Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
20 opinions for “Emily Nicole Fried”
United States v. State of Idahopublic domain
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 23-35440 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:22-cv- 00329-BLW v. STATE OF IDAHO, ORDER Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 23-35450 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:22-cv- 00329-BLW v. STATE OF IDAHO
Cite as 2021 Ark. 92 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS IN RE SUSPENSION OF Opinion Delivered April 22, 2021 ATTORNEYS WHO FAILED TO PAY 2021 ANNUAL ATTORNEY- LICENSE FEE PER CURIAM The final deadline for attorneys to pay the 2021 annual attorney-license fee was April 15, 2021. Rule VII(C) of the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar imposes an automatic suspension on th
NOTICE: The attorneys on the attached list have the opportunity to comply with outstanding requirements prior to the effective date of the Supreme Court Order and not be administratively suspended. DATE: 07/16/2024 PENNSYLVANIA CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION PAGE: 1 TIME: 15:10:52 NON-COMPLIANT LAWYERS USER ID: jilgenfr ACTIVE
Cobell v. Nortonpublic domain
260 F.Supp.2d 93 (2003) Elouise Pepion COBELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Gale A. NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Defendants. No. CIV.A. 96-1285(RCL). United States District Court, District of Columbia. April 28, 2003. *94 Keith M. Harper, Native American Rights Fund, Washington, DC, Elliott H. Levitas, Kilpatrick Stockton
Cobell v. Nortonpublic domain
319 F.Supp.2d 36 (2004) Elouise Pepion COBELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Gale A. NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Defendants. Civ.A. No. 96-1285(RCL). United States District Court, District of Columbia. May 27, 2004. *37 *38 Dennis M. Gingold, Elliott H. Levitas, Kilpatrick Stockton, LL
Dahl v. Bain Capital Partners, LLCpublic domain
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER EDWARD F. HARRINGTON, Senior District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Settled and Released Claims and Time-Barred Claims from the Fifth Amended Complaint. The Court allows-in-part and denies-in-part the Defendants’ motion. Releases. After a review of the memoranda of the parties and releases submitted i
Cobell v. Nortonpublic domain
260 F.Supp.2d 110 (2003) Elouise Pepion COBELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Gale A. NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Defendants. No. CIV.A. 96-1285(RCL). United States District Court, District of Columbia. April 28, 2003. *113 Keith M. Harper, Native American Rights Fund, Washington, DC, Elliott H. Levitas, Kilpatrick Stockt
Dahl v. Bain Capital Partners, LLCpublic domain
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER HARRINGTON, Senior District Judge. Count One of the Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amended Complaint sets forth an allegation of an overarching conspiracy on the part of the Defendants, who are private equity firms, “to allocate the market for and artificially fix, maintain, or stabilize prices of securities in club LB Os in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1.” Plaintiffs are
Freeman v. HSBC Holdings PLCpublic domain
19-3970 Freeman v. HSBC Holdings PLC United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit August Term 2020 Argued: February 1, 2021 Decided: January 5, 2023 No. 19-3970 CHARLOTTE FREEMAN, for the Estate of BRIAN S. FREEMAN, KATHLEEN SNYDER, RANDOLPH FREEMAN,
Kenneth Ackerman v. ExxonMobil Corporationpublic domain
PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1103 KENNETH ACKERMAN; JAMES ACKERMAN; APRIL ACKERMAN; MARY ACKERMAN, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Thomas Ackerman; CHARLES V. ADAMS; CHRISTIANNE M. ADAMS; JOHN ALEXIS; CHARLES J. ARKINS; LULA M. ARKINS; THOMAS J. ARNO; AMY H. ARNO, Both individually and as next friends of A.A. and E.A.; R
Cobell v. Nortonpublic domain
260 F.Supp.2d 98 (2003) Elouise Pepion COBELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Gale A. NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Defendants. No. CIV.A. 96-1285(RCL). United States District Court, District of Columbia. April 28, 2003. *99 Keith M. Harper, Native American Rights Fund, Washington, DC, Elliott H. Levitas, Kilpatrick Stockton
IN RE: Administrative Suspension Pursuant to Rule 219 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcementpublic domain
NOTICE: The attorneys on the attached list have the opportunity to comply with outstanding requirements prior to the effective date of the Supreme Court Order and not be administratively suspended. The current license status of a Pennsylvania attorney can be found on the Disciplinary Board’s website. https://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/for-the- public/find-attorney Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Attorneys Certified for Administrative Suspensi
CAUSE: 2001-CI-16843 ^ <\ MICHAEL THOMAS PAUL (PLAINTIFF) § IN THE DISTRICT COURr. o c VS § # 225 U. "- GREG AB30T ATTORNEY GENERAL § ' "~ FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS (DEFENDANT
Cobell v. Nortonpublic domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION LAMBERTH, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction [2646], filed August 25, 2004. Oral argument was heard on August 31, 2004, at which time a temporary restraining order was granted; and the Court ordered the Interior defendants to submit a supplemental memorandum in opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion, and the plain
ACCEPTED 15-25-00023-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 3/17/2025 10:39 PM No. 15-25-00023-CV
State ex rel. Alabama Policy Institutepublic domain
MOORE, Chief Justice (concurring specially). On June 26, 2015, by a bare 5-4 majority, the United States Supreme Court declared that all states must now recognize a fundamental right to “same-sex marriage.” Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2584, 192 L.Ed.2d 609 (2015). Because the Alabama Supreme Court had previously issued orders in this case directing the probate judges of this State no
Per Curiam. *1021The moving papers indicate that despite written notices sent to them by the Office of Court Administration at their last known address, respondents have failed to register and pay the required fee. Judiciary Law § 468-a (5) provides that noncompliance with the statute and rules regarding attorney registration “shall constitute conduc
Allicent Technology, LLC v. United Statespublic domain
In the United States Court of Federal Claims Nos. 22-1380C, 22-1425C, 22-1436C, 22-1460C, 22-1462C, 22-1477C, 22-1492C, 22-1519C, 22-1549C, and 23-441C Filed: May 3, 2023 Re-issued: June 2, 20231 ________________________________________ ) ALLICENT TECHNOLOGY, LLC, et al., )
Per Curiam. *1021The moving papers indicate that despite written notices sent to them by the Office of Court Administration at their last known address, respondents have failed to register and pay the required fee. Judiciary Law § 468-a (5) provides that noncompliance with the statute and rules regarding attorney registration “shall constitute conduc
Reversed and Remanded and Memorandum Opinion filed November 4, 2021. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-17-00223-CV REBECCA WILSON, ET AL., Appellants1 V. GEORGE FLEMING AND FLEMING & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P., Appellees On Appeal from the 189th District Court