p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND Jones was indicted in the Western District of Pennsylvania with one count of being a previous felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) and (e). Experts matched 3 two casings and a bullet found in the apartment to the Taurus gun.1 A defendant convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm is subject to a sentence of a maximum of 10 years imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2). The ACCA mandates a minimum sentence of 15 years imprisonment for anyone convicted of being a felon in possession in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) who is found to have three previous convictions for a violent felony or serious drug offense. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). Jones contends that because he was not afforded the right to a jury trial during his juvenile adjudication. Two other courts of appeals have rendered differing opinions on this precise question. Jones admitted to possessing the Taurus gun but denied robbing anyone. 4 records from his juvenile adjudication do not demonstrate that he was afforded the right to counsel or waived such right. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2002/012782.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The principal issue on appeal is whether the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania waived its sovereign immunity by accepting certain federal funds for the Department of Corrections. We will reverse in part and affirm in part. George Koslow was hired by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections as a water treatment plant supervisor for the State Correctional Institute in Graterford. He was dismissed for being unable to perform </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1995/95a1158p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are called upon in this case principally to perform one of our most delicate duties determining whether Congress exceeded its constitutional authority in enacting a federal law. At issue is the power of Congress to criminalize </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct2000/993925.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The transaction was a constructive fraudulent conveyance. As such it was properly declared void by the bankruptcy judge. It was unnecessary for the bankruptcy judge to rule on the matter of subordination. We will affirm the judgment as to the fraudulent conveyance and vacate the ruling on subordination raised in the cross appeal. This is an adversary proceeding brought by the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of GenFarm Limited Partnership IV against D. Santucci and Guelich have since settled their disputes with the Committee and are no longer parties in this dispute. 2 partnership filed a petition under Chapter 11 in June of 1995. All of the assets were scheduled to be sold to Ebony Bull Capital Co. The allegations against Bohn are described in detail in the following excerpt from the state trial judge's opinion overruling preliminary objections: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1994/94a0748p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because there was insufficient evidence produced at trial that the United States mails were used to accomplish the alleged fraud. We will reverse the judgment of the district court and direct that a judgment of acquittal be entered. I. Hannigan was indicted on two counts of mail fraud. We will address only those facts and issues concerning Count One dealing with the sufficiency of evidence as to mailing. Hannigan was the manager of an auto body shop. Since Skowronski was the only witness who testified as to the mailing. We will describe her testimony in some detail. Then once they were run off of a printer. Skowronski testified to a different procedure: In order for a check to be picked up at our office . . . we would have to have our unit manager approve someone coming in to pick up the check for a check to be released to me. Would be signing the file or signing a piece of paper that was attached to the file. Then once that was done when you input the check on the computer. There was a little sign a little question that said. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1995/95a1096p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At issue here is the assignment agreement. The major question for decision is whether the assignment was an absolute assignment. The rents are not property of the estate and are not available as cash collateral nor as a funding source for the debtor's reorganization plan. We will affirm the orders of the district court. The orders of the bankruptcy judge and the district court are final and appealable. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). Because there is no dispute as to the facts presented below. I. The contest here is between Jason Realty. Jason Realty is the owner of commercial real estate in Aberdeen. Receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged. . . . the Assignor shall have the privilege to collect . . . all rents. The foreclosure action was stayed. First Fidelity filed an appeal to the district court which reversed the bankruptcy court's order and held that the rents were not property of the estate and could not be used as cash collateral. The issue before us is whether the assigned rents should have been classified as property of the estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan2001/003387.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania may seek to revisit those issues in consolidated administrative appeals in its own permitting process in a costly pr oceeding that will delay NE Hub's construction of the Facility. Principally on the jurisdictional gr ound that it was not ripe for decision before the state pr ocess concluded. We disagr ee with the district court on the ripeness issue and accordingly will reverse its order dismissing the action and will remand the case for further proceedings. The construction is a substantial undertaking requiring NE Hub to drill through the Oriskany sand formation which contains competing storage facilities owned by Penn Fuel Gas. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1995/94a0938p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was. Evidently is presently. Their motions were granted by the bankruptcy court. Limiting any recovery to insurance proceeds: (1) is void for lack of service on Travelers as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1995/95a1147p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Petitioner appellant Vance was convicted of murder in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. The license of Vance's lawyer to practice law in Pennsylvania was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1995/95a1117p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The appeal is only from the dismissal of the counterclaim. The plaintiff is the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200606/05-5436a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Peter D. With him on the briefs were Elaine D. The Final Rule Fails to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200506/02-1387a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200502/04-5089b.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199808/96-7191a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ginsberg were on the briefs. Halloran were on the brief. We conclude that we are without jurisdiction to decide LaRouche's Voting Rights Act claims and therefore remand them for the convening of a three judge district court. Have established a bona fide record of public service. Welfare and success of the Democratic Party of the United States at heart and will participate in the Convention in good faith. Is a bona fide Democrat whose record of public service. Public writings and/or public statements affir matively demonstrates that he or she is faithful to the interests. Will participate in the Convention in good faith. Before the first primary was held. Fowler determined that: Lyndon Larouche [sic] is not a bona fide Democrat and does not possess a record affirmatively demonstrating that he is faithful to. This determination is based on Mr. Including beliefs which are explicitly racist and anti Semitic. Larouche [sic] is not to be considered a qualified candidate for nomination of the Democratic Party for President.... </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199711/96-1384a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Ronald J. With him on the brief were William E. Whether the case is now moot is the first. The legal context of the complaint was this. Federal candidates for elective office have a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/0310.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Line 17 the date </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/014026.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Incorporated (All Ports) were convicted of conspiracy to export defense articles on the United States Munitions List (Munitions List) without a license and conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Bing Sun was sentenced to sixty months' imprisonment. Is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012419.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Since this is an interlocutory appeal. Filed even before the parties have completed discovery. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012098.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs claim that the ordinances are preempted by federal law. Are invalid under North Carolina law. Where they are stored until sold to industrial customers. The Board was presented with a petition containing 878 signatures opposing explosives operations in the County. The Board voted unanimously to have a committee draft ordinances that would establish both a permit system and a comprehensive set of regulations for the operation of explosives businesses. The Permitting Ordinance provided that only businesses operating in the County on the day the ordinance was adopted could apply for a permit. 1998 after the necessary approval was obtained from the North Carolina Building Code Council. V.1 While the Building Code Council approval of the Regulatory Ordinance was pending. Alleging that the Permitting and Regulatory Ordinances were preempted by federal law. Were invalid under North Carolina law. The district court concluded that both the Permitting and Regulatory Ordinances were valid and granted summary judgment to the County and the Fire Marshal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/004762.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> MCVAY Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Because one of the two prior state court predicate convictions qualifying him for treatment as a career offender was imposed in violation of his right to court appointed counsel. I. McVay was charged with conspiracy to commit armed bank robbery. Were for second degree burglary in July 1994. Section 4B1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines provides in pertinent part: A defendant is a career offender if (1) the defendant was at least eighteen years old at the time the defendant committed the instant offense. (2) the instant offense of conviction is a felony that is either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense. McVay claimed that the conviction had been obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to court appointed counsel because he had requested and was denied court appointed counsel prior to his entering a plea of guilty to the charge.2 The district court adjourned the sentencing hearing to allow briefing and the submission of additional evidence in support of the challenge. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=07-1063.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is. Ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. I Backus was convicted of first degree murder and conspiracy in Colorado state court. Was ordered to pay over one million dollars in restitution. That court determined Backus was not entitled to the return of these funds and directed they be transferred to the CDOC for disposition pursuant to Colo. Stat. 16 18.5 106 provides: (1) Whenever a person is sentenced to the department of corrections. The department of corrections is authorized to conduct an investigation into the financial circumstances of the defendant. The CDOC then reevaluated its authority granted by 16 18.5 106 and concluded that it was only authorized to take up to 99.9% of incoming deposits. (3) specifically asserted that the CDOC was only permitted to retain 20% of the funds in question. Stating that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-2062.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. O'Connor was admitted as a member of the Florida Bar in 1990. He was severely injured in a car accident. He informed the New Mexico Supreme Court that he was an inactive member in good standing of the Florida Bar. O'Connor was under emergency suspension. O'Connor argues that the district court should not have vacated the entry of default. This issue is reviewed for abuse of discretion. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-8028.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bad faith arising from Mid Continent's failure to defend True Oil and pay for its liability resulting (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Or expense arising under either (i) or (ii) from: (A) The sole or concurrent negligence of the indemnitee or the agents or employees of the indemnitee or any independent contractor who is directly responsible to such indemnitee. Are against public policy and are void and unenforceable to the extent that such contract of indemnity by its terms purports to relieve the indemnitee from loss or liability for his own negligence. The statute was likely a response to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-6164.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have an obligation to independently determine whether the district court had jurisdiction before we can proceed to the merits of an appeal. Which is void for lack of jurisdiction. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. R. 36.3. <hr> officer prepared the PSR using the 2002 version of the United States Sentencing Guidelines ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-5160.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argue that Oklahoma's statutory scheme for specialty motor vehicle license plates is unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Motorists contend that Oklahoma's laws unlawfully discriminate against their views by permitting drivers to obtain license plates bearing the messages </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1362.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is. Clements was represented in the matter by defendant Miller. Lawler was represented by defendant Grier. At some point which is unclear from the record. Was assigned to preside over Clements' case. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1173.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. R. 36.3. <hr> This case has a procedural history that is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4083.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Was dismissed by an earlier order of this court. We affirm the district court's orders. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Plaintiffs allege that they are the owners of the property. They filed this action in a Nevada federal district court seeking an order to set aside the Utah state court's ruling that they were not the owners of the real property in question. Filed for bankruptcy in Utah and attempted to have the bankruptcy court take jurisdiction over the parties' disputes regarding the Provo real property. The district court (2) The bankruptcy court's orders are not before us in this appeal. <hr> directed plaintiffs to address the issue of jurisdiction. As well as plaintiffs' other claims that were inextricably intertwined with the state court case.(3) Id. doc. 45. Arguing that the district court violated the automatic bankruptcy stay by dismissing the case three days after the bankruptcy case was dismissed. Plaintiffs assert (1) the order dismissing their case was void because it was issued while the automatic bankruptcy stay was in effect. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4038.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Lundahl now maintains the BAP's orders were void. Have determined these matters are frivolous. They will be dismissed. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. We hold the court's actions were proper. Lundahl was provided warning regarding the possibility of dismissal. It is likewise clear she did not provide the requested materials. She maintains only that the BAP's orders were void. Lundahl's arguments are unavailing. They are frivolous. Lundahl filed seeking to proceed in forma pauperis are denied. The motion to strike and the motion for sanctions filed in appeal number 04 4039 are denied. The request for permission to file a reply brief and supplemental appendix submitted in number 04 4039 is granted. These appeals are DISMISSED. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1330.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Background The property at issue in this case is an approximate eight acre patented mining claim known as the Alice Lode Mining Claim (Alice). It is located in the White River National Forest. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Of which he was a director. The Alice was offered at a December 1914 tax sale. Because there were no bidders. The Alice was struck off to Pitkin County through a treasurer's certificate of purchase. A copy of the notice was sent via registered mail to Mr. When there was no response. Was recorded on April 6. The resolution recognized that the claims were located within the White River National Forest and stated that they were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1329.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Background The property at issue in this case is an approximate six acre patented mining claim known as the Snowflake Lode Mining Claim (Snowflake). It is located in the White River National Forest. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. It was acquired by Jennie M. Property taxes were last paid on the Snowflake in 1911 by Lou D. The Snowflake was offered at a tax sale by the Pitkin County Treasurer. There were no bidders at the tax sale. The Snowflake was struck off to Pitkin County through a treasurer's certificate of purchase. A copy of which was sent to Walden Sweet by registered mail. When there was no response. Which was recorded on April 18. The resolution recognized that the claims were located within the (2) Pitkin County continued to own the Snowflake until 1994 when it was conveyed to the United States. No property taxes were assessed because county owned property is tax exempt. Stat. 39 3 105. <hr> White River National Forest and stated that they were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2264.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge. <hr> This is the third appeal by Craig Clymore arising from his motion for return of property filed pursuant to Rule 41(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.(1) In the latest remand. Craig Clymore (Clymore) and co defendant Glen Zacker (Zacker) were arrested near Carlsbad. Clymore was sentenced to 121 months imprisonment. The four items seized were administratively forfeited. The motions were referred to a magistrate judge. We determined that because the five items seized in unrelated matters were forfeited by state proceedings or in another federal district. We held the administrative forfeiture of these items was void and must be vacated. Rule 41 was amended and reorganized. What was formerly Rule 41(e) is now found at Rule 41(g) with minor stylistic changes. The motion must be filed in the district where the property was seized. We will continue to refer to the rule as Rule 41(e). <hr> On remand. The matter was again referred to a magistrate judge. The forfeiture action was stayed by a magistrate judge pending the outcome of the appeal. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-30706.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. The magistrate judge informed the parties that he was considering recommending a sua sponte grant of summary judgment in favor of CITGO on the hostile work environment claims. With and their of claims were consolidated those the Celestine However. They were excluded from the district court's July 12. 1996 order granting summary judgment on the hostile work environment claims as they had not yet had a chance to submit evidence regarding their claims. plaintiffs were put on notice On October 3. The Proctor that the magistrate judge was considering a sua sponte motion for summary judgment with respect to their hostile work environment claims. 2 The two Proctor plaintiffs who submitted declarations in support of their hostile work environment claims were Harvey Hawkins and Georgiana Ardoin. 3 151 F.3d 402. Ruling that the continuing violation doctrine was inapplicable. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-20347.0.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. It was returned. Was also listed as an in rem defendant in the tax suit. Is the current mortgagee of the Debtor's homestead property. 1 No. 03 20347 3Both sides concede that. Elbar explained that the mortgagee was listed as the Debtor's codefendant in the tax suit. Regardless of whether creditors have knowledge of the stay's applicability. The court therefore concluded that the tax sale was invalid and without legal effect because it was conducted minutes after the Debtor petitioned for bankruptcy protection. The court concluded that because the tax sale was void under § 362. The sale was ineffective to transfer any interest in the Debtor's real propertyincluding the mortgagee's interestto Elbar. It was invalid and incapable of transferring the mortgagee's lien interest in the property to Elbar.2 Before both the bankruptcy court and the district court. Simply because the mortgagee was an in rem co defendant in the Debtor's tax deficiency purchasers of a Debtor's real property who lack notice of the Debtor's pending bankruptcy. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-41321.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Primarily at issue is whether the district court properly forfeited those bonds to the mothers of Pereida's children. remainder REMANDED. of the judgments is The forfeiture is VACATED. These cases are Pursuant to 5TH CIR. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. He was convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Pereida was sentenced to two concurrent 57 month prison terms. Pereida was released in January 2002. He was arrested for reckless driving and his vehicle impounded. A bulletproof vest (body armor) was found in the trunk. Testified that: the bulletproof vest was his. Pereida was in the process of divorcing his wife. She is the mother of According to the two of his children and was expecting a third. separation agreement. Pereida was to pay $1. Mirna Pereida sued in family court and recovered those payments. 2 Pereida paid his July support on 18 or 19 July (it was due the first of the month). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-41314.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Primarily at issue is whether the district court properly forfeited those bonds to the mothers of Pereida's children. remainder REMANDED. of the judgments is The forfeiture is VACATED. These cases are Pursuant to 5TH CIR. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. He was convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Pereida was sentenced to two concurrent 57 month prison terms. Pereida was released in January 2002. He was arrested for reckless driving and his vehicle impounded. A bulletproof vest (body armor) was found in the trunk. Testified that: the bulletproof vest was his. Pereida was in the process of divorcing his wife. She is the mother of According to the two of his children and was expecting a third. separation agreement. Pereida was to pay $1. Mirna Pereida sued in family court and recovered those payments. 2 Pereida paid his July support on 18 or 19 July (it was due the first of the month). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep01/03-30706.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. The magistrate judge informed the parties that he was considering recommending a sua sponte grant of summary judgment in favor of CITGO on the hostile work environment claims. With and their of claims were consolidated those the Celestine However. They were excluded from the district court's July 12. 1996 order granting summary judgment on the hostile work environment claims as they had not yet had a chance to submit evidence regarding their claims. plaintiffs were put on notice On October 3. The Proctor that the magistrate judge was considering a sua sponte motion for summary judgment with respect to their hostile work environment claims. 2 The two Proctor plaintiffs who submitted declarations in support of their hostile work environment claims were Harvey Hawkins and Georgiana Ardoin. 3 151 F.3d 402. Ruling that the continuing violation doctrine was inapplicable. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/May2004/May18/02-31068-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The motion is GRANTED. The previous order of dismissal is withdrawn. The following opinion is entered in lieu thereof. The owner of the ship on which he was injured. Appellants removed to federal court on the grounds that their dispute with Dahiya was subject to an arbitration agreement governed by the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="293"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/99-4127a.htm">99-4127A -- JOHNSON V. RODRIGUES (OROZCO) -- 08/28/2000<BR></A><BR> Where the word </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AE43C9BB7916256288256A76007A56DB/$file/9899018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Their goal for the day was to film a student movie for Buflo's cinema class at the University of Southern California. While Murtishaw and Laufenburger were driving along the dirt road. Their efforts were ultimately unsuccessful. Who were busy filming their movie.1 Murtishaw explained to Buflo that his car had broken down. Buflo explained to Murtishaw and Laufenburger that he and the other students were filming a movie. It was at this time that Murtishaw's intentions toward the students first turned sinister. He 1 The plot of the movie is ironic when compared to the facts of this case. Is stranded in the desert due to car failure. He grows progressively weaker and is confronted by a hooded figure. Is unable to harm it. Thinking that Murtishaw was joking. Soto and Etayo responded that they were not going into town. Murtishaw and Laufenburger walked back to where Buflo and Henderson were still filming in order to watch them. He observed that Murtishaw smelled strongly of alcohol and that he was using profanity. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct99/98-2610.man.html">MALOWNEY V. FED. COLLECTION DEPOSIT GROUP (10/29/1999, NO. 98-2610)<BR></A><BR> Are as follows. Which was directed to the Army National Bank where John Malowney and his wife. The Malowneys' funds were made unavailable to them and the Bank refused to honor checks written on their account.</P> <P> The complaint is void of any indication that the Malowneys received notice as mandated by the Florida post judgment garnishment statute. That he may have exemptions from the garnishment which can be asserted as defenses. The Malowneys did not become aware of the garnishment until they contacted the Bank concerning their returned checks.</P> <P> The only funds in the Malowneys' checking account at the time of garnishment were social security disability benefits and United States Army retirement benefits. Both of which are exempt from garnishment under federal law. All of the funds attached by the writ of garnishment were subject to exemption under federal law. Obtain dissolution of a writ of garnishment by proving that the attached funds are exempt from garnishment under federal or state law. Was dissolved on July 14. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C00F063B75958F1488256E5A00707BB5/$file/9899018.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Their goal for the day was to film a student movie for Buflo's cinema class at the University of Southern California. While Murtishaw and Laufenburger were driving along the dirt road. Their efforts were ultimately unsuccessful. Who were busy filming their movie.1 Murtishaw explained to Buflo that his car had broken down. Buflo explained to Murtishaw and Laufenburger that he and the other students were filming a movie. It was at this time that Murtishaw's intentions toward the students first turned sinister. He 1 The plot of the movie is ironic when compared to the facts of this case. Is stranded in the desert due to car failure. He grows progressively weaker and is confronted by a hooded figure. Is unable to harm it. Thinking that Murtishaw was joking. Soto and Etayo responded that they were not going into town. Murtishaw and Laufenburger walked back to where Buflo and Henderson were still filming in order to watch them. He observed that Murtishaw smelled strongly of alcohol and that he was using profanity. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043127np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we find that Adams' waiver was valid and enforceable. We lack jurisdiction and will dismiss the appeal. 833 before he was arrested. It was stipulated that Adams accepted responsibility for his offenses. Adams and his counsel indicated that they were satisfied with the agreement. After finding that there was a factual basis for the plea and that Adams' prior convictions supported his designation as a career offender. The Court determined that Adams </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D17475CC2B5794E7882572C800726D30/$file/0515605.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The judge signed a minute entry stating that Wilshire's motion for summary judgment was granted and that Brown's was denied. The minute entry in this case was the memorialization of a ruling. Thus did not trigger the 10 day window in which Brown was required to appeal. BACKGROUND Because this opinion is limited to the timeliness of Brown's appeal to the district court. 1 we will just briefly summarize the facts. Brown's counsel. 1 IN RE: BROWN 4583 Cross motions for summary judgment were filed. Argument on the motions was held on April 22. The following exchange occurred: COURT: Those are my findings of fact and conclusions of law. That will suffice. That will be the order. Findings of fact and conclusions of law are made in the wake of a contested hearing. Which presupposes that the facts are undisputed. COURT: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WERE STATED ON THE RECORD. IT IS ORDERED DENYING THE DEBTOR'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING WILSHIRE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. /s/ Randolph J. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D66BAB63ED9E760788256E5A00707B0A/$file/9935379.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were represented by Tyler. Although some payments were made. The demand letters were. Apparently because it believed that North American was on the brink of insolvency. These events prompted the Mikkelborg firm to file a 1 The rule requires an attorney who is admitted for a particular case pro hac vice to associate an attorney who is admitted to practice in the court and who has an office in Washington. 5326 motion to withdraw. North American and Federal opposed the withdrawal and fee request on the grounds that the firm was withdrawing unilaterally and without good cause. Substitution was allowed but it was conditioned on security for payment of fees. DISCUSSION Our first order of business is to sort out the legal status of the district court's various orders and the two notices of appeal. Although the Mikkelborg firm argues that the October 1998 order awarding fees was a final appealable order. That order was an interlocutory order that was merged into the final December 1998 judgment. We conclude that Federal's first notice of appeal was untimely. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034433p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1 an association of law Joining FAIR in its preliminary injunction motion and in this appeal are: the Society for Law Teachers. We hold that FAIR has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its First Amendment claims and that it is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. Background Facts 2 and Procedural Posture Law Schools' Nondiscrimination Policies Law schools have long maintained formal policies of nondiscrimination that withhold career placement services from employers who exclude employees and applicants based on such factors as race. The facts on appeal are not in dispute. Supp. 2d at 277. 7 2 virtually every law school now has a comprehensive policy like the following: [The] School of Law is committed to a policy of equal opportunity for all students and graduates. A servicemember is separated from the military if it is found that he or she </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E96ED9BBDFD8A32488256A3A005B255F/$file/9935379.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were represented by Tyler. Although some payments were made. The demand letters were. Apparently because it believed that North American was on the brink of insolvency. These events prompted the Mikkelborg firm to file a 1 The rule requires an attorney who is admitted for a particular case pro hac vice to associate an attorney who is admitted to practice in the court and who has an office in Washington. 5326 motion to withdraw. North American and Federal opposed the withdrawal and fee request on the grounds that the firm was withdrawing unilaterally and without good cause. Substitution was allowed but it was conditioned on security for payment of fees. DISCUSSION Our first order of business is to sort out the legal status of the district court's various orders and the two notices of appeal. Although the Mikkelborg firm argues that the October 1998 order awarding fees was a final appealable order. That order was an interlocutory order that was merged into the final December 1998 judgment. We conclude that Federal's first notice of appeal was untimely. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F1E00D3A54B62AA288256EC90056C8FF/$file/0216619.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The appeal was not submitted as NRG Energy. Which was in bankruptcy proceedings. Argued the case for the appellant and was on the briefs. Were also on the briefs. Argued the case for the appellees and was on the joint briefs of the appellees. Hixson were also on the joint briefs as attorneys for the same parties. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the joint PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA v. Were on the joint briefs of the appellees. Were on the brief of amici curiae State of Washington and State of Oregon in support of plaintiff. Circuit Judge: We must decide whether federal removal jurisdiction lies over California state court actions alleging that several power companies fraudulently failed to deliver reserve energy that might otherwise have helped to avert the state's energy crises of 2000 and 2001. Perhaps the culmination of this rethinking was California's decision in 1996 to initiate an aggressive market experiment to deregulate and to restructure its electricity markets. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/0889a7e44c934bba88256e5a0070797d/$FILE/0015150.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Lawrence Short appeals from the judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/023727p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The main issue presented in these appeals is Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Because we conclude that the District Court's referral was an improper delegation of its traditional adjudicatory function. Factual Background and Procedural History This is the second time this CERCLA contribution action has been before us. The chief tasks on remand were to determine which of Beazer's response costs were necessary and consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP). The court may allocate response costs among liable parties using such equitable factors as the court determines are appropriate </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDAyLTk0MjRfc28ucGRm/02-9424_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDAyLTk0MjRfc28ucGRm/02-9424_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar2000/97-6347.man.html">REYNOLDS V. ROBERTS (3/29/2000, NO. 97-6347)<BR></A><BR> Recognizing that the issuance of an order to show cause rather than an injunction is the appropriate device for enforcing a consent decree. We vacate both orders and instruct the district court to restore the <EM>status quo ante.</EM></P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P><CENTER>A.</CENTER> </P> <P> The procedural history of this case is set out in our opinion in <EM>Reynolds v. Might have to the terms of the proposed decree. Consisting of the Department's non black employees.</P> <P> The January 19 hearing was held as scheduled. The objections to the race conscious aspects of the proposed consent decree were such that the parties withdrew it and. Consent Decrees II and III contained provisions that were acceptable to the plaintiffs and the Department. Adopted it in full.</P> <P><CENTER>B.</CENTER> </P> <P> Consent Decree I is composed of a series of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/8947fd92d7571ccf8825699800606679/$FILE/0015150.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Lawrence Short appeals from the judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcU1VNXDA0LTA3MTdfc28ucGRm/04-0717_so.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-1269.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Neal S. Of counsel on the brief were Maurice M. Of counsel was Scott E. With him on the brief were James A. Of counsel on the brief were Peter D. With him on the brief were Nicholas N. With him on the brief was Joshua R. Of counsel on the brief was J. Of counsel was Herbert C. With him on the brief were Robert C. Of counsel on the brief were Robert D. With him on the brief was Richard J. Of counsel on the brief were William J. With him on the brief were Kurt M. Of counsel on the brief were Ned A. John Will Ongman. With him on the brief was Alice O. Of counsel on the brief was Stephan E. With him on the brief was Mary Jo Boldingh. Of counsel on the brief was Charles F. Of counsel with him on the brief were Patrick G. Of counsel on the brief was John P. With him on the brief were Frank L. Of counsel on the brief were Jeremy P. With him on the brief were Joseph A. With him on the brief were Matthew S. With him on the brief was David R. Of counsel on the brief were Denise W. With him on the brief were John C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-5201.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These are companion appeals in plaintiff appellant Harold Dean Hornsby's pro se prisoner civil rights case. Docket No. 05 5201 is an appeal from the district court's judgment in favor of defendants appellees on Eleventh Amendment grounds and for failure to state a claim. Docket No. 05 5222 is an appeal from the district court's order denying Hornsby's motion to vacate the judgment. That error was harmless because Hornsby failed to state a legally viable claim for relief. Background Hornsby is an inmate at Oklahoma's R. Jones is substituted in his official capacity for Ron Ward. The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-1292a.html">HIGH PLAINS WIRELESS, L.P., V. FCC<BR></A><BR> Argued the cause for appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-1285.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Robert D. With her on the brief were Hugh L. Of counsel were Paul J. Inc. (collectively Apotex) will not infringe claim 1 of U.S. Because claim 1 of the '723 patent is invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Curzons's test results established that the new product was the hemihydrous form of PHC (PHC hemihydrate). Ferrosan's original form was anhydrous PHC (PHC anhydrate). The only claim at issue in this case is claim 1. SmithKline alleges that Apotex's proposed drug will infringe claim 1 of the '723 patent. PHC anhydrate the Ferrosan discovery is prior art for the '723 patent. SmithKline asserts that Apotex will infringe by manufacturing PHC anhydrate tablets that necessarily contain. Including cross motions for summary judgment that claim 1 of the '723 patent was invalid (or valid) under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for an impermissible public use. Holding that the '723 patent was not invalid for public use under § 102(b). Supp. 2d at The trial record contained uncontested testimony that a PHC anhydrate hemihydrate mixture would need to possess a percentage of PHC hemihydrate in the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-1285.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Robert D. With her on the brief were Hugh L. Of counsel were Paul J. Inc. (collectively Apotex) will not infringe claim 1 of U.S. Because claim 1 of the '723 patent is invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Curzons's test results established that the new product was the hemihydrous form of PHC (PHC hemihydrate). Ferrosan's original form was anhydrous PHC (PHC anhydrate). The only claim at issue in this case is claim 1. SmithKline alleges that Apotex's proposed drug will infringe claim 1 of the '723 patent. PHC anhydrate the Ferrosan discovery is prior art for the '723 patent. SmithKline asserts that Apotex will infringe by manufacturing PHC anhydrate tablets that necessarily contain. Including cross motions for summary judgment that claim 1 of the '723 patent was invalid (or valid) under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for an impermissible public use. Holding that the '723 patent was not invalid for public use under § 102(b). Supp. 2d at The trial record contained uncontested testimony that a PHC anhydrate hemihydrate mixture would need to possess a percentage of PHC hemihydrate in the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-5027.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Of counsel on the brief was Brian C. With her on the brief were Peter D. This is a consolidated appeal from two decisions of the Court of Federal Claims. Because the RAC is an agent of the United States. BACKGROUND I At the heart of this case is the administration of the AMAA. The AMAA was originally enacted during the Depression. Producers the principal purposes of which are to raise the price of agricultural products and to establish an orderly system for marketing them. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/10/97-3040.htm">97-3040 -- PFLUM V. U.S. -- 10/02/1997<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Contending. That he is not a person liable for or subject to federal income taxes. One of the summonses was directed to a Kansas financial institution. The other two were directed at financial institutions located in California. Plaintiff argued that he was not afforded proper notice of the issuance of the summonses. <p> Finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the provisions of 26 . 7609(c)(2)(B)(i) because the summonses were issued in aid of the collection of an assessed tax liability. With jurisdiction proper in the district where the summoned person resides or is found. A court has no subject matter jurisdiction over such a proceeding if the summons was issued </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/10/97-6232.htm">97-6232 -- ROBINSON V. WARD -- 10/10/1997<BR></A><BR> The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Peter Robinson. Robinson alleges that his sentences for those crimes were improperly enhanced by a void former conviction and that the sentences he received were thus greater than that allowed by law. <p> The district court referred Robinson's petition to a magistrate judge for initial proceedings in accordance with 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTEzMDUtY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/05-1305-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was suffering from end stage renal disease. Peter Lucia's left kidney was therefore air lifted to a hospital in Miami. Where Colavito was waiting for its implantation. While Colavito was being prepared for surgery. Discovered that Lucia's left kidney was irreparably damaged by aneurysms and therefore unfit for implantation. He was told that it had already been delivered to and implanted in another patient. Have also brought suit against a variety of persons and entities in New York State court alleging fraud. Concluding that his remaining claims were barred by a common law public policy against recognizing property rights in human corpses. We think that New York public policy respecting organ donations is more likely to be properly determined by reference to its current relevant statutory law than common law principles. Because Colavito's claims raise novel questions of statutory interpretation that have not yet been addressed by the New York courts. We will certify the following questions to the New York Court of Appeals: (1) Do the applicable provisions of the New York Public Health Law vest the intended recipient of a directed organ donation with rights that can be vindicated in a private party's lawsuit sounding in the common law tort of conversion or through a 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 private right of action derived from the New York Public Health Law? (2) Does New York Public Health Law immunize either (3) If a donee can negligent or grossly negligent misconduct? bring a private action to enforce the rights referred to in question 1. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar98/96-5514.man.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jost used most of the net proceeds received from the sale of the Missouri home to purchase a home in Florida and to pay for moving costs to Florida.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/96-1487.htm">96-1487 -- ELKASSABI V. SULEIMAN -- 12/12/1997<BR></A><BR> The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Mahmoud Elkassabi brought an action pro se against Esmail Suleiman and the Southland Corporation asserting constitutional violations arising from his employment with Southland at a convenience store. Kept him as a virtual slave and that Southland was responsible because Mr. Suleiman was acting in his capacity as a store manager. Devenney was in fact a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/01/96-6397.htm">96-6397 -- PAYLOR V. EVANS -- 01/06/1998<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Lloyd Orvil Paylor. We granted petitioner a certificate of probable cause<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-4208.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiff The Society of Lloyd's (Lloyd's) obtained a judgment against Bennett based on an award of summary judgment that was subsequently affirmed by this court. Accompanying the writ were interrogatories to be answered and filed by Morgan Stanley. The writ was to expire on September 7. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. We have consolidated cases 05 4208 and 05 4239. As the latter is merely a carbon copy of the former filed to cure a jurisdictional defect. <hr> On July 14. The hearing was held on August 6. One of which was that the writ would unduly interfere with his wife's interest in the account. The following is a quote from the minute entry: Counsel stipulated to the following: Mr. The magistrate judge found that discovery into the matter was warranted and that the parties had stipulated as to the nature and timing of that discovery. Bennett [was] resolved. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/01/97-1277.htm">97-1277 -- FULLER V. U.S. -- 01/06/1998<BR></A><BR> This cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> David James Fuller appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTAzNjktYmtfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0369-bk_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> B.J.) and finding that a confirmed Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan is res judicata preventing a debtor from avoiding a mortgage on his property where the mortgage lien. Was identified in the Chapter 13 plan. We address the question of whether the order dealing with a debtor's mortgage obligations in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy confirmation order is res judicata with respect to a subsequent challenge by the trustee to the validity of the mortgage. We conclude that it is. The district court concluded that a Chapter 13 bankruptcy confirmation order was res judicata with respect to the validity of certain mortgage liens listed by the debtor in his Chapter 13 plan and therefore precludes the debtor's and the Trustee's subsequent attempt to avoid these liens on his property. I. BACKGROUND The facts of this case are drawn from the parties' stipulations and bankruptcy court filings. The first and third mortgages were satisfied and discharged. Only the second ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200612022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: At issue today is the constitutionality of several zoning and public nudity ordinances adopted by the City of Daytona Beach ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/02/96-1205.htm">96-1205 -- TRUSTEES OF THE COLORADO TILE MARBLE & TERRAZZO WORKERS PENSION FUND V. WILKINSON & CO. INC. -- 02/03/1998<BR></A><BR> The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiffs. Was required to use union labor on work it performed under subcontract at the Denver International Airport in Colorado. Wilkinson is a signatory to a collective bargaining agreement between the Tile Contractors Association of Northern New Jersey. II at 339. <p> The Local 77 CBA also contains what is designated as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/02/97-1106.htm">97-1106 -- APOGEE ROBOTICS, INC. V. FOSS REALTY, INC. -- 02/27/1998<BR></A><BR> Appellant's request for oral argument is denied and the case is ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Defendant appellant Foss Realty. Any security interest Foss may have held in the stock certificate was terminated when Foss returned the certificate to Apogee. Rejecting Foss' argument that the return of the stock certificate was not a transfer. Determining that Foss' security interest in the stock certificate was unperfected on the date of the bankruptcy filing. A notice of the agreement was filed with the bankruptcy court hearing the adversary proceeding on June 18. Asserting that its motion was timely because the bankruptcy's court's summary judgment order did not become final until the court disposed of the claims against Mr. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/04/96-5012.htm">96-5012 -- WAGNON V. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY CO. -- 04/24/1998<BR></A><BR> The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> In appeal No. 96 5012. Wagnon's misrepresentations to State Farm were material and intentional as a matter of law. Plaintiffs' home was burglarized. That a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200512239.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who were insured by a Mt. Both of which are dissolved Florida corporations. Muria International was not actually a named insured on the Mt. Hawley thus argued alternatively that it had no duty to defend Muria International because Muria International was not covered under the policy. Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: . . . (2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect that interest. Unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties. (b) Permissive Intervention. Upon timely application anyone may be permitted to intervene in an action: . . . (2) when an applicant's claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common. . . . In exercising its discretion the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200512220.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Steamship is a mutual insurance association that provided protection and indemnity ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200511682.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The key issue presented in this petition for review is whether the Federal Communications Commission exceeded its authority. Which is the exclusive province of federal regulation. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(3)(A). Which are regulable by the states. We dismiss the petition of the Vermont Board because it is not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar98/97-6236.man.html">UNITED STATES V. ANDERTON (3/4/1998, NO. 97-6236)<BR></A><BR> Anderton </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200413574.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Four young friends were hanging out on benches in front of the Munch Shop. Wayne Simpson were college students who often gathered there to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/04/97-3200.htm">97-3200 -- SAPP V. GREIF -- 04/03/1998<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiffs Fletcher and Ruth Sapp obtained a judgment for over $900. 000 in a state court action against defendant Leopold Greif relating to his activities in administering loans plaintiffs obtained from Midland Bank of Kansas while he was a bank officer and director. Plaintiffs appeal. <p> These general facts are not disputed. The FDIC provided notice to National Union of a variety of claims it might have under the policy. <p> In November 1993. Seeking to rescind the policy on the basis that the application Midland submitted to obtain the policy was fraudulent. Any and all claims which are expressly released herein by the FDIC. Any and all claims which are expressly reserved herein by the FDIC. Plaintiffs could not have any. <u>See</u> <u>id.</u> at 246 47. Plaintiffs contend that the district court erred in concluding that Greif's release of National Union barred their recovery under the policy because (1) the release is void because National Union obtained it through fraudulent misrepresentations. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200412343.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which were mutual modifications of the original 1986 QDRO. Are null and void. Georgia domestic relations law makes clear that post judgment modification by a court of a divorce decree concerning the equitable distribution of property is normally not permissible. Sitting by designation. 2 asset is insufficient grounds to upset the policy disfavoring modification of fixed allocations of economic resources distributed in a property settlement. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/04/97-5170.htm">97-5170 -- NORAM GAS TRANSMISSION CO. V. ENTERPRISE RESOURCE CORP. -- 04/09/1998<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Defendant appellant Alan G. Because the district court's findings are supported by the evidence. Background <p> Plaintiff Noram Gas Transmission Company is the successor in interest of Arkla Energy Resources. These volumes were known as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/04/97-7035.htm">97-7035 -- U.S. V. LONDONO -- 04/15/1998<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Defendant Nestor Londono appeals from the district court's order denying his motion to vacate sentence filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/05/97-3267.htm">97-3267 -- U.S. V. HUNT -- 05/05/1998<BR></A><BR> This cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Robert Hunt pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. We affirm. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/05/97-4172.htm">97-4172 -- U.S. V. CAMPBELL -- 05/06/1998<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Charles Grant Campbell appeals the district court's dismissal of his first 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/06/98-6026.htm">98-6026 -- REYNOLDS AND REYNOLDS CO. V. EAVES -- 06/10/1998<BR></A><BR> We will outline the facts only briefly for the purpose of focusing the district court's attention on remand. Eaves and ABF have misappropriated Reynolds' trade secrets in violation of the Eaves Reynolds Confidentiality Agreement and Okla. Eaves and ABF have engaged in unfair competition in violation of state common law and </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/97-4201.htm">97-4201 -- MYERS V. THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (UTAH) -- 07/14/1998<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff appellant Morris Myers (Meyers) brought an action in the United States District Court for the District of Utah alleging violations of his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/07/97-5163.htm">97-5163 -- OKLAHOMA PLAZA INVESTORS V. WAL-MART STORES, INC. -- 07/01/1998<BR></A><BR> The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Oklahoma Plaza Investors. </li> <li> a use clause stating that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/08/97-2381.htm">97-2381 -- JEGART V. APFEL -- 08/07/1998<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff appeals the district court's decision upholding the Commissioner's refusal to reentitle her to child disability benefits. <u>See</u> 42 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200210135.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Apalachicola Chattahoochee Flint Compact ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200115410.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We decide whether damages are available under the Railway Labor Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200113317.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we conclude that there was no pending state criminal action before proceedings of substance on the merits had taken place in federal court. We hold that Younger abstention was improper. Diane Sherman and Wendy Baskin were lingerie models at the studio. The parties agree that FYEA is an adult entertainment establishment under § 14 223. Is provided a thirty day time limit for granting or denying such a permit. Pennza were not parties to the state litigation. The Revenue Department notified FYEA that it The section states in full: No adult entertainment establishment shall allow and no employee thereof shall engage in private modeling sessions or other activities involving sexual displays in which one (1) employee is placed in a one on one situation with one (1) customer. Despite receiving a letter from Sergeant Rick Stinson stating that FYEA was approved for an adult entertainment permit. Nor did it receive a business license that would have allowed it to continue offering adult entertainment. The City also contends that an undercover police operation led to the conclusion that FYEA was not in compliance with the Ordinance. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/10/98-3048.htm">98-3048 -- U.S. V. SANCHEZ-FLORES -- 10/07/1998<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> After pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/10/98-6076.htm">98-6076 -- U.S. V. KUHSE -- 10/28/1998<BR></A><BR> Kuhse was ordered to pay restitution in an amount not to exceed $3. The district court's factual findings underlying the restitution order are reviewed for clear error. <em>See id. </em> <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200014481.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Stephen Lawrence appeals the bankruptcy court's order adjudging him in contempt and ordering his imprisonment until the contempt is purged. An arbitration judgment was issued against him in the amount of $20.4 million dollars. Several amendments were made to the Trust. A spendthrift provision was added. The Trust was amended so that settlor's powers could not be executed under duress or coercion and his life interest would terminate in the event of his bankruptcy. An amendment was added declaring Lawrence Honorable Henry A. The Trustees issued a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199914272.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> To answer two questions pertaining to § 253 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: (1) what is the preemptive scope of § 253. Because amendments were made to relevant state laws after the district court rendered judgment. This decision is rendered by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). 2 ** * I. Congress announced that it was passing </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199914272.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> To answer two questions pertaining to § 253 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996:(1) what is the preemptive scope of § 253. Because amendments were made to relevant state laws after the district court rendered judgment. Congress announced that it was passing </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/12/97-9577.htm">97-9577 -- FOUR B CORP. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD -- 12/18/1998<BR></A><BR> Because we find that the Board's conclusions and factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. Convenience and the continuing good will of our customers. There must be no solicitation or distribution of literature of any kind by any team member during the actual working time of the team member soliciting or the team member being solicited. <p> Persons who are not Company team members may not solicit or distribute literature for any purpose in any customer service area. Working area or any area restricted to Company team members. <p> There must be no solicitation or distribution of literature of any kind by persons in customer service areas or shopping areas of the store during those hours when the store is open for business. <p> Joint Ex. 1. A copy of this policy was available in the office of both the Roeland Park and Grandview stores. Both stores were the target of what Price Chopper describes as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/02/97-2397.htm">97-2397 -- MARTINEZ V. ALIRE -- 02/03/1999<BR></A><BR> That the motion was well taken. Alire was dismissed as a defendant without prejudice. Did not file a motion for an extension of time pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b) and D.N.M.R.LR Civ. 16.1 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-3446.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Subjected her to discrimination on the (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. A disability.(1) She also claimed she was discharged in retaliation for her opposition to such discrimination. We will affirm a grant of summary judgment only where </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar99/97-8886.man.html">WHITLEY V. UNITED STATES (3/26/1999, NO. 97-8886)<BR></A><BR> Because we have determined that the circumstances under which the accident occurred were not incident to military service. BACKGROUND</CENTER> </P> <P> The 1993 United States Military National Championship Rugby Tournament ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19982610.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are as follows. Which was directed to the Army National Bank where John Malowney and his wife. The Malowneys' funds were made unavailable to them and the Bank refused to honor checks written on their account. 2 The complaint is void of any indication that the Malowneys received notice as mandated by the Florida post judgment garnishment statute. That he may have exemptions from the garnishment which can be asserted as defenses. The only funds in the Malowneys' checking account at the time of garnishment were social security disability benefits and United States Army retirement benefits. Both of which are exempt from garnishment under federal law. All of the funds attached by the writ of garnishment were subject to exemption under federal law. Obtain dissolution of a writ of garnishment by proving that the attached funds are exempt from garnishment under federal or state law. Was dissolved on July 14. 1997.1 The only count relevant to this appeal is Count I. Because that is the only count the Malowneys discuss in their briefs to this Court. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19982610.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are as follows. Which was directed to the Army National Bank where John Malowney and his wife. Sitting by designation. * Malowneys' funds were made unavailable to them and the Bank refused to honor checks written on their account. The complaint is void of any indication that the Malowneys received notice as mandated by the Florida post judgment garnishment statute. That he may have exemptions from the garnishment which can be asserted as defenses. The only funds in the Malowneys' checking account at the time of garnishment were social security disability benefits and United States Army retirement benefits. Both of which are exempt from garnishment under federal law. All of the funds attached by the writ of garnishment were subject to exemption under federal law. Obtain dissolution of a writ of garnishment by proving that the attached funds are exempt from garnishment under federal or state law. Was dissolved on July 14. 1997.1 The only count relevant to this appeal is Count I. Because that is the only count the Malowneys discuss in their briefs An amended complaint supersedes an original complaint. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19978886.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we have determined that the circumstances under which the accident occurred were not incident to military service. I. BACKGROUND The 1993 United States Military National Championship Rugby Tournament ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19976347.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Recognizing that the issuance of an order to show cause rather than an injunction is the appropriate device for enforcing a consent decree. The procedural history of this case is set out in our opinion in Reynolds v. The lawsuit was styled initially as Reynolds v. Butts was the director of the Department when the Adams Intervenors took this appeal. He was replaced as director by G.M. Who were permanent employees under the Department's merit system (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19976347.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Recognizing that the issuance of an order to show cause rather than an injunction is the appropriate device for enforcing a consent decree. The procedural history of this case is set out in our opinion in Reynolds v. The lawsuit was styled initially as Reynolds v. Butts was the director of the Department when the Adams Intervenors took this appeal. He was replaced as director by G.M. Might have to the terms of the proposed decree. Who were permanent employees under the Department's merit system (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/02/98-2110.htm">98-2110 -- GOMEZ V. ALLIED SIGNAL INC. -- 02/23/1999<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Raul Gomez. When the formalized settlement agreement was tendered to him on August 29. The district court held a hearing and concluded that the settlement agreement was valid. <u>See</u> Rec. vol. He argued that his consent to the settlement agreement was not knowing and voluntary because he had not been given twenty one days to consider the agreement and seven days to revoke it. <p> The district court conducted a hearing on Mr. 1997 settlement conference at which the challenged agreement was reached. The terms of the agreement were reduced to writing. The court found that the settlement agreement was enforceable. Gomez contends that the judge presiding over the August 1997 settlement conference </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/02/98-3091.htm">98-3091 -- U.S. V. TERRELL -- 02/26/1999<BR></A><BR> Terrell ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/02/98-6138.htm">98-6138 -- HILL V. GILLIAM -- 02/01/1999<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff Benny Fred Hill. While Hill was on parole from his prison sentence for a murder conviction. Gilliam determined that there was probable cause that Hill had violated his parole because he had been arrested on a . Hill was taken into custody on the warrant. His parole was revoked. The magistrate judge recommended that the complaint be dismissed or summary judgment be granted on a variety of grounds: (1) because Hill was contesting the validity of his parole revocation and return to confinement. The action was premature because he had to first obtain appropriate habeas corpus relief as required by <em>Heck v. (2) the action was barred by the applicable two year statute of limitations. (3) the action was void of factual merit. The action was legally frivolous. Who was sued only in his individual capacity. Was entitled to qualified immunity. That period is . 1983 case when </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/03/97-2378.htm">97-2378 -- MAEZ V. COPPLER & ARAGON P.C. -- 03/31/1999<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/03/97-6428.htm">97-6428 -- STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO. V. SLOAN -- 03/31/1999<BR></A><BR> The facts of this case are brief. The pick up truck was insured by State Farm under Sloan's name. Jessica was entitled to liability coverage only up to the limit required by the Oklahoma Financial Responsibility Act for bodily injury. <em>See</em> Okla. That amount was $10. Sloan filed a response claiming that the household exclusion was ambiguous and thus subject to her reasonable expectations. <p> 4. any other person while using such a car if its use is within the scope of consent of you or your spouse <p> The household exclusion was modified by Section I. Which provided: <p> THERE IS NO COVERAGE TO THE EXTENT THE LIMITS OF LIABILITY OF THIS POLICY EXCEED THE LIMITS OF LIABILITY REQUIRED BY THE OKLAHOMA FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT FOR BODILY INJURY TO ANY INSURED OR ANY MEMBER OF AN INSURED'S FAMILY RESIDING IN THE INSURED'S HOUSEHOLD. <p> <p> <p> Sloan's primary argument is that the insurance policy at issue is ambiguous and thus subject to interpretation based upon her reasonable expectations. Sloan's ambiguity argument is simple: because Anderson was driving the vehicle with the permission of Sloan. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2001/99-14272.man.html">BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS V. TOWN OF PALM BEACH (5/25/2001, NO. 99-14272)<BR></A><BR> To answer two questions pertaining to § 253 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996:(1) what is the preemptive scope of § 253. Because amendments were made to relevant state laws after the district court rendered judgment. Congress announced that it was passing </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-2180.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Appeals from the district court's orders vacating a default judgment and dismissing his case for lack of (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. He alleges Judge Lang was biased against him when he denied a motion for access to medical records that Silverberg allegedly had provided to the court ex parte in relation to a contempt hearing. A copy of the complaint and summons was served on each defendant on April 7. Guttman never moved for entry of default judgment against Silverberg and none was ever entered. Guttman argues that the district court should not have set aside the entry of default against Silverberg. He also argues that the district court should have entered default against Judge Lang and. That Judge Lang is not entitled to absolute judicial immunity because his acts were nonjudicial. (1) Rule 55(a) reads: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19948335.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Plan's benefits were conditioned on each employee's execution of a general release. Indicating that they would have to return the executed release by June 4 in order to receive their severance pay on their last day of work. The explanation accompanying the releases also gave the ages and job titles of all the Decatur employees who would be laid off and hence were eligible for Plan benefits. KGF provided no age data regarding employees who were not eligible for Plan benefits. They claimed that their waivers of ADEA rights were not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct98/97-8246.man.html">HALL V. CORAM HEALTHCARE CORP. (10/15/1998, NO. 97-8246)<BR></A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge:</P> <P><CENTER><EM>BACKGROUND</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> A complete account of the facts in this case is set out in <EM>In re T2 Medical. The appellants here were the plaintiff class members of a prior federal securities action that had resulted in a settlement with the defendants from that action. Appellants were issued over 2.5 million warrants to purchase Coram common stock at approximately $22 per share.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/03/98-1243.htm">98-1243 -- VARALLO V. SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO -- 03/16/1999<BR></A><BR> Varallo was disbarred by the Colorado Supreme Court in 1996 for knowingly using client funds for his personal benefit. The Colorado Supreme Court held that its disciplinary process was constitutional. Which was denied. <u>See</u> <u>Varallo v. 1983 action in federal district court seeking to enjoin enforcement of the Colorado Supreme Court's order of disbarment against him and a declaration that Colorado's lawyer disciplinary process was unconstitutional.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/06/97-4209.htm">97-4209 -- U.S. V. VAN CLEAF -- 06/28/1999<BR></A><BR> Then paid her air fare back to Salt Lake from Idaho to have her work at the agency. Vancleaf was charged with one count of persuading an individual to travel in interstate commerce to engage in prostitution or other illegal sexual activity with respect to Ms. He failed to appear for trial and was further charged with failure to appear in court. He was subsequently also charged with witness tampering. <p> Mr. He was sentenced to 57 months in prison followed by a three year term of supervised release. These are two consolidated appeals. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/07/98-2253.htm">98-2253 -- U.S. V. THROWER -- 07/02/1999<BR></A><BR> The only appeal over which we have jurisdiction. Which is untimely.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1377.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appeals the dismissal on summary judgment of her claims that she was fired by the Regis Corporation in breach of an implied contract to issue an employee three warnings before firing her. She also appeals the dismissal of her claim that Regis promised to issue warnings and was required to do so under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Anderson (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. R. 36.3. <hr> was an employee at will. I Anderson was first hired by Regis to work as a cosmetologist in 1996. Nor in any other written or unwritten policies or procedures creates or is intended to create an express or implied contract. All employees are at will and the company has the right to terminate any employee at any time with or without notice. Any exception to the at will relationship must be evidenced by a written agreement signed by the affected employee and the company president. Anderson also signed a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1854.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. He shrugs off the fact that the issue was not raised on direct appeal. I The relevant facts are essentially undisputed. A jury was empaneled (but not sworn) on June 22. Including a claim that the petitioner's 1993 state conviction was insufficient to trigger the statutory enhancement because it was for a misdemeanor. We granted a COA limited to the following question: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1813.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Costello</U> was on brief for appellees.</FONT></P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/98-5062.htm">98-5062 -- RMP CONSULTING GROUP, INC. V. DATRONIC RENTAL CORPORATION -- 08/16/1999<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1020.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C. were on brief for appellant. Flanagan & Cohen was on brief for appellee Providence Hospital. With whom McDonald & Associates was on brief for appellee Massachusetts Nurses Association. A registered nurse who was discharged from her employment. He added that a regular daytime shift would be </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-41341.0.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. Contreras' guilty plea to the 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) charge was taken by the magistrate judge and approved by the district court after Contreras gave his written consent. Contreras argues that his guilty plea and conviction are void because a FED. He concedes that this argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent but raises it to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review. Contreras' argument is foreclosed. The judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED. The Government's unopposed motion for summary affirmance and to waive the briefing requirement is GRANTED. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/99-3024.htm">99-3024 -- STRACHAN V. ARMY CLEMENCY & PAROLE BOARD -- 08/27/1999<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Mr. He alleged that the Parole Board's actions were improperly based on a municipal court conviction that was constitutionally void due to the denial of his right to counsel. <p> This court vacated a previous order of the district court denying his petition. <u>Id.</u> We remanded for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/09/99-7011.htm">99-7011 -- WILLIAMS V. KAISER -- 09/02/1999<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Mr. He was sentenced to twenty years in prison. His case was assigned to an emergency panel of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. Is void. Williams's conviction and sentence was not arbitrary. There is no basis for habeas relief on this ground. <p> We conclude that Mr. We deny his application for a certificate of appealability. <p> This appeal is DISMISSED. <p> ENTERED FOR THE COURT. <p> Deanell Reece Tacha <p> Circuit Judge <p> <hr> <center> <b>FOOTNOTES</b> <font size=2>Click footnote number to return to corresponding location in the text.</font> </center> <p> <a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1838.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C. was on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee. White was not offered or furnished with counsel at his parole revocation hearing. Holding that White's 1983 action was barred by res judicata and that the parole board members were protected by qualified immunity. Gary White was convicted of armed robbery in 1987 and sentenced to twelve years' imprisonment. He was paroled 2 2 on September 19. She was evaluated to determine if she had been sexually abused. The evaluation was inconclusive. The DSS filed a report alleging that White was sexually abusing his step children and sent a copy of this report to the Plymouth County District Attorney's office. A final parole 3 3 revocation hearing was held on November 19. White was not represented by counsel. The Superior Court ruled that White was entitled to a new parole revocation hearing within sixty days because the parole board had violated its own regulations by failing to provide White with a copy of the DSS report. The Massachusetts Superior Court also held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment required the parole board to appoint counsel for White at the new hearing if the board determined that White was indigent. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2334.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lisa Sternschuss and Looney & Grossman were on brief for appellant. Mitchell & Pucci were on brief for appellee. Rini's household items were packed on August 20. Certain items were missing. Damages were awarded in the amount of $50. Id. 234 1 There have been amendments to the Carmack Amendment since 1990 when the events at issue in this case took place. References will be made to the pre amendment statute. 2 35. Rini was awarded attorney's fees in the amount of $146. We must determine whether the state law claims on which Rini prevailed are preempted by the Carmack Amendment. These claims are for negligence. The relevant portions of the Amendment are: A common carrier . . . subject to the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission . . . shall issue a receipt or a bill of lading for property it receives for transportation . . . . That carrier . . . and any other common carrier that delivers the property and is providing transportation or service subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission . . . are liable to the person entitled to recover under the receipt or bill of lading. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5016.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Kevin J. Argued for defendant appellee.</span><span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With her on the brief were <u>David M. Assistant Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Paul M. Denying Godwin s motion for judgment on the administrative record.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>The Court of Federal Claims held that Godwin s complaint failed to allege that (1) the United States Coast Guard ( Coast Guard ) selection board ( Selection Board ) that considered Godwin for promotion in late 1993 was illegally constituted. BACKGROUND<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoBodyTextIndent style='line height:200%'>Godwin was a Coast Guard lieutenant serving on extended active duty as a Reserve Program Administrator ( RPA ).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>RPA officers were a category of reserve component officers who served on active duty pursuant to 10 . Which was repealed in 1994.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>In December of 1993. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct99/98-2610.man.html">MALOWNEY V. FED. COLLECTION DEPOSIT GROUP (10/29/1999, NO. 98-2610)<BR></A><BR> Are as follows. Which was directed to the Army National Bank where John Malowney and his wife. The Malowneys' funds were made unavailable to them and the Bank refused to honor checks written on their account.</P> <P> The complaint is void of any indication that the Malowneys received notice as mandated by the Florida post judgment garnishment statute. That he may have exemptions from the garnishment which can be asserted as defenses. The Malowneys did not become aware of the garnishment until they contacted the Bank concerning their returned checks.</P> <P> The only funds in the Malowneys' checking account at the time of garnishment were social security disability benefits and United States Army retirement benefits. Both of which are exempt from garnishment under federal law. All of the funds attached by the writ of garnishment were subject to exemption under federal law. Obtain dissolution of a writ of garnishment by proving that the attached funds are exempt from garnishment under federal or state law. Was dissolved on July 14. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-1032.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Because his ability to proceed pro se was restricted. Counsel entered an appearance on his behalf. <hr> filed a complaint against judges of this court and the other courts who were involved in the disciplinary decisions. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-8096.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held the search was lawful on two grounds. Manzano (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> voluntarily consented to the search. Wyoming State Highway Patrol Trooper Ben Peech was on patrol on I 80 near Cheyenne. Informed him he was speeding. Manzano's hands were shaking. He was fidgety. His voice was stammering. Was missing a windshield wiper cover and that the wiper bolt was scarred. The officer testified that the Ford Expedition is a known drug courier car as it has void space in the vicinity of the wiper housing commonly used to hide contraband. Manzano acknowledged he was speeding and produced the requested documents. Even after being informed he was only getting a warning. The officer questioned him about his travel plans and he explained that he was moving from California to Nebraska to start a business and that he moved back and forth between the two states depending on work. Told him to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/10/98-7173.htm">98-7173 -- HARRISON V. APFEL -- 10/07/1999<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Claimant David Harrison appeals from the district court's order affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying his application for supplemental security income benefits. Was denied initially and on reconsideration.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/03/98-1350.htm">98-1350 -- POWELL V. COBE LABORATORIES INC. -- 03/02/2000<BR></A><BR> Powell frequently inquired about formal procedures for the planner position but was told none existed. She was offered an entry level production job to allow her to continue to search for what she determined to be suitable employment within the company. Or were positions for which she did not qualify. Powell claims it was during this time period. Scheck's starting salary was $32. Powell's Motion to File Supplemental Appendix as the additional material offered was either provided by COBE. We do not have the time or resources to catalogue every objection we have to the attorneys' conduct other than to echo the lament voiced by Senior District Judge Stuart. Sitting by designation with the Eighth Circuit: <p> The most troublesome aspect of this lawsuit is the lack of professionalism and civility displayed by the lawyers.... This case serves as an example of the unfortunate lack of civility in the practice of law which is receiving considerable attention at this time.... The motions are denied. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/03/99-5048.htm">99-5048 -- O'DELL V. SUN REFINING AND MARKETING CO. -- 03/31/2000<BR></A><BR> Senior District Judge.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1674.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> McAllister and Cuddy Bixby were on brief for appellant. Peres and Riemer & Braunstein were on brief for appellee. Among the Seventeen Notes was a $290. All citations of statutory sections are to the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978. The Bank claimed to have a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-8053.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Manufactured and sold fruit flavored water beverages. 7 Up (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Believed Geyser's price increase for its concentrates was unreasonable. Who were eventually added as plaintiffs. 7 Up never notified American of any mediation. <hr> implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and theft of trade secrets. 1 Jt. That </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/98-3285.htm">98-3285 -- STORTS V. HARDEE'S FOOD SYSTEMS INC. -- 04/06/2000<BR></A><BR> Hardee's' primary contentions are that the district court's instructions on the duty to provide security and the duty to warn of a dangerous condition. Were not supported by the evidence. The suit is barred by the statute of limitations. We conclude that although the evidence is sufficient to establish the existence and breach of the duty to provide security. This error requires reversal because it is impossible to determine from the general verdict whether the jury relied on the improperly submitted duty to warn theory of negligence. The remaining claims of error are without merit. She was admitted to St. Oklahoma because she had overdosed on drugs and alcohol and was suffering from depression. Of which she was an intended third party beneficiary. The case was tried to a jury. Hardee's argues that Storts's claim is barred by the statute of limitations. The jury instructions regarding duty were erroneous. A civil action is deemed commenced on the date the complaint is filed. Provided service of process is obtained within ninety days of the date of filing. <u>See</u> Kan. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2373.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is corrected as follows: 1. Pritzker could have exercised the buy out option as late as 10 years after the formation of the contract (withholding any payment until then). There is evidence in the record. The expert testified that this reduction to present value could have brought the present value of the redemption price as of December 3. Palcu & Miranda were on brief. Gonzalez & Rodriguez were on brief. Circuit Judge. remedial phase of a protracted dispute in which the main protagonists are a pair of erstwhile partners. Was either excessive. Or too 1The three appeals with which we are concerned today were consolidated for oral argument with three other appeals arising out of the same case. For the apparent purpose of funding Dopp's litigatory efforts we will address them in a separate and subsequent opinion. 4 niggardly. We write somewhat sparingly because the background of the litigation is already well documented. Were the majority shareholder. 6 seller canceled the letter of credit. We then remanded for 3Resolution is a remedy that. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-8041.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Steffani Yarbrough fell while participating in the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-7009.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. That under Illinois law plaintiffs' claim against Country for underinsured motorist coverage was barred by the two year limitations period contained in the policy. While plaintiffs were traveling through Oklahoma. Their car was struck by a car being driven by Harlan Mogck. Plaintiffs are residents of Illinois and Mogck is a resident of Oklahoma. Country is incorporated and domiciled in Illinois. Plaintiffs were insured under an auto insurance policy that they purchased from Country in Illinois. Plaintiffs were injured in the accident. Plaintiffs' counsel sent a letter to Country notifying it that plaintiffs had filed suit against Mogck and that plaintiffs were asserting a claim against Country for underinsured motorist <hr> benefits. (2) </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1136.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C. were on brief for appellant. Allen & Snyder were on brief for appellees. Was fraudulently induced to discharge six consignments of frozen scallops. The discharged scallops were seized by appellees Fleet National Bank and Cooper ative Centrale Raiffeisen Boerenleenbank B.A. (hereinafter. Glouces 1An order bill of lading is a negotiable instrument. Issued by the carrier to the shipper at the time goods are loaded aboard ship. As documentary evidence of title to those goods. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1101.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiff was terminated from her long time position as ticket agent with Eastern Air Lines. That determination was affirmed on administrative appeal the following month. Finding that plaintiff's allegations were unsupported and advising her of her right to file a private action against Eastern. Eastern then reported that it had filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in March 1989 and was therefore protected by the automatic stay. Plaintiff's claims against Eastern were not addressed below. 3 discrimination in a deficient manner particularly by failing to conduct an independent investigation and failing to monitor the MCAD. This determination was plainly correct. It is well established that Congress has not authorized either expressly or impliedly. 662 63 (10th Cir. 1991) (noting that courts have </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1054.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: On page 24. The last sentence in the second paragraph </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6201.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. (1) This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. Ellis was indicted on seven drug related counts. Or 2) the appeal was based on a subsequent change in Tenth Circuit or Supreme Court case law that is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/99-1415.htm">99-1415 -- U.S. V. AREVALO-TAVARES -- 04/26/2000<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/04/99-6216.htm">99-6216 -- LEEPER V. APFEL -- 04/13/2000<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff Michael G. The claim was decided at step five. <u>See generally</u> <u>Williams v. The administrative law judge (ALJ) decided in March 1997 that claimant retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to do a full range of light work and was therefore not disabled under Rule . Claimant argues that the ALJ's reliance on RFC assessments from 1995 was improper for the time period after July 1996 because claimant suffered a herniated disk in his back then which resulted in surgery. Of determining based on substantial evidence the effect of claimant's 1996 injury and surgery on his RFC. <p> We have jurisdiction under 42 . We review the agency's decision on the whole record to determine only whether the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and the correct legal standards were applied. <u>See</u> <u>Goatcher v. We affirm in part and reverse in part and remand the case for additional proceedings. <p> Claimant was born in August 1953 and has a ninth grade education. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1600.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are without jurisdiction to review the remand order. REMOVAL AND REMAND REMOVAL AND REMAND Cok was divorced in Rhode Island in 1982. Protracted and acrimonious proceedings in the Rhode Island Family Court have continued to this day and form the backdrop of this appeal. The divorce and its fallout have produced over 600 orders. This is at least Cok's second attempt to remove matters devolving out of her divorce to the federal district court. 000 fund that Cok was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6054.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Then moved for summary judgment on the grounds that (1) plaintiff's claim for recovery of benefits under the plan was barred by her failure to comply with a plan provision mandating exhaustion of all claim review procedures before recourse to legal action and (2) plaintiff's claim for bad faith administration of the plan was not recognized under Oklahoma law and was factually unsupported in any event. Under Oklahoma (1) Benefit plans for church employees are not governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. If a contract's terms </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2248.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is our second occasion to revisit the actions of the Town of Fairfield (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/99-3201.htm">99-3201 -- OWENS V. CONTINENTAL INSURANCE CO. -- 05/30/2000<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff Leola L. We have jurisdiction under 28 . Owens was killed in an automobile collision with a vehicle driven by Joshua Kreutzer. Who was also killed in the accident. Was a 12 year old boy. Owned the vehicle Joshua was driving and had given him permission to drive the . Spohn Owens was a named insured on a . The Kreutzers were insured under a farm property insurance policy also issued by Continental. Claiming that Joshua negligently operated the motor vehicle and that Gary and Sherry Kreutzer were negligent in entrusting the automobile to Joshua. Plaintiff and the Kreutzers reached a settlement agreement and judgment was entered in that case on November 9. The terms of the settlement agreement are set forth in the entry of judgment. It claimed it was not liable under the Owens' underinsured motorist coverage for two reasons. The settlement agreement provided that the judgment was to be paid solely and exclusively from the Kreutzers' insurance policies. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/98-1320.htm">98-1320 -- SCOTT V. HERN -- 06/06/2000<BR></A><BR> 1983 claim is satisfied when a licensed physician submits an affidavit to law enforcement officials in support of involuntary commitment. We affirm the remaining aspects of the district court's judgment.<strong></strong> <p> <strong><center>I</strong></center> <p> Scott is an anti abortion activist who frequently demonstrated in front of an abortion clinic in Boulder. How many days do you have left? The Lord showed me you have less than one year. Scott was a survivalist and expert marksman who. Stated that Scott </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/06/98-1320a.htm">98-1320A -- SCOTT V. HERN -- 06/06/2000<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/00-1071.htm">00-1071 -- NEGRON V. ADAMS -- 08/15/2000<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Benito Negron appeals the district court's denials of his Fed. Which was denied. We will not reverse unless the trial court has made </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-5106.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Papa was not entitled to coverage. I. The material facts are undisputed. Papa was injured in a car accident on July 11. Noone's liability insurance was insufficient to compensate Papa for his injuries. Papa was driving an Avis rental car. He was acting in the course and scope of his employment with S&B Engineers and Constructors. S&B had a (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. It is undisputed that the S&B policy was negotiated. Papa alleges that he is entitled to uninsured/underinsured (UN/UIM) motorist coverage under the S&B policy. Because the rental car was neither owned by S&B nor garaged in a state where UM/UIM coverage is compulsory. AHA contends Papa is not entitled to UM/UIM coverage under the S&B policy. Papa argues the S&B policy is governed by Louisiana law. The UM/UIM limitation in the S&B policy is illusory and void. AHA argues the S&B policy is governed by Texas law. Where the policy was issued. That the UM/UIM limitation is valid under Texas law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/99-3144.htm">99-3144 -- U.S. V. ALLERHEILIGEN -- 08/01/2000<BR></A><BR> Special Agent Larry Dixon and Sheriff Coggins were also present in the aircraft at that time. <p> Mr. Allerheiligen's property is located in a rural area in Marshall County. A fairly new candy wrapper was found in the marijuana patch. There was a foot trail leading from the marijuana patch to a gate. The marijuana patch was within a fenced off area with barbed wire and other fence encasing it. <p> On September 2. The magistrate judge issued the warrant. <p> The warrant was executed the following day. Which is indicative of cultivated marijuana that is started in a peat pot and later transplanted to the ground. <p> In the indoor marijuana grow room. A fan were being regulated on a timer. Accepting the district court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. <u>See</u> <u>United States v. ] is a question of law </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/99-3292.htm">99-3292 -- MELLON V. CESSNA AIRCRAFT CO. -- 08/25/2000<BR></A><BR> We affirm in part and reverse in part the district court's post judgment contempt order. <p> <center>I.</center> <p> Cessna is a Kansas corporation with its principal place of business in Wichita. Cessna is the world's largest manufacturer of light and mid size general purpose jet aircraft. There are approximately 70 fixed based operators in the United States that are certified by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to service Cessna jets. <p> Mellon. The jet was manufactured and delivered to its initial owner in 1979. He contacted Cessna prior to purchasing the modification and was assured that installation of the modification would not prevent him from having his jet maintained and serviced at Cessna owned service centers. <p> In early 1992. Mellon's purpose in contacting Knapp was to determine if installation of the Eagle 400 modification would affect his ability to have his jet serviced at Cessna owned service centers. Mellon believes he also may have told Knapp the modification included changing the jet's battery. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1711.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1517.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Luckerman</SPAN> was on brief. Russell</SPAN> was on brief. Were on brief. We reverse.</SPAN></P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug17/03-21193.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Federal district courts are prohibited from reviewing Pursuant to 5TH CIR. The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Insofar as Gordon alleges that the Texas Supreme Court's judgment was void for lack of jurisdiction. To the extent that Gordon's arguments can be liberally construed as raising a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim that he was denied access to the courts. This also is not a cognizable federal claim. Gordon's appeal is without arguable merit and is therefore dismissed as frivolous. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2345.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With whom <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/08/99-6344.htm">99-6344 -- BROWN V. SAMSON RESOURCES CO. -- 08/31/2000<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <strong><hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/10/99-1553.htm">99-1553 -- HARPIN V. OAKLEY CUSTOM HOMES INC. -- 10/17/2000<BR></A><BR> Harpin filed his action in November 1998 seeking to have a March 1994 bankruptcy judgment in favor of Oakley Custom Homes declared void on the grounds that the bankruptcy court had no personal jurisdiction over him and that it failed to give him adequate notice and an opportunity to respond before entering judgment against him. Whether or not further relief is or could be sought. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4112.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Zhou is a Chinese born American citizen. He was hired by the University as an assistant professor of music. The term of his employment contract was one academic year. Promptly deprived him of an assignment that would have allowed him to earn extra pay. White faculty members were (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. When Zhou complained that he was being treated unfairly. His notice of appeal was untimely and his appeal was therefore dismissed. Which made the following contentions: (1) The University's assertion that it declined to renew Zhou's contract based on poor job performance was contradicted by Zhou's colleague's sworn declaration that the signature on his evaluation was forged and by expert testimony stating that Zhou performed well in the concerts they viewed on videotape. When in fact his first complaint was aired in October 2000. (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-2.gif" ALT="227"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1596.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Brugueras</SPAN> were on brief. Were on brief. Econo and Colonial s