Cases

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued February 8, 2022 Decided August 12, 2022 No. 21-5166 LOPER BRIGHT ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL., APPELLANTS CAPE TRAWLERS, INC., ET AL., APPELLEES v. GINA RAIMONDO, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, ET AL., APPELLE

DANA L. RASURE, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE TABLE OF CONTENTS I. JURISDICTION .. .800 II. FINDINGS OF FACT.. . 800 A. Background Leading to the Appointment of Trustee.. .801 B. Initial Trustee Period... 804 C. Challenge to the Legitimacy of Trustee... 807 1. Findings Supporting Denial of Motio

356 F.Supp.2d 442 (2005) Lino L. ALPHONSO, Plaintiff, v. PITNEY BOWES, INC. and Norm Sommer, Defendants. Civil Action No. 01-3352(JBS). United States District Court, D. New Jersey. March 7, 2005. *444 Kenneth A. Sandler, Esq., Marlton, NJ, and Richard E. Yaskin, Esq., Law Offices of Richard E. Yaskin, Voorhees, NJ, for Plaintiff.

449 F.Supp.2d 1 (2006) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, and Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, and National African American Tobacco Prevention Network, Intervenors, v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., (f/k/a Philip Morris, Inc.), et al., Defendants. No. CIV.A. 99-2496(GK). United States Distri

607 F.2d 438 197 U.S.App.D.C. 124, 5 Media L. Rep. 1193 AMERICAN SECURITY COUNCIL EDUCATION FOUNDATION, Petitioner,v.FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States ofAmerica, Respondents,CBS Inc., Intervenor. No. 77-1443. United States Court of Appeals,District of Columbia Circuit. Argued Dec. 21, 1978.Decided June 29

Filed 12/19/19 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DELBERT A. BEAMES, F075855 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. VCU-267649) v. OPINION CITY OF

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES’ PRE-TRIAL EVIDENTIARY MOTIONS MARK W. BENNETT, District Judge. TABLE OF CONTENTS J. INTRODUCTION.879 II. LEGAL ANALYSIS.880 A. Standards Applicable To All Motions.880 1. Evidence relating to dismissed claims.880 2. Proof of t

FRANCOIS, Judge MEMORANDUM OPINION (August 19, 2015) TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION........................................................................215 PROCEDURAL HISTORY.........................................................217 SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD......................................221

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 20-229C Filed: August 20, 2020 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MICHAEL HARVEY, * * Plaintiff, * Pro Se Plaintiff; Motion to Dismiss; * Subject Matter Jurisdiction; Failure

The Court in this case must determine whether an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Michigan, approved and enacted by its voters, is invalid under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. In 2003 the Court reviewed the constitutionality of two admissions systems at the University of Michigan, one for its undergraduate class and one for its law

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2013 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

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE APPRAISAL OF PANERA ) BREAD COMPANY ) C.A. No. 2017-0593-MTZ ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Date Submitted: October 7, 2019 Date Decided: January 31, 2020 Samuel T. Hirzel, II, Elizabeth A. DeFelice, and Melissa N. Donimirski, HEYMAN ENERIO GATTUSO & HIRZEL LLP, Wilmington, Delaware

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINDINGS OF FACT STEVEN D. MERRYDAY, District Judge. [UJnder the Constitution, the first question to be answered is not whose plan is best, but in what branch of the Government is lodged the authority to initially devise the plan. This does not mean that constitutional rights are not to be scrupulously observed. It does mean, however,’ that the inquiry of federal court

337 F.Supp.2d 709 (2004) Karen SHEAFFER, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF CHATHAM, Linda Clarke, Personally and in Her Official capacity as Chatham County Library Services Director, Defendants. No. 1:03 CV 0057. United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina. September 17, 2004. *710 *711

402 F.3d 175 UNITED STATES of Americav.Paul G. SCZUBELEK, Appellant. No. 03-2173. United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Argued February 12, 2004. Decided March 21, 2005. Eleni Kousoulis (Argued), Office of Federal Public Defender, Wilmington, DE, for Appellant.

961 F.Supp. 736 (1997) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Leonard PELULLO, Defendant. Civ. A. No. 94-276(DRD). United States District Court, D. New Jersey. April 17, 1997. *737 *738 Faith S. Hochberg, United States Attorney by Mark W. Rufolo and Leslie Faye Schwartz, Assistant U.S. Attorn

384 F.Supp.2d 1039 (2005) FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. Charles E. HURWITZ, et al., Defendants. No. CIV.A. H-95-3956. United States District Court, S.D. Texas. August 23, 2005. *1040 *1041 *1042 *1043

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) IN RE: ) ) ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN ) TERRORISM LITIGAT

247 F.Supp.2d 1272 (2003) UNITED STATES of America v. Steven B. AISENBERG and Marlene J. Aisenberg No. 8:99-CR-324-T23MAP. United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division. January 31, 2003. *1275 Stephen Kunz, Ernest F. Peluso, Rachelle DesVaux-Bedke, John Moran, Terry Zitek, U.S. Attorney's Office, Tampa, FL, for U.S.

791 F.Supp. 1536 (1992) Michelle Ann STOCKETT, Plaintiff, v. Frank TOLIN, et al., Defendants. No. 88-1550-CIV. United States District Court, S.D. Florida. April 24, 1992. *1537 *1538 *1539 Karen Coolman Amlong, Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., for plaintiff. Gr