Cases

OPINION & ORDER PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge. Pro se plaintiff Otis Daniel, a former fire safety director at 590 Madison Avenue in Manhattan (“590 Madison”) brings claims of discrimination against the company that directly employed him there, T & M Protection Resources (“T & M”). Daniel alleges that he was subjected to a hostile work environment throughout his employm

OPINION & ORDER PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge. Otis Daniel, a former Fire Safety Director at 590 Madison Avenue, New York, NY (“590 Madison”), brings this lawsuit pro se against the company that directly employed him there, T & M Protection Resources (“T & M”), and the property manager of the building, Edward J. Minskoff Equities (“Minskoff’), alleging that they harassed

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KEO RATHA; SEM KOSAL; No. 23-55299 SOPHEA BUN; YEM BAN; NOL NAKRY; PHAN SOPHEA; SOK D.C. No. SANG, 2:16-cv-04271- JFW-AS Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. OPINION RUBICON RESOURCES, LLC, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal

BLANCHARD, J. *246¶ 1 This is a tort action arising from a mass casualty shooting at a salon in Brookfield, Wisconsin. It is alleged that the shooter, Radcliffe Haughton, bought the firearm and ammunition he used in the shooting after responding to a "for sale" post that appeared on a website, Armslist.com. Yasmeen Daniel, the daughter of sho

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 22a0221p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ T.M., Next Friend on behalf of H.C. and Y.C., et al., │

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 25a0092p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ EOG RESOURCES, INC., │ Plaintiff-Appelle

FILED MARCH 17, 2020 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division III IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE DAVID SCHULZ, JO

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DANIEL BERMAN; STEPHANIE No. 20-16900 HERNANDEZ; ERICA RUSSELL, Plaintiffs-Appellees, D.C. No. 4:18-cv-01060- v. YGR FREEDOM FINANCIAL NETWORK, LLC; FREEDOM DEBT RELIEF, LLC; OPINION FLUENT, INC.; LEAD SCIENCE,

2026 WL 2543409Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT SERVE AS PRECEDENT. THE CASE WAS ENTERED IN THE WESTLAW DATABASE BEFORE THE TIME FOR REHEARING HAD EXPIRED. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT REHEARING HAS BEEN SOUGHT, GRANTED OR DENIED.

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2022 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

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KEO RATHA; SEM KOSAL; No. 23-55299 SOPHEA BUN; YEM BAN; NOL NAKRY; PHAN SOPHEA; SOK D.C. No. SANG, 2:16-cv-04271- JFW-AS Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. OPINION RUBICON RESOURCES, LLC, Defendant-Appellee.

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions Decision: 2022 ME 19 Docket: Cum-21-113 Argued: November 3, 2021 Decided: March 31, 2022 Panel: STANFILL, C.J., and MEAD, JABAR, HUMPHREY, HORTON, and CONNORS, JJ. MAQUOIT BAY, LLC, et al. v. DEPARTMENT OF MARINE RESOURCES et al. STANFILL, C.J. [¶1] Maquoit Bay, LLC

LAWSON, J., dissenting. I respectfully dissent because I do not believe that binding legal precedent and the statutes we must follow permit the result reached by the majority. In explaining my reasons for reaching this conclusion, I will first discuss legal principles about which the majority and I seem to agree. The majority dismisses the cases setting forth these principles as distinguishable, and I generally

OPINION and ORDER BARBARA B. CRABB, District Judge. Plaintiffs Wisconsin Resources Protection Council, Center for Biological Diversity and Laura Gauger bring this action for declaratory and injunctive relief and civil penalties under the citizen suit provision of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1). Plaintiffs contend that defendant Flambeau Mining Company is violating the Clean Water Act by discharg

KAPSNER, Justice. [¶ 1] Sagebrush Resources, LLC, appeals from a summary judgment dismissing with prejudice its action for trespass and for injunctive relief against Daryl, Larry, and Galen Peterson, determining the action was frivolous and not made in good faith, and awarding the Petersons $23,729 in attorney fees. Sagebrush argues the district court abused its discretion in deciding Sagebrush’s claims were frivolous and no

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued October 5, 2018 Decided August 30, 2019 No. 16-1052 ALON REFINING KROTZ SPRINGS, INC., PETITIONER v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, RESPONDENT MONROE ENERGY, LLC, ET AL., INTERVENORS Consolidated with 16-1055, 17-1255, 17-1259, 18-1

SANDSTROM, Justice. [¶ 1] Debra Ganske, Wesley Borgen, Michael Borgen, Sue Evans, and Linda McCoy (“the Borgens”) appeal from a district court summary judgment quieting title (deciding ownership) in certain oil and gas leases in Golden Eye Resources, LLC (“Golden Eye”) and dismissing their counterclaim for rescission or cancellation of the leases. Golden Eye has cross-appealed.

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557- 1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-12886 NEXTERA ENERGY RESOURCES, LLC vs. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES

RAWLINSON, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I concur in the bulk of the majority opinion. I disagree only with the rationale and conclusion that the Bureau of Reclamation’s adoption and implementation of the Biological Opinion triggered its obligation to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by preparing an Environmental Impact Stateme

ACCEPTED 01-14-00370-cv FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/13/2015 4:04:08 PM