Cases

147 F.Supp.2d 864 (2001) ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA, CENTRAL OHIO DIVISION, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF COLUMBUS, et al., Defendants. No. 99cv502. United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division. May 23, 2001. *865 *866 Kevin Robert McDermott, Schottenstein Zox & Dunn, C

936 F.Supp. 1363 (1996) The ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF COLUMBUS, et al., Defendants. No. C2-89-705. United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division. August 26, 1996. *1364 *1365 *1366

OPINION BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff-Appellees originally filed this action in August 1989, challenging the constitutionality of the City of Columbus’s minority set-aside ordinance, the Equal Business Opportunity (“EBO”) Code of 1989. Shortly after suit was filed, the City Council amended the ordinance to remove

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 23a0098p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ JAMES KNIGHT; JASON MAYES, │ Plaint

881 So.2d 926 (2004) Daniel Clyde KNIGHT, Jr. a/k/a Daniel C. Knight, Jr. a/k/a Danny Knight, Appellant v. CITY OF ABERDEEN, Appellee. No. 2003-KM-01603-COA. Court of Appeals of Mississippi. September 7, 2004. Mose Lee Sudduth, Columbus, attorney for appellant. *927 Robert H. Faulks, attorney for appellee. EN BANC.<

The plaintiff, the Knights of Columbus, took an appeal from the action of the board of tax review of the city of New Haven adding to the list of taxable property belonging to the plaintiff as of October 1, 1976, certain personal property located in the plaintiff's building in New Haven. The facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff is a fraternal benefit society organized under a charter granted by the state of Connecticut in 1882 and its principal place of business is located in New Hav

R. Brooke Jackson, United States District Judge *1070This matter is before the Court on five pending motions. For the reasons discussed in this order, the Court (1) denies plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and sanctions; (2) denies the Knights of Columbus' motion for a protective order; (3) grants the Knights of Columbus' p

OPINION OF THE COURT D. Bruce Crew, III, J. Petitioner has commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding pursuant to section 30.58 (C) (9) of the Ithaca Municipal Code and section 82 of the General City Law for judicial review of a decision of the board of zoning appeals dated September 6, 1983. The board of zoning appeals moved to dismiss the petition and the petitioner cross-moved to amend the petition. At the t

RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE HAIGHT, Senior District Judge: I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff John Doe No. 1 (herein “Plaintiff’) brings this action for damages arising from horrific sexual abuse he allegedly endured over a six-year period when he was a minor engaged in the activities of the Columbian Squires

396 N.E.2d 948 (1979) CITY OF MISHAWAKA, On Behalf of Its Department of Redevelopment, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS HOME ASSOCIATION OF MISHAWAKA, Indiana, et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 3-1077A270. Court of Appeals of Indiana, Third District. November 29, 1979. Rehearing Denied January 14, 1980. *

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Knights of Columbus appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated October 19, 1999, as granted that branch of the cross motion of the defendant 40-27 235th Street Corporation which was for summary judgment on its cross claim alleging breach of contract. Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.<

205 N.W.2d 705 (1973) Alberta J. FRANTZ, Now Deceased, and Orion L. Frantz, Executor of the Estate of Alberta J. Frantz, Deceased, Appellee, v. KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS, Appellant. No. 55367. Supreme Court of Iowa. March 28, 1973. *707 D. C. Nolan, of Nolan, Lucas & Nolan, and J. Patrick White, Iowa City, for appellant. Wil

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 546 Marleeta I. Knight, defendant-appellant, appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence entered upon a no contest plea by the Chillicothe Municipal Court finding her guilty of two charges of assault, one charge of resisting arrest, and one charge of disorderly conduct (provoking), all in violation of various s

268 Neb. 132 LARRY R. DEMERATH, APPELLANT, v. KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS, A FOREIGN INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE. No. S-03-377 Supreme Court of Nebraska. 2004. Filed April 4, 2004. Larry R. Demerath, of Demerath Law Offices, pro se. Andrew M. Loudon, of Baylor, Evnen, Curtiss, Grimit & Witt, L.L.P., for appellee. HENDRY, C.J., WRIGHT, CONN

847 So.2d 665 (2003) Earline HUTCHISON v. KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS, COUNCIL NO. 5747, Rebel Amusement Rides, Inc., and St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company. No. 2002-CA-1817. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit. May 7, 2003. *666 Darleen M. Jacobs, Al A. Sarrat, Robert A. Preston, Jr., Jacobs & Sarrat, New Orleans,

07/05/2022 DA 20-0609 Case Number: DA 20-0609 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2022 MT 129 ARIANE WITTMAN and JEREMY TAYLEN, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF BILL

160 F.Supp.2d 316 (2001) Jocelyn SIOSON, Plaintiff v. KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS, Defendant. No. CIV.A. 3-99CV1982JCH. United States District Court, D. Connecticut. August 29, 2001. *317 *318 David S. Doyle, Marcus Law Firm, New Haven, CT, for plaintiff. Lynn A. Kappelman, Seyfarth, Shaw, Bost

Case: 15-11362 Date Filed: 03/21/2019 Page: 1 of 100 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 15-11362 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-04038-RWS JACQUELINE LEWIS,

NEWSOM, Circuit Judge: Faced with a defendant's motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff asserting an intentional-discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Protection Clause, or 42 U.S.C. § 1981 must make a sufficient

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 9 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 10 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.]