Cases

216 Ga. App. 829 (1995) DUNN et al. v. DUKE et al. A95A0352. Court of Appeals of Georgia. Decided March 9, 1995. Reconsideration Denied March 23, 1995. Barnes, Browning, Tanksley & Casurella, Thomas J. Browning, for appellants. Jones & Ledbetter, Howard W. Jones, Joseph D. Little, for appellees. ANDREWS, Judge.

DECISION AND ORDER ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, United States District Judge INTRODUCTION . Petitioners Hanad Abdi and Johan Barrios Ramos (collectively, “Petitioners”) came to the United States seeking asylum. The federal government has determined that they are likely to win the right to remain in the United States due to a credible fear of ret

ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, United States District Judge INTRODUCTION Presently before the Court is Petitioners' motion for discovery (Dkt. 31) in connection with Petitioners' motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. 38). In their motion for discovery, Petitioners request discovery of any and all communications

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OSTEEN, JR., District Judge. Currently pending and ripe for ruling is Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment on All Remaining Claims (the “Plant Modernization Program” Claims). (Doc. 434.) For the reasons set out below, this court will grant the motion in part and deny it in part. I. STANDARD OF REVIEW Summary judgment should be granted

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OSTEEN, JR., District Judge. Presently pending and ripe for ruling are Defendant’s Motions in Limine (Docs. 421, 422, 423, 424); Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 432); and Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 434). For the reasons set forth in this Memorandum Opinion and Order, Defendant’s Motions in Limine (Docs. 421, 422, 423, 424) will be granted in par

*542 Affirmed by published opinion. Judge MOTZ wrote the opinion, in which Judge LUTTIG and Judge WILSON joined. OPINION DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judge. The United States brought this enforcement action against Duke Energy Corporation, which provides Nort

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, District Judge. This matter is before the Court in these consolidated cases for consideration of Mag*2istrate Judge Alan Kay's Report and Recommendation of June 9, 2003, his Supplemental Report and Recommendation of October 22, 2003, and his Second Supplemental Report and Recommendation of Novemb

HATCHETT, Circuit Judge: In this case, we affirm the district court’s decision granting summary judgment to Georgia state officials and Republican Party officials who refused to place David Duke’s name on the presidential preference primary ballot for the 1992 election. FACTS David Duke, a controversial political figure, soug

278 F.Supp.2d 619 (2003) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant, and Environmental Defense; North Carolina Sierra Club; and North Carolina Public Interest Research Group Citizen Lobby/Education Fund, Intervenor-Plaintiffs, v. DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION, Defendant and Counter-Claimant. No. CIV. 1:00CV01262. United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina. A

884 F.Supp. 511 (1995) David DUKE, et al. v. Max CLELAND, et al. No. 1:92-cv-116-RCF. United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division. March 14, 1995. *512 *513 Oscar N. Persons, Michael P. Kenny, Alston & Bird, and Frank B. Strickland, Wilson, Strickland & Benson, Atlanta

*384 ORDER ELIASON, United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff United States of America (“United States”), on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), has filed a motion to compel defendant Duke Energy Corporation (“Duke Energy”) to produce discovery in the form of its communications with the Utility Air Regulatory Group (“UARG

ORDER ELIASON, United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff United States of America (“United States”) has filed a second motion for a protective order (docket no. 92) to limit discovery so that the United States need not produce documents from the Department of Energy (“DOE”) or, in the alternative, that the United States may limit its production of documents from the DOE to those documents locat

171 F.Supp.2d 560 (2001) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION, Defendant. No. 1:00CV1262. United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina. September 6, 2001. *561 Gill P. Beck, Office of U.S. Attorney, Greensboro, NC, Lois J. Schiffer, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Environmental & Natural Resources Divis

ORDER ELIASON, United States Magistrate Judge. Defendant Duke Energy Corporation (“Duke”) has filed a motion for a protective order covering certain of plaintiffs Fed. R.Civ.P. 30(b)(5) & (b)(6) requests. The action itself arises under Sections 113(b) and 167 of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7413(b)(2) and 7477. Among the claims is an allegation of violation of the New Source Revi

PHASE 1 FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL OPINION AND ORDER Myron H. Thompson, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I. INTRODUCTION The individual plaintiffs in Phase 1 of this lawsuit are 17 prisoners with disabilities in the custody of the defendants, the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC or the Department) and Commissioner Jefferson Dunn. The Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program (ADAP), Alabama’

311 Ga. 135 FINAL COPY S20A1522. DUKE v. THE STATE. MELTON, Chief Justice. We granted interlocutory review in this case1 to decide whether the trial court erred in determining that an indigent defendant in a criminal case who is represented by private, pro bono counsel has neither a statutory right under the Indigent Defense Act of 2003, OCGA § 17-12-1 et seq. (“IDA”), nor a constitutional right to state- funded experts and investigators needed to prepare a

PHASE 2A INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS SUMMARY JUDGMENT OPINION Myron H. Thompson, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE The plaintiffs in this putative class-action lawsuit are dozens of state prisoners and the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program (ADAP). The defendants are officials of the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC): the Commissioner and the Associate Commissioner of Health Services.1

DUBINA, Circuit Judge: The plaintiffs in this case are David Duke (“Duke”), a controversial political figure, and three Georgia voters (the “Voters”). Georgia’s Secretary of State, Max Cleland (“Cle-land”), its Republican party chairman, Alex Poitevint (“Poitevint”), and the Georgia presidential candidate selection committee (the “Committee”), are the defendants. Duke and the Voters filed suit after the Committee’s Republica

OPINION ALARID, Judge. {1} This case presents an issue of first impression: whether a wheelchair-accessible van is an “artificial member” within the meaning of our workers’ compensation statutes. In the present ease, the workers’ compensation judge (WCJ) determined that such a van is not an artificial member. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

ANDERSON, Circuit Judge: FACTS On December 4, 1991, appellant Duke announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination for President of the United States. Under Georgia law, a presidential preference primary shall be held in 1992 “so that the electors may express their preference for one person to be the candidate for nomination by his party or body for the office of President of the United States.” O.C.G.A. § 2