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 “Kimbrough v. Center for Justice Innovation”
St. Louis Effort For AIDS v. Chlora Lindley-Myerspublic domain
BENTON, Circuit Judge.- St. Louis Effort for AIDS and Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region' and Southwest Missouri sued to enjoin the Health Insurance Marketplace Innovation Act of 2013 (HIMIA), §§ 376.2000-376.2014 RSMo Supp. 2013. The district court granted summary'judgment to Effort for AIDS but denied attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b).
Kimbrough v. Holiday Innpublic domain
478 F.Supp. 566 (1979) Willie and Maria KIMBROUGH v. HOLIDAY INN. Willie and Maria KIMBROUGH v. HOLIDAY INN OF LIONVILLE, INC. and Holiday Inn of Lionville. Civ. A. Nos. 78-634, 78-1369. United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. July 31, 1979. Joseph H. Foster and Richard A. Kolb, Philadelphia, Pa., for movant (defendant). Elisa B. Vela, D
921 F.2d 604 64 Ed. Law Rep. 1020 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.The STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, et al., Defendants-Appellees.UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,andLaurel-Jones County Branch of the N.A.A.C.P., Manuel Jones,Jr., Felicia Wheeler, Kelly Anderson and TabithaAnderson, Intervening Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.ASSOCIATION FOR EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION, InterveningPl
United States v. Pelloskipublic domain
OPINION AND ORDER JAMES L. GRAHAM, District Judge. This matter is before the Court for the sentencing of the Defendant, Christopher E. Pelloski. On July 11, 2014, the Court sentenced the Defendant to 12 months and one day imprisonment, a $10,000 fine, and a term of five years of supervised release for knowingly accessing with intent to view digital files that contained child pornography in viol
McRO, Inc. v. Naughty Dog, Inc.public domain
RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS BASED ON UNPA-TENTABILITY UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101 GEORGE H. WU, District Judge. I. Background The Court is presiding over two sets of consolidated patent infringement cases filed by Plaintiff McRO, Inc., d.b.a. Planet Blue (“Plaintiff’ or “Planet Blue”): the “Track 1” cases, consolidated under Case No. CV-12-10322,
*1216RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS BASED ON UNPA-TENTABILITY UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101 GEORGE H. WU, District Judge. I. Background The Court is presiding over two sets of consolidated patent infringement cases filed by Plaintiff McRO, Inc., d.b.a. Planet Blue (“Plaintiff” or “Planet Blue”): the
United States v. Mississippipublic domain
GEE, Circuit Judge: Today we address two cases consolidated on appeal. In the first, the United States demands interdistrict relief to remedy the allegedly segregative effect of various actions taken by the State of Mississippi and by two school districts. We conclude that the district court’s findings are not clearly erroneous and that they provide a sufficient basis for us to review the district court’s decision; thus, we
United States v. Nolfpublic domain
UNSEALED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 1 JAMES O. BROWNING, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) Plaintiff United States’ Sealed Motion for Downward Departure, filed August 16, 2012 (Doc. 146)(ex parte)(“Down-ward Departure Motion”); (ii) Defendant Kevin Nolfs Sealed. Sentencing Memorandum, filed October 25, 2012 (Doc. 149)(“First Nolf Brief’);
United States v. R.V.public domain
Statement of Reasons for Sentencing Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2) JACK B. WEINSTEIN, Senior United States District Judge: Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION... 209 A. Varying Degrees of Culpability of Child Pornography Offenders.., 209 B. Consistency in Sentencing.. .212 C. Defendant in Instant Case.., 212
United States v. Valdezpublic domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JAMES O. BROWNING, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) Defendant Nestor Valdez’ Sentencing Memorandum, filed September 24, 2013 (Doc. 72)(“Valdez Memo.”); and (ii) the United States’ Objection to the Pre-sentence Report and Response to Defendants [sic] Sentencing Memorandum, filed October 3, 2013 (Doc. 78)(“U.S. Memo.”). The Court held a se
United States v. Vertac Chemical Corp.public domain
33 F.Supp.2d 769 (1998) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. VERTAC CHEMICAL CORP., et al., Defendants. No. LR-C-80-109. United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division. October 23, 1998. *770 *771 Sam Blesi, Department of Justice, Land & Natural Resources Division, Washin
United States v. Kravetzpublic domain
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM TAURO, District Judge. This matter stems from criminal proceedings against codefendants Carolyn Kravetz and Boris Levitin. On July 22, 2010, and November 15, 2010, this court sentenced Kravetz and Levitin, respectively. Both defendants filed sealed sentencing memoranda and letters of support with the court. These proceedings caught the attention of non-party
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2014 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
United States v. Bannisterpublic domain
786 F.Supp.2d 617 (2011) UNITED STATES of America v. Damien BANNISTER, Darrell Bannister, Christopher Hall, Cyril McCray, Eric Morris, Roger Patrick, James Ross, Derrick Tatum, Indio Tatum, Jawara Tatum, and Pedro Torres, Defendants. No. 10-CR-0053. United States District Court, E.D. New York. April 8, 2011. *621 Loretta Lynch, U
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2014 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
McKay v. Ashland Oil, Inc.public domain
OPINION BERTELSMAN, District Judge. This court is called upon to decide whether mandatory summary jury trials are a valid pretrial settlement procedure.1 2A summary jury trial was set in this case *44over the objection of the plaintiffs. A motion for reconsideration of that setting was filed by plaintiffs promptly after
United States v. C.R.public domain
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JACK B. WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge: I.Introduction...............................................................347 II.Facts.....................................................................349 A. Defendant’s Childhood..................................................349
Hall v. Woodpublic domain
443 So.2d 834 (1983) C. Leo HALL, Mary Hall and Randy Lee Hall, Appellants, v. Dr. Eugene G. WOOD, Jr., et al., Appellees. No. 54546. Supreme Court of Mississippi. December 7, 1983. *836 Russel D. Moore, III, Moore, Royals & Hartung, Jackson, for appellants. David K. McGowan, Jackson, for appellees. Before PATTE
ACCEPTED 03-14-00718-CV 4288348 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
Speake v. Granthampublic domain
317 F.Supp. 1253 (1970) Phillip R. SPEAKE, Earnest Gregory, and Milton Forte, Jr., a Minor, by His Father and Next Friend, Milton Forte, Sr., Plaintiffs, v. Rader GRANTHAM, Dean of Men, University of Southern Mississippi, William D. McCain, President of University of Southern Mississippi, University of Southern Mississippi, Board of Trustees of Institutions of Higher Learning, W. V. Oubre, M. M. Roberts, and E. E. Thrash, Defendants.