Cases

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER BABCOCK, District Judge. In this Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), 42 U.S.C. § 2210 note, section 5, (Supp.1994) action, plaintiffs Norma Howell (Howell), widow of Robert Bert Howell, deceased, and Alfred Eldon Ball (Ball) seek review of defendants’, Janet Reno, U.S. Attorney General, and the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) (collectively, defendants) denial of

ORDER ROBERT C. JONES, District Judge. This securities fraud case arises out of Defendant JBI, Inc.’s (“JBI”) alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. Lead Plaintiff Howard L. Howell and Plaintiff Elli-sa Pancoe (collectively “Plaintiffs”) brought suit on behalf of a putative class consisting of all individuals damaged by these alleged violations, and the

913 F.Supp. 946 (1995) Charles M. CONDON, Attorney General for the State of South Carolina, and The State of South Carolina, Plaintiffs, v. Janet RENO, Attorney General; United States of America, Defendants and Third Party Plaintiffs. and Trevor Potter, Chairman, Federal Election Commission; Federal Election Commission, Defendants, State of South Carolina, Counter Defendants, Governor David Beasley, in his official capacity; Willi

WATTS, J. “This attorney discipline proceeding concerns a Maryland lawyer who purchased and gave a handgun to a person who could not legally possess a regulated firearm.” Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Reno (“Reno I ”), 436 Md. 504, 505, 83 A.3d 781, 781 (2014). On January 24, 2014, in

OPINION AND ORDER LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court on the parties’ cross Motions for Summary Judgment [dkts. 25, 26]. The Motions have been fully briefed. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs Motion is GRANTED and Defendant’s Motion is DENIED. II. BACKGROUND The City of Howell, Michiga

GILMAN, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which SUTTON, J., joined. CLAY, J. (pp. 568-78), delivered a separate dissenting opinion. OPINION RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Like many American cities, the City of Howell, Michigan requires its property owners to keep their lawns mowed below a certain height. Violators of the ordinance are charged a fine as well as a fee for the cost

204 F.Supp.2d 1355 (2002) Milton D. NELSON, Plaintiff, v. Janet RENO, et al., Defendant. No. 00-4276-Civ. United States District Court, S.D. Florida. April 29, 2002. *1356 Ira Jay Kurzban, Kurzban Kurzban Weinger & Tetzeli, Miami, FL, for plaintiff. Dexter Lee, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Miami, FL, for defendant.

166 F.Supp.2d 875 (2001) ZHENG, Hui Jin a/k/a Zheng, Hiu Tin Alien Number A 72 437 767, Plaintiff, v. Janet RENO, United States Attorney General, Defendant. No. 00 Civ. 8749(JGK). United States District Court, S.D. New York. September 28, 2001. *876 *877 Theodore N. Cox, New York City, for Pla

17 F.Supp.2d 529 (1998) Nantana ODDO, Plaintiff, v. Janet RENO, Attorney General of the United States, Defendant. No. 2:97cv1021. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Norfolk Division. August 17, 1998. *530 Beverly Anne Yeskoloski, Hyder, Lowe & Galston, Norfolk, VA, for Plaintiff. Janet Reno, Attorney General

916 F.Supp. 1289 (1996) Kai Wu CHAN, Yong Sun Li, Fu Xin Li, Ren Ping Zheng, and Liang Wen Pan, Plaintiffs, v. Janet RENO, United States Attorney General, Defendant. No. 95 Civ. 2586. United States District Court, S.D. New York. February 13, 1996. *1290 *1291 Theodore N. Cox, New York City, fo

932 F.Supp. 535 (1996) KAI WU CHAN, Yong Sun Li, Fu Xin Li, Ren Ping Zheng, and Liang Wen Pan, Plaintiffs, v. Janet RENO, United States Attorney General, Defendant. No. 95 Civ. 2586 (RWS). United States District Court, S.D. New York. June 25, 1996. *536 Theodore N. Cox, New York City, for Plaintiffs. Mary Jo White, United

177 Kan. 722 (1955) 282 P.2d 373 JOHN M. HOWELL and ESTHER L. HOWELL, Appellants, v. CITY OF HUTCHINSON, RENO COUNTY, KANSAS, Appellee. No. 39,686 Supreme Court of Kansas. Opinion filed April 9, 1955. J. Richards Hunter, of Hutchinson, argued the cause, and Walter F. Jones and Harry H. Dunn, also of Hutchinson, were with

Argued December 13, 1944. The sole narrow issue raised by this appeal is whether the nature of the estate taken by co-assignees of two bonds and mortgages on New Jersey real estate is determined by the law of Pennsylvania or by that of New Jersey, where the assignment was made in Pennsylvania and the assignor and assignees were all *Page 629 Pennsylvania residents. In a case stated between the personal representatives of the assignees, Ida B. Miller and W

The parties will be referred to as they appeared below. Plaintiff's petition alleged that he had been granted a permit to build a filling station on right of way of street railway company of El Reno; that when he began to build, the city revoked the permit and caused plaintiff's arrest for violation of the zoning ordinance of said city and caused his employees to cease work; that said zoning ordinance No. 1061 was not passed as required by chapter 178, Sess. L. 1923, and was void; that it was

*881 TROTT, Circuit Judge. Overview Karen Yuen Fong Young, a native of Hong Kong, immigrated to the United States as a child with her adoptive parents. She later petitioned the United States Government for immigration preferences on behalf of her natural siblings, who reside in Hon

By the Court, Talbot, C. J.: Plaintiff brought this action to quiet title to a triangular piece of ground in the city of Reno, bordering 109 feet on the south line of Jones Street, 78.42 feet on the east line of Washington Street, and 133.35 feet on the northerly line of Riverside Avenue, as shown on the "Amended Map of Powning’s Addition to the Town of Reno. ” The case was tried upon an agreed statement of f

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 316 According to the complaint and the manner in which it is worded, one would naturally believe that violation of the law meant violation of any law of the state, whether it be a traffic law, game law, or other law. But section 4101 N.C.L. does not mean that; it means as it is written — willful disobedience of

Grant, J. {after stating the facts). 1. The claim of the complainant is not barred, either by laches or the statute of limitations. These bonds were issued in January, 1869, before the decision was rendered in People v. Tp. Board of Salem, 20 Mich. 452, May 26, 1870. Under that decision these bonds were void, and their payment could not be enforced in the courts of this State, unless they showed upon t

MEMORANDUM OPINION BERYL A. HOWELL, United States District Judge The plaintiff, Nancy Shinabargar, proceeding pro se, brings this lawsuit against the Board of Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia (“UDC”), where the plaintiff formerly attended law school, and ten UDC employees, including the Dean and Associate Dean of the Law School, five professors, the Director of Public Safety, w

Order EDWARD C. REED, JR., District Judge. Plaintiff filed suit alleging violations of the Property Clause, the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. Now pending are a number of motions for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff, the Federal Defendants, and the DefendaniAIntervenors.