Cases

Honorable David C. Bury, United States District Judge *787The Court grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court finds the McKittrick policy is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion and otherwise not in accordance with law in violation of the APA. Therefore, the Court grants summary judgment for Plaintiffs under the

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court Alice Hazel, as guardian ad litem for Jacob N., Respondent, v. Blitz U.S.A., Inc., Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc., Tiger Express Varnville LLC, and James Nix, Defendants, Of Whom Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc. is the Petitioner. and Melinda Cook, Respondent, v. Blitz U.S.A., Inc., Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc., Tiger Express Varnville, LLC, and James Nix, Defendants,

JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: *513TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND A. History and Purposes of the Census...519 B. The Secretary's Authority Over the Census...521 C. The History of a Citizenship Question on the Census...524 D. Test

OPINION ANDERSON, G. Barry, Justice. This case arises out of a reverse stock split in which minority shareholders were forced to accept cash in exchange for their shares. Thomas Moore, Ann McCabe, and U.S. Bank (Moores) are trustees of eight appellant family trusts (Moore Trusts) that brought suit against respondent Cold Spring Granite Company (CSG) and its chairman and CEO respondent Patrick D. Alexander

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge ROGERS. ROGERS, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from an order granting a petition of the United States International Trade Commission for enforcement of its subpoena for the production of documents under section 333(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. § 1338(b) (2000). ASAT, Inc. challenges enforcement on

416 B.R. 63 (2009) In re Jude JACQUES, Debtor. Jude Jacques, Plaintiff, v. U.S. Bank N.A. in its capacity as Trustee for the Registered Holders of the MASTR Asset Backed Securities Series 2005-NC2 and Ocwen Loan Servicing, Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 08-42279-ess. Adversary No. 09-1018-ess. United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York. September 4, 2009.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court Jimmy A. Richardson, II, Solicitor for the 15th Judicial Circuit, on behalf of the 15th Circuit Drug Enforcement Unit, Appellant, v. Twenty Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy-One and 00/100 Dollars ($20,771.00), U.S. Currency and Travis Green, Respondents. Appellate Case No. 2020-000092 Appeal from Horry County Steven H. John, Circuit Court Judge Opinion No. 28113 Hea

527 F.Supp.2d 1103 (2007) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. $186,416.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY, Defendant. United Medical Caregivers Clinic, Inc., Claimant. No. CV 05-6703 SVW (SHx). United States District Court, C.D. California. August 10, 2007. *1104 *1105 *

BARKETT, Circuit Judge: These two interlocutory appeals arise out of one lawsuit pertaining to the allocation of water stored in Georgia’s Lake Lanier, which is controlled by the Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”). The dispute involves the Corps, the States of Georgia, Florida, and Alabama, which are all affected by the amount of water flowing out of Lake Lanier through the Apa

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

5 N.Y.3d 327 (2005) 840 N.E.2d 68 806 N.Y.S.2d 99 CONSUMERS UNION OF U.S., INC., et al., Appellants-Respondents, v. STATE OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents-Appellants, and THE CHARITABLE ASSET FOUNDATION, Appellant, et al., Respondents. Court of Appeals of the State of New York. Argued April 26, 2005. Decided June 20, 2005.

821 N.E.2d 1099 (2004) 213 Ill.2d 351 290 Ill.Dec. 525 The CITY OF CHICAGO et al., Appellees, v. BERETTA U.S.A. CORPORATION et al., Appellants. Nos. 95243, 95253, 95256, 95280. Supreme Court of Illinois. November 18, 2004. Rehearing Denied January 24, 2005. *1104 Wi

BARRETT, Circuit Judge. Russell B. Tafoya and Lydia Tafoya (Petitioners), as parents of Officer David Tafo-ya of the Denver Police Department, Denver, Colorado, seek review before this Court of the denial by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) of the United States Department of Justice of their claim for survivors’

497 U.S. 116 (1990) MAISLIN INDUSTRIES, U. S., INC., ET AL. v. PRIMARY STEEL, INC., ET AL. No. 89-624. Supreme Court of the United States. Argued April 16, 1990. Decided June 21, 1990. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT *118 Thomas M. Auchincloss, Jr., argued the cause

648 F.2d 515 7 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 166, Bankr. L. Rep. P 67,741 In re U. S. FINANCIAL INCORPORATED, a Delaware Corp. & affiliates,Robert D. KELCE, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.U. S. FINANCIAL INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation, andaffiliates, and Swan Constructors, Inc., aCalifornia Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. Nos. 78-2802, 79-3684.Bankruptcy No. 17007.

FERGUSON, Circuit Judge. Claimant Robert Kelce appeals from the entry of judgments on the pleadings against him in two proceedings under Chapter X of the Bankruptcy Act,1 consolidated on appeal. We affirm both judgments. I. BACKGROUND As of December, 1968, Kelce owned a condominium project and an adjacent apartment building in La Jolla, California. Tha

OPINION STAPLETON, District Judge: This action was originally filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. Plaintiff, U. S. Industries, a Delaware corporation (“USI”), immediately secured an order from that court which sequestered certain shares of USI stock owned by the defendant Gregg, a Florida resident, under Delaware’s sequestra7 tion statute, 10 Del.C. § 366. Gregg, before making any res

BAKER, Judge, with whom CRAWFORD, Judge, joins (dissenting): The question presented is whether the consent Appellant gave to Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) agents to search his computer vitiated the taint of the initial unlawful search of the same computer. The exclusionary rule is a “judicially prescribed remedial measure” th

Judge RYAN delivered the opinion of the Court. Today we are asked the question whether, when one spouse consents to a search of the entire house, the apparent authority doctrine extends that consent to an androgynous, unmarked, unlocked, briefcase kept in a common area of the home, which could reasonably hold the object of the search. Based on the facts of this case, we hold that

CRAWFORD, Chief Judge (dissenting): There are two very basic reasons to affirm in this case. First, there was substantial independent evidence to establish probable cause for the preferral of charges against Appellant before immunity was ever granted. Second, Private (PVT) Smoyer’s decision to testify was made of his own free will, thus attenuating any connection with Appellant’s immunized statement. In essence,