Cases

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REGINA BROWN, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 20-3107 (TJK) ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Regina Brown, a black woman, sued the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

Decision filed after Jan. 15, 2008, may be cited for persuasive, non-precedential value. 210 Pa. Code § 69.414. Affirmed.

Unpublished Decision. Citation to unpublished opinion of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania is governed by Section 65.37 of the Operating Procedure of the Superior Court, 210 Pa. Code § 65.37.Affirmed

119 Cal.Rptr.2d 479 (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 113 HUSKINSON & BROWN, LLP, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Mervyn H. WOLF et al., Defendants and Appellants. No. B147298. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Four. May 2, 2002. Review Granted July 26, 2002. *481 Law Offices of Marc Appell

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter B. Tolub, J.), entered October 12, 2004, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. While we reject defendants’ jurisdictional claim that they were not properly served, since it appears that the party who accepted process was fully authorized to do so, the complaint, alleging fraud, was nonetheless properly dismissed, for failure to stat

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT ALTON D. BROWN, : No. 121 MM 2018 : Petitioner : : : v. : : : TOM WOLF, DEP

*643ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 28th day of March, 2017, the order of the Commonwealth Court is AFFIRMED.

OPINION BY Judge PATRICIA A. McCullough. In this case, the Court discerns legislative intent to determine whether the Executive Director of the Office of Open Records (OOR), a unique and mi generis independent body, was meant to be independent from the executive branch and insulated from the Governor’s constitutional power to remove appointees at-will. The legal concept of “indepe

OPINION Justice TODD. In this interlocutory appeal, we consider whether state legislators have standing to intervene in a challenge to the issuance of an executive order concerning direct care health workers. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that, in these circumstances, they do not because the legislators’ interests purportedly impacted by the executive order do not involve unique legis

OPINION and ORDER BARBARA B. CRABB, District Judge. Plaintiffs Virginia Wolf, Carol Schumacher, Kami Young, Karina Willes, Roy Badger, Garth Wangemann, Charvonne Kemp, Marie Carlson, Judith Trampf, Katharina Heyning, Salud Garcia, Pamela Kleiss, William Hurtubise, Leslie Palmer, Johannes Wallmann and Keith Borden are eight same-sex couples residing in the state of Wisconsin who either want to get married

OPINION and ORDER BARBARA B. CRABB, District Judge. Plaintiffs in this case are challenging the constitutionality of Wisconsin restrictions on marriage between same-sex couples. After plaintiffs withdrew their motion for a preliminary injunction in favor of ah expedited schedule, dkt. # 55, Magistrate Judge Stephen Crocker set deadlines for filing dispositive motions, which means that briefing will be finish

OPINION and ORDER BARBARA B. CRABB, District Judge. In an order dated June 6, 2014, dkt. #118, I denied defendants’ motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claim that Wisconsin laws banning same-sex couples from marrying violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, I did not resolve plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief or d

9 Cal.Rptr.3d 693 (2004) 32 Cal.4th 453 84 P.3d 379 HUSKINSON & BROWN, LLP, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Mervyn H. WOLF et al., Defendants and Appellants. No. S107616. Supreme Court of California February 23, 2004. *694 Law Offices of Marc Appell, Woodland Hills, Appell & Wo

POSNER, Circuit Judge. Indiana and Wisconsin are among the shrinking majority of states that do not recognize the validity of same-sex marriages, whether contracted in these states or in states (or foreign countries) where they are lawful. The states have appealed from district court decisions invalidating the states’ laws that ordain such refusal.

BROWN, C.J. ¶ 1. For what proved to be a limited time, the legislature put the "Truth in Auto Law" into effect. It was the law from November 1, 2009, until the legislature replaced it, effective November 1, 2011. During its brief lifespan, the law prohibited reducing clauses and created broader protections for underinsured motorist coverage. The law explicitly stated that it applied prospectively — only affecting insurance polici

BROWN, Chief Judge. I TThis appeal, which was originally a writ application that was granted to docket, arose out of disputes related to the construction of a home by Claudine Matthews in Benton, Louisiana. The particular issue presented is whether Matthews’ third party claims against third party defendants, Ron Finical, the contractor, and Citizens Bank and Trust of Vivian (“Citizens Bank”), the financing bank, should be de

PER CURIAM: Defendant Jasy Von Brown pleaded guilty to one count of burglary, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1153(a) and Montana Code Annotated § 45-6-204. He appeals his sentence as a career offender under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.) § 4B1.1. In keeping with our decisions in United States v. Quintana-Quintana, 383 F.3d 1052, 1053 (9th Cir

OPINION BARNES, Judge. Case Summary Wolfs Marine, Inc. (“Wolfs”), appeals the trial court’s denial of its motion to dismiss a complaint filed by Dr. Dev Brar. We reverse. Issue The sole issue before us is whether an Indiana court can exercise personal jurisdiction over Wolfs. Facts Dr. Brar is a resident of Carmel in Ha

Justice TODD, dissenting. For the reasons ably expressed by President Judge Pelle-grini in his dissent below, see Arneson v. Wolf, 117 A.3d 374 (Pa.Cmwlth.2015) (Pellegrini, P.J., dissenting), I conclude Governor Wolf acted within his constitutional authority in removing the Executive Director of the Office of Open Records, and so I would reverse the order of the Commonwealth Court. Accordingly, I disse

BROWN, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion (#23) for Partial Summary Judgment on the Issue of Liability and Defendants’ Cross-Motion (#29) for Summary Judgment. The Court concludes the record is sufficiently developed such that oral argument would not be helpful. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion and DENIES Defendants’ Cross-Motion.