Cases

MEMORANDUM * Defendants Hellmut Laue, Theodore Bollinger, and Ralph Calvo (“defendants”) appeal the district court’s grants of summary judgment in favor of the government in actions for ejectment brought by the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”). The district court determined that there was no material issue of fact regarding defendants’ bad faith occupancy of a mill site located on federal land managed by

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WENDY L. HAGENAU, Bankruptcy Judge. This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 10], brought by the Defendant in this adversary proceeding, the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”). The Debtor initiated this proceeding seeking a determination that his debts to the IRS, arising from

664 F.Supp. 293 (1987) Robert R. SCHOOT, Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant, v. The UNITED STATES of America, Defendant and Counterclaimant, v. Roger C. VORBAU, Additional Defendant on the Counterclaim. No. 86 C 0179. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D. January 6, 1987. *294 Steven J. Rotunno, Peter Ordowe

438 U.S. 645 (1978) CALIFORNIA ET AL. v. UNITED STATES. No. 77-285. Supreme Court of United States. Argued March 28, 1978. Decided July 3, 1978. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. *646 Roderick Walston, Deputy Attorney General of California, argued the cause for petitio

LOKEN, Circuit Judge. This is an interlocutory appeal in a bid-rigging prosecution in which the government proposes to introduce evidence obtained by electronic surveillance. The district court suppressed that evidence on three grounds: because the government violated Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), when it obtained a

OPINION PER CURIAM: * I The plaintiffs in this action seek to recover compensation for the vesting by the Attorney General of the United States on July 26, 1951, under the Trading With the Enemy Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. §§ 1-40 (1946)), of $76,535.83 in cash and al

413 U.S. 548 (1973) UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION ET AL. v. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS, AFL-CIO, ET AL. No. 72-634. Supreme Court of the United States. Argued March 26, 1973. Decided June 25, 1973. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA *549 Solicitor Ge

MaddeN, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: In a prior proceeding in this case the Government moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ petition on the asserted grounds that this court had no jurisdiction of the subject matter and that the petition failed to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted. This court denied that motion, in an opinion rendered July 12,1957,139 C. Cls. 605. Ther

153 F.Supp. 428 (1957) GMO. NIEHAUS & CO., C. por A., a corporation organized under the laws of Costa Rica, Apartado 493 San Jose, Costa Rica, and Imke Steinhoff, Kurt Niehaus, Gertrude Boese, Franz Laue and Horst Laue, sometimes incorrectly designated as Franz Boese and Horst Boese, all c/o Dr. Hans Loening, Soegestrasse 18/20 Bremen, Germany v. The UNITED STATES. No. 501-56. United States Court o

OFFICE OF IHE ,ATT’ORNEY 6ENERAL OF TEXA!S a- AUFIlN 0-0.M -QoIQIL ; fims letter. Of 0r $h%r Dopartmaut c?ieds ti follows: 30 eritltlu6,, ml fiatto ProvZdoror lss whoeb pmoincta 11s ir w*uties hWin~ a pap

555 P.2d 778 (1976) 27 Or.App. 147 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, Inc., and Portland Inn, Inc., Petitioners, v. THE OREGON TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OREGON, Respondent. Court of Appeals of Oregon. Argued and Submitted August 26, 1976. Decided November 1, 1976. *779 John Wiley Gould, Portland, argue

'Mr. Justice DAVIS delivered the opinion of the court. The United States are called on to make good the loss caused by the alleged wrongful conduct of their military officers, and the inquiry is, can they be required to do it in this suit? The main question involved in this inquiry is importa

Peter M. Gunnar, Judge. This suit is brought by the plaintiff to set aside the defendant’s Opinion and Order No. VL 62-82 affirming the denial by the Board of Equalization of Marion County of a charitable exemption from ad valorem property taxes for the plaintiff’s house of public worship under ORS 307.140. Both parties acknowledge that the property in question is a house of public worship and is used exc

Justice KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court. *1024 This case is about Kansas's treatment of a criminal defendant's insanity claim. In Kansas, a defendant can invoke mental illness to show that he lacked the requisite mens rea (intent) for a crime. He can also rais

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MURGUIA, District Judge. This matter is before the court on Defendant Nicholas A. Guarino’s Motion to Set Aside Default, Quash Service and Dismiss for Improper Service, Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Failure to Serve (Doc. 86). Defendant, in sum, requests that the court set aside the default order entered against him and dismiss plaintiffs case because plaintiff failed to

451 F.Supp.2d 1251 (2006) COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. WALL STREET UNDERGROUND, INC., a Delaware Corporation; Web Fulfillment Centre, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Derek Abrahams, Frank Asaro and Nicholas A. Guarino, Jr., Defendants. No. CIV.A. 03-2193-CM. United States District Court, D. Kansas. April 7, 2006. Christopher Allman, Office of Un

451 F.Supp.2d 1256 (2006) COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. WALL STREET UNDERGROUND, INC, et al., Defendants. No. CIV.A. 03-2193-CM. United States District Court, D. Kansas. July 11, 2006. *1257 Christopher Allman, Office of United States Attorney—Kansas, City, Kansas City, KS, for Commodity Futures Trading Comm

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 124,849 SCOTT SCHWAB, Kansas Secretary of State, in His Official Capacity, and MICHAEL ABBOTT, Wyandotte County Election Commissioner, in His Official Capa

Justice SOTOMAYOR, dissenting. In upholding routine stops of vehicles whose owners have revoked licenses, the Court ignores key foundations of our reasonable-suspicion jurisprudence and impermissibly and unnecessarily reduces the State's burden of proof. I therefore dissent. I I begin with common ground. The Fourth Amendment permits "brief investigatory" vehicle stops, United States v. Cortez</

ORDER Ben Lazer, a real-estate appraiser being sued for performing his job negligently, appeals from an order denying his motion to file a third-party claim for contribution against the plaintiffs’ real-estate broker, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 14(a)(1). Because we lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s *552ruling on Lazer’s motion while the underlying claim is pending