Cases

Case: 22-1021 Document: 89 Page: 1 Filed: 04/25/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ COMMITTEE OVERSEEING ACTION FOR LUMBER INTERNATIONAL TRADE INVESTIGATIONS OR NEGOTIATIONS, Plaintiff-Appellee FONTAINE INC., GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, MARCEL LAUZON INC., LES PRODUITS FORESTIERS D&G LTEE, NORTH AMERICAN FOREST PRODUCTS LTD., PARENT-VIOLETTE GESTION LTEE, L

Slip Op. 25-47 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMITTEE OVERSEEING ACTION FOR LUMBER INTERNATIONAL TRADE INVESTIGATIONS OR NEGOTIATIONS, Plaintiff, and MOBILIER RUSTIQUE (BEAUCE) INC., ET AL., Before: Mark A. Barnett, Chief Judge Consolidated Plaintiffs, Consol. Court No. 19-00122 v. UNITED STATES,

Slip Op. 23- UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMITTEE OVERSEEING ACTION FOR LUMBER INTERNATIONAL TRADE INVESTIGATIONS OR NEGOTIATIONS, Plaintiff, and FONTAINE INC., ET AL., Consolidated Plaintiffs, Before: Mark A. Barnett, Chief Judge Consol. Court No. 19-00122 v. UNITED

Slip Op. 24-50 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMITTEE OVERSEEING ACTION FOR LUMBER INTERNATIONAL TRADE INVESTIGATIONS OR NEGOTIATIONS, Plaintiff, and FONTAINE INC., ET AL., Consolidated Plaintiffs, Before: Mark A. Barnett, Chief Judge Consol. Court No. 19-00122 v. U

Slip Op. 20- UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMITTEE OVERSEEING ACTION FOR LUMBER INTERNATIONAL TRADE INVESTIGATIONS OR NEGOTIATIONS, Plaintiff, and FONTAINE INC., ET AL., Consolidated Plaintiffs, Before: Mark A. Barnett, Judge Consol. Court No. 19-00122 v. UNITED STATES,

Slip Op. 19- UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMITTEE OVERSEEING ACTION FOR LUMBER INTERNATIONAL TRADE INVESTIGATIONS OR NEGOTIATIONS, Plaintiff, v. Before: Mark A. Barnett, Judge UNITED STATES, Court No. 19-00122 Defendant, and FONTAINE INC., ET AL.,

Slip Op. 19-96 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMITTEE OVERSEEING ACTION FOR LUMBER INTERNATIONAL TRADE INVESTIGATIONS OR NEGOTIATIONS, Plaintiff, v. Before: Mark A. Barnett, Judge UNITED STATES, Court No. 19-00122 Defendant, and FONTAINE INC., ET AL., Defe

Slip Op. 26-77 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMITTEE OVERSEEING ACTION FOR LUMBER INTERNATIONAL TRADE INVESTIGATIONS OR NEGOTIATIONS, Plaintiff, and MOBILIER RUSTIQUE (BEAUCE) INC., ET AL., Before: Mark A. Barnett, Chief Judge Consolidated Plaintiffs, Consol. Court No. 19-00122 v. UNITED STATES,

Slip Op. 25-158 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMITTEE OVERSEEING ACTION FOR LUMBER INTERNATIONAL TRADE INVESTIGATIONS OR NEGOTIATIONS, Plaintiff, and MOBILIER RUSTIQUE (BEAUCE) INC., ET AL., Before: Mark A. Barnett, Chief Judge Consolidated Plaintiffs, Consol. Court No. 19-00122 v. UNITED STATES,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA RANCHERS-CATTLEMEN ACTION LEGAL FUND, UNITED STOCKGROWERS OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 20-2552 (RDM) v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This cas

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2024 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge Table of Contents I. Introduction...1116 II. Background...1117 A. Securitization...1117 B. Historical Background...1117 C. The Client Contract and the Client Guide...1118 1. Section 113: General Rules of Interpretation...1119

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2023 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision: 2024 ME 81 Docket: Ken-23-61 Argued: December 6, 2023 Decided: December 26, 2024 Panel: STANFILL, C.J., and MEAD, HORTON, LAWRENCE, and DOUGLAS, JJ.  Majority: STANFILL, C.J., and MEAD, HORTON, and DOUGLAS, JJ. Concurrence: LAWRENCE, J. GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE v.

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2020 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

710 F.Supp.2d 179 (2010) 2010 DNH 080 NORTHEASTERN LUMBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOC. v. NORTHERN STATES PALLET COMPANY, INC. and James H. Jackson. Civil No. 09-cv-290-JM. United States District Court, D. New Hampshire. May 5, 2010. *181 Dawnangela A. Minton, Bernstein Shur Sawyer & Nelson, Manchester, NH, Ge

397 F.Supp.2d 1241 (2005) FOREST SERVICE EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture, Defendant. No. CV 03-165-M-DWM. United States District Court, D. Montana. Missoula Division. September 30, 2005. *1242 *12

Slip Op. 24- UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE RESOLUTE FP CANADA INC., Plaintiff, v. Before: Jane A. Restani, Judge UNITED STATES, Court No. 23-00095 Defendant, and COMMITTEE OVERSEEING ACTION FOR LUMBER INTERNATIONAL TRADE INVESTIGATIONS O

Slip Op. 24-17 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, GOVERNMENT OF ALBERTA, GOVERNMENT OF QUÉBEC, BRITISH COLUMBIA LUMBER TRADE COUNCIL, FONTAINE, INC., INTERFOR CORPORATION, and INTERFOR SALES & MARKETING, LTD., Plaintiffs, and CANFOR CORPORATION, CANADIAN FOREST PRODUCTS, LTD., CANFOR Before: Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge WOOD PRODUCTS MARKETING, LTD.,

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 17-1972 _____________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellant v. RAYMONT WRIGHT ______________ ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA (D.C. No. 2-1