Cases

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COALITION FOR HUMANE IMMIGRANT RIGHTS, et al., Plaintiffs, Case No. 1:25-cv-00943 (TNM) v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM ORDER Advocacy organizations serving imm

OPINION ROTH, Circuit Judge: The antitrust laws are concerned with “the protection of competition, not *399 competitors.” 1 Eisai complains that the conduct of Sanofi Aventis U.S., LLC, and Sanofi U.S. Services, Inc

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, et al., Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 25 - 3501 (SLS) v. Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OP

MEMORANDUM OPINION Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This litigation arises out of the defendant’s termination of a contract in which it granted the plaintiff a right to distribute reception of the C-SPAN television networks in real-time

Case: 22-1884 Document: 54 Page: 1 Filed: 08/28/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ WISCONSIN ALUMNI RESEARCH FOUNDATION, Plaintiff-Appellant v. APPLE INC., Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2022-1884, 2022-1886 ______________________ Appeals from the

523 F.Supp.2d 1199 (2007) Shirley-Ann and Herbert LEU, Plaintiffs, v. INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY COMMISSION (U.S.Section), et al., Defendants. No. C07-510MJP. United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle. October 12, 2007. *1200 Brian T. Hodges, Pacific Legal Foundation, Bellevue, WA, J. David Breemer, Pacific Legal Foun

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER BRADEN, Judge. For more than a century, the United States has been an owner and interested party in the development and production of domestic petroleum reserves for strategic military and civilian use. The genesis of this case arises from a 1944 contract between the United States (“the Government”) and Standard Oil Company, a domestic producer and refiner, concerning the disposition of t

BOGGS, Circuit Judge. In this case, a postscript to the now-fabled “Humphries heirs” lawsuits, we are called upon to resolve two questions: first, whether the district court properly dismissed plaintiff Roy Feathers’s claims based on Feathers’s asserted title to the land comprising the Spindletop Oil Field in Jefferson County, Texas; and second, whether the district court was within the scope of its discretion in enjoining the

Opinion by Judge REINHARDT; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge POOLE. *1528REINHARDT, Circuit Judge: I. Facts In 1979, debtor Victoria Farms, Inc. (“Victoria Farms”) mortgaged its farm to Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States (“Equitable”). See S.E.R. tab 1, Ex. A, at 7. The mort

BUCKLEY, Circuit Judge: Petitioner South African Airways (“SAA”) asks this court to set aside an order issued on October 31, 1986 by the *121 Secretary of Transportation revoking its permit to provide air service between the United States and South Africa. The order was issued pursuant to section 30

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION MARK R. KRAVITZ, District Judge. In this case, the Court is asked to decide how the cost of environmental cleanup at the Waterbury North Manufactured Gas Plant should be allocated between its current owner, the Yankee Gas Services Company (“Yankee Gas”), and UGI Utilities, Inc. (“UGI”), the operator of the plant during its heyday a century ago. Yankee Gas brought this sui

DYER, Senior Circuit Judge: This appeal involves a dispute resulting from the termination of a contract for the management of the Christie Lodge (the Lodge), a condominium hotel in Avon, Colorado. U.S. Home (Home) developed the Lodge and sold its condominium units to individual purchasers. Home hired G.M. Brod & Co., Inc. (Bro

(Slip Opinion) Application of 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) to Young Adults Section 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) of title 18, U.S. Code, is unconstitutional as applied to young adults between eighteen and twenty who seek to purchase handguns. The provision prevents young adults, who are members of “the people” to whom the Second Amendment applies, from owning “arms” in common use for self-defense. This places the burden on the government to show that th

SENTELLE, Senior Circuit Judge, dissenting: The majority concedes that the statute at issue is capable of only one interpretation, yet it reaches a result that it concedes is inconsistent with that interpretation. Because we lack authority to rewrite Congress’s statutes, I respectfully dissent. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution provides that “[t]his Constitution, and the Laws of the U

*1070ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS JEFFREY S. WHITE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE The Republic of the Marshall Islands (“Plaintiff’) filed a complaint alleging breach of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (“Treaty”) against the United States of America, the President, the Department of Defense and its Secretary, the Departme

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-1884 ___________________________ Dakota Energy Cooperative, Inc. Plaintiff - Appellant v. East River Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.

KAYANAUGH, Circuit Judge, concurring. Plaintiffs argue that the amended Migratory Bird Treaty Act is ambiguous, and they rely on the canon against construing an ambiguous statute to abrogate a treaty. The Court concludes that the statute is plain and that the canon therefore does not apply. I add this concurrence because, even assuming the statute is ambiguous, the canon should not apply in cases involving n

PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 605 U. S. Part 1 Pages 114–164 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT May 22, 2025 Page Proof Pending Publication REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are r

ORDER ROBERT J. CONRAD, JR., District Judge. Defendant Bollinger (“Defendant” or “Bollinger”) filed a Motion to Dismiss on January 11, 2013. (Doc. No. 22). Specifically, Defendant sought to dismiss his indictment on two grounds, first that Congress exceeded its authority under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution (“Foreign Commerce Clause”) in criminalizing noncommercial illicit sexual cont

SULLIVAN, Chief Judge (dissenting): I disagree with the holding of the majority opinion and its reliance on the Court of Military Review’s decisions in this case: United States v. Jordan, 35 MJ 856 (1992); United States v. Jordan, (June 30, 1987) (unpublished). The Supreme Court remanded appellant’s case to our Court “for further consideration in light of Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U