Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
20 opinions for “561 U.S. 742 (2010)”
Sidak v. U.S. International Trade Commissionpublic domain
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA J. GREGORY SIDAK, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 1:23-cv-00325 (TNM) UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff J. Gregory Sidak claims that he is trapped in
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _________________________________________ ) VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE, et al., ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 25-cv-1643 (APM)
Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justicepublic domain
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PERKINS COIE LLP, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 25-716 (BAH) v. Judge Beryl A. Howell U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CSL PLASMA INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 21-cv-2360 (TSC) UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, et al., Defendants. HECTOR AMAYA., et al., Plaintiffs, v.
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. WHOLESALE OUTLET & No. 21-55397 DISTRIBUTION, INC.; TREPCO IMPORTS AND DISTRIBUTION, D.C. No. LTD.; L.A. INTERNATIONAL 2:18-cv-01077- CORPORATION; CALIFORNIA CBM-E WHOLESALE; YNY INTERNATIONAL, INC.; EASHOU, ORDER AND INC., DBA San Diego Cash and AMENDED Carry; SANOOR, INC., DBA L.A.
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. WHOLESALE OUTLET & No. 21-55397 DISTRIBUTION, INC.; TREPCO IMPORTS AND DISTRIBUTION, D.C. No. LTD.; L.A. INTERNATIONAL 2:18-cv-01077- CORPORATION; CALIFORNIA CBM-E WHOLESALE; YNY INTERNATIONAL, INC.; EASHOU, INC., DBA San Diego Cash and OPINION Carry; SANOOR, INC., DBA L.A. Top Distributor, P
Xiaomi Corporation v. U.S. Department of Defensepublic domain
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA XIAOMI CORPORATION, et al., : : Plaintiffs, : Civil Action No.: 21-280 (RC) : v. : Re Document No.: 14, 18
KenAmerican Res., Inc. v. U.S. Sec'y of Laborpublic domain
RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 22a0101p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ KENAMERICAN RESOURCES, INC., │ Petitioner,
Turner v. U.S. Agency for Global Mediapublic domain
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GRANT TURNER, et al., Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 20-2885 (BAH) v. Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell U.S. AGENCY FOR GLOBAL MEDIA, et al., Defendants. MEMORAN
U.S. Home Corp. v. Michael Ballesteros Trustpublic domain
By the Court, PICKERING, J.: This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to compel arbitration in a construction defect action. The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) declares written arbitration agreements "valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract." 9 U.S
McCulley v. U.S. Bankpublic domain
JUSTICE RICE delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 U.S. Bank of Montana (hereinafter U.S. Bank or the Bank) appeals from the judgment entered by the Eighteenth Judicial District *464 Court, Gallatin County, following a jury trieil.
Western Surety Company v. U.S. Engineering Companypublic domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION TANYA S. CHUTEAN, United States District Judge Plaintiff Western Surety Company brought this suit for declaratory and in-junctive relief seeking to enjoin Defendant U.S. Engineering Company from compelling arbitration proceedings against Plaintiff and making a claim on a surety bond issued by Plaintiff. Defendant has filed a motion to di
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LUOKUNG TECHNOLOGY CORP., et al., : : Plaintiffs, : Civil Action No.: 21-583 (RC) : v. : Re Document No.: 26 :
Morris v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineerspublic domain
MEMORANDUM DECISION B. LYNN WINMILL, Chief Judge. INTRODUCTION The Court has before it cross-motions for summary judgment. The Court heard oral argument on August 27, 2014, and took the motions under advisement. After further review, the Court has decided, for reasons set forth below, to grant the plaintiffs’ motion and deny the Corps’ motion. LITIGATION BACKGROUND<
Price v. U.S. Department of Justice Attorney Officepublic domain
BROWN, Circuit Judge, dissenting: This case presents the following question: May a criminal defendant, in pleading guilty, waive his right to FOIA requests pertaining to the investigation or prosecution underlying his criminal conviction? Thus far, every court to consider this question has answered “yes.” We are now the first to say “no.” The Court suggests its answer is limited only to this case, but no
Kirwa v. U.S. Dep't of Def.public domain
ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE, United States District Judge Plaintiffs, and the class whom they represent, are non-citizens serving in the United States Army's Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve ("Selected Reserve") who enlisted under the United States Department of Defense's Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest ("MAVNI") program. Each wants to apply for citizenship pursuant to
State v. U.S. Dep't of Justicepublic domain
Edgardo Ramos, U.S.D.J. Since Congress created the modern version of the program in 2006, the Plaintiff States and City of New York have received funding for criminal justice initiatives through the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant ("Byrne JAG") program, named after New York City police officer Edward R. Byrne, who was killed in the line of duty. In 2017, for the first time in the history of the program, the U.S. Depa
Kravitz v. U.S. Dep't of Commercepublic domain
GEORGE J. HAZEL, United States District Judge TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Findings of Fact...692 A. The Secretary's Decision (Administrative Record)...693 1. Genesis of Secretary Ross's Interest in Including a Citizenship Question...693 2. Manufacturing DOJ's VRA Rationale...695 3. Census Burea
Ahuruonye v. U.S. Dep't of Interiorpublic domain
REGGIE B. WALTON, United States District Judge Barry Ahuruonye, the pro se plaintiff, brings this civil action against the defendants, the United States Department of Interior ("Department of Interior"), the Merit Systems Protection Board ("MSPB"), the United States Department of Justice, and multiple employees of the Department of Interior, asserting violations of various employment and criminal laws, the Privacy Act, the
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. No. 24-cv-03220 (DLF) ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR., et al., Defendants, and 340B HEALTH, et al., Intervenor-Defendants. BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. No. 24-cv-03337 (DLF) ROBERT F. KENNEDY