Cases

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO EXCLUDE OR LIMIT AND FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING (Dkt. Nos. 96, 162, and 171) MASTROIANNI, U.S.D.J. I. Introduction Plaintiffs bring this proposed class action on behalf of all students who have been *214diagnosed with m

K. K. HALL, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I. STATE OF MARYLAND As to the State of Maryland (Appeal No. 76-1494), I concur with that portion of the majority opinion which holds in substance that HEW acted ultra vires due to its failure to adopt guidelines for Title VI compliance by institutions of hi

562 F.2d 914 MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, a Municipal Corporationand Board of School Commissioners of BaltimoreCity, Appellees,v.F. David MATHEWS, Individually and as Secretary of theUnited States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,Martin H. Gerry, Individually and as Acting Director, Officefor Civil Rights, United States Department of Health,Education, and Welfare, United States Department of Healt

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 114 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 115 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE N

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JAMES 0. BROWNING, District Judge. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) the United Services Automobile Association’s Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment, filed July 13, 2011 (Doc. 10)(“United Services Motion”); (ii) the Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment Against Defendants Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City, filed July 13, 2011 (Doc. 11)(“BCBSKC Moti

MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBERT H. JACOBVITZ, Bankruptcy Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and (6) (“Motion to Dismiss”). Plaintiff filed a response and a supplemental response in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. See Docket Nos. 10 and 19. This adversary proceeding is one of many adversary proceedings initiated by

172 F.Supp.2d 1333 (2001) Roland S. WEAVER, Plaintiff, v. Dennis BOYLES; Shawnee County Commissioners; Encenio Sapata, et al.; James Welch, et al.; Carla Stovall, Attorney General of Kansas; Edsall's Auto Service; E.J. Edsall's, Inc; Topeka Environmental Code Services; Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Defendants. No. 99-4194-SAC. United States District Court, D. Kansas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S SECOND MOTION ' TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE James A. Parker, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE In DEFENDANT’S SECOND MOTION TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE *1196(Doc, No. 19) (Motion), Southwest Cheese Company, LLC (SWC) asks the Court to dismiss several of Plaintiff Marilyn

182 Ariz. 190 (1995) 894 P.2d 733 Teresa Lopez REINESTO, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF the STATE of Arizona, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF NAVAJO, the Honorable William J. O'Neil, a judge thereof, Respondent Judge, State of Arizona, Real Party in Interest. No. 1 CA-SA 94-0348. Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department C. May 2, 1995.

EBEL, Circuit Judge. In this case, we review the district court’s decision to grant the defendant-ap-pellee’s motion to suppress evidence obtained after the defendant-appellee assaulted police officers who had entered his house trailer to intervene in a domestic dispute. We must address two issues. First, did the defendant-appellee’s wife give the officers consent to enter the

231 F.Supp.2d 611 (2002) Mary WRZESINSKI, Plaintiff, v. District Court Judge Brent DANIELSON, of the 85th District Court for Benzie County, individually and in his official capacity and the County of Benzie, a Michigan Municipal corporation, Defendants. Case No. 1:01-CV-278. United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division. August 14, 2002.

BRORBY, Circuit Judge. ' Larry Gonzales, a prisoner of the State of New Mexico, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Mr. Gonzales claimed his state conviction violated, among others, 1 his right under the Sixth Amendment to an impartial jury. The respondent conceded Mr. Gonzales h

JOHN P. MOORE, Circuit Judge. Frederick Russillo was terminated as court administrator of a New Mexico Metropolitan Court at the direction of the New Mexico Supreme Court. Mr. Russillo appeals the district court’s decision on summary judgment that he was not unconstitutionally deprived of a property or liberty interest, and the New Mexico Supreme Court did not exceed its power of superintending control. Russillo v. Sca

935 F.2d 1167 Frederick M. RUSSILLO, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.The Honorable Tony SCARBOROUGH, Chief Justice of the NewMexico Supreme Court; Robert J. Lovato, CourtAdministrator; Tommy E. Jewell, Presiding Judge of theMetropolitan Court of Bernalillo County, Defendants-Appellees,andThe Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico; theMetropolitan Court of Bernalillo County, Defendants. No. 90-201

903 P.2d 845 (1995) 120 N.M. 534 STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric RUIZ, Defendant-Appellant. No. 15832. Court of Appeals of New Mexico. August 18, 1995. Certiorari Denied September 27, 1995. *846 Tom Udall, Attorney General, Max Shepherd, Assistant Attorney General, Santa F

807 P.2d 234 (1991) 111 N.M. 536 Dolores PINEDA, on behalf of herself and her three children, Claimant-Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. GRANDE DRILLING CORPORATION and Mountain States Mutual Insurance Co., Respondents-Appellants and Cross-Appellees. No. 11379. Court of Appeals of New Mexico. January 8, 1991. *235

416 F.Supp.2d 1098 (2005) Dr. Steven MACARTHUR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SAN JUAN COUNTY, et al., Defendants. No. 2:00 CV 00584 BSJ. United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division. June 13, 2005. *1099 *1100 *1101 *1102<

This is an action for a declaratory judgment, and the question is whether the act of the New Mexico legislature, approved October 3, 1940, hereinafter called "The Relief Act," is unconstitutional. The legislature of 1923 enacted Ch. 140 entitled: "An Act to Provide for the Organization of Conservancy Districts for the Purpose of Co-operating With the Government of the United States Under the Terms of the Federal Reclamation Law and Other Federal Laws, and to Define the Purposes and Pow

168 U.S. 1 (1897) SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. No. 71. Supreme Court of United States. Argued December 2, 8, 1896. Decided October 18, 1897. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. *5 Mr. Joseph H. Choate (with whom were Mr. J. Hubley Ashton and Mr.