Cases

OPINION GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judge. Section 2255 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code (also known as Masha’s Law) provides a civil right of action in federal district court to victims of several federal crimes, including sexual exploitation of a child and various child pornography offenses. This case requires us to decide whether a restitution award for a crimin

KASOLD, Chief Judge: Veteran Alan R. Swain appeals through counsel a December 6, 2013, Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) decision that denied a compensable disability rating prior to June 12, 2013, for his service-connected bilateral hearing loss. Mr. Swain argues that the Board incorrectly interpreted the requirement in 38 C.F.R. § 4.85(a) (2013) that an examination for hearin

ORDER The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent James Richard Mayer committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline — namely, misappropriating funds from a non-profit organization, including by forging signatures on checks, while serving as an officer of that nonprofit. See

CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge. Louis Richard asks us to reverse the Court of Veterans Appeals’ dismissal of his deceased brother’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Richard v. Gober, 10 Vet.App. 431 (1997). Because the Court of Veterans Appeals did not err in determining that Philo-gene Richard’s claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1110 (1994) was extinguish

WINTER, Chief Judge: This appeal from a civil contempt order concerns whether certain documents relating to a major piece of civil litigation fall within the “crime-fraud” exception to attorney-client privilege and attorney work product immunity. This ease is before us for a second time, following Chief Judge Siftoris order that 175 otherwise privileged documents be produced by a

OPINION SLOVITER, Circuit Judge. Alan Schmidt, a former shareholder in the now-defunct Genaera Corporation (“Genaera”), appeals from the District Court order dismissing his complaint on statute of limitations grounds. Genaera was a biotechnology company that dissolved in June 2009 and liquidated its assets. On June 8, 2012, Schmidt brought suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

12 B.R. 964 (1981) In re ALAN WOOD STEEL COMPANY, Debtor. Bankruptcy No. 77-930G. United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. September 9, 1981. Pace Reich, Joseph F. Messina, Pincus, Verlin, Hahn, Reich & Goldstein, Philadelphia, Pa., for Class C Creditors' Committee. John J. Leshinski, UNIVAC, Division Headquarters, Blue Bell, Pa., for pension claimants,

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 22a0236p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ IN RE: FLINT WATER CASES. │ _________________________________________

FLAUM, Circuit Judge. Richard Bell sued several defendants for copyright infringement, alleging that they impermissibly displayed a photo belonging to Bell on websites promoting their respective businesses. Bell sought damages as well as injunctive and declaratory relief in federal district court. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, first on damages and l

ORDER AND REASONS BERRIGAN, District Judge. Pending before the Court is Debtor Linda V. Mayer’s motion to withdraw reference to the bankruptcy court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). The motion was submitted on a previous date without oral argument. Having reviewed the submissions of the parties, the record and the applicable law, the motion is DENIED. I. Background

718 F.2d 161 14 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 187 In re Mayer MORGANROTH, Petitioner-Appellant.Raymond J. DONOVAN, Secretary of Labor, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Frank FITZSIMMONS, et al., Defendants. No. 81-1574. United States Court of Appeals,Sixth Circuit. Argued Jan. 19, 1983.Decided Sept. 30, 1983.

545 U.S. 913 (2005) METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER STUDIOS INC. ET AL. v. GROKSTER, LTD., ET AL. No. 04-480. Supreme Court of United States. Argued March 29, 2005. Decided June 27, 2005. *916 Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs for the motion picture studio and recording

723 F.Supp.2d 157 (2010) UNITED STATES of America et al., Plaintiffs, v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC. et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 08-2076 (RWR). United States District Court, District of Columbia. July 15, 2010. Lowell Robert Stern, Stephen Alan Harris, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Nicole S. Gordon, Office of Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, C

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1189 FLAME S.A., Plaintiff - Appellee, v. FREIGHT BULK PTE. LTD., Defendant - Appellant, and INDUSTRIAL CARRIERS, INC.; VISTA SHIPPING, INC.; VIKTOR BARANSKIY; GLORY WEALTH SHIPPING PTE LTD., Defendants. Appeal from the Unite

648 F.Supp.2d 70 (2009) UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. Richard MAY, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 07-1867 (JDB). United States District Court, District of Columbia. August 28, 2009. *73 Richard Edward Simpson, Vincente Leon Martinez, U.S. Securities & Exchange

596 F.3d 817 (2010) PRECISION PINE & TIMBER, INC., Plaintiff-Cross Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 2008-5092, 2008-5093. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. February 19, 2010. *819 Richard W. Goeken, Saltman & Stevens, P.C., of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-cross appellant. With

OPINION LAURA CARTER HIGLEY, Justice. Appellant, Texas Appleseed, brought a suit for writ of mandamus and suit for declaratory judgment against appellee, *777 Spring Branch Independent School District (“Spring Branch ISD”), seeking disclosure of certain information under the

LEVINE, J. Appellants appeal from a judgment in their favor, and appellee cross-appeals. We affirm all issues raised without discussion, with the exception of one issue raised on direct appeal, which we reverse. The issue we discuss is whether Illinois’s audit interference doctrine, which permits evidence of a client’s negligence only where the client interferes with an auditor’s services, should be extended to apply to a th

OPINION WATFORD, Circuit Judge: Under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4, large multi-state class actions may be removed to federal court under requirements more permissive than those governing the removal of other civil actions. To prevent plaintiffs from evading CAFA’s relaxed jurisdictional requirements, Congr

LINN, Circuit Judge. In this consolidated Hatch-Waxman Act litigation, Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Actavis Elizabeth LLC, Actavis LLC, Mylan Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Roxane Laboratories, Inc., Sandoz Inc. (collectively the “ANDA defendants”) and Johnson Matthey Pharmaceutical Materials (“Johnson Matthey”) (collectively, “defendants”) appeal the district court’s decis