Cases

Justice Stevens, concurring. The Court correctly confines its discussion to the narrow issue presented by the record, see ante, at 675-678, and correctly upholds the all-comers policy. I join its opinion without reservation. Because the dissent has volunteered an argument that the school’s general Nondiscrimination Policy would be “plainly” unconstitutional if applied to this case, post, at

January 24, 1944. I regret that I find myself in disagreement with Mr. Acting Associate Justice Stoll in a very small particular of this case. I think the judgment below should be affirmed without modification. In the first place, contest as to interest on the amount of the "face of the policy" was not decided by the lower Court (it is not mentioned in the apparently *Page 203 exhaustive decree), so it is not a proper subject for review by this Cou

Opinion of the Court by Chief Justice MINTON. The ministerial exception, rooted in the First Amendment’s principles of religious freedom, is a well-settled doctrine applicable to employment disputes between religious institutions and employees serving in a ministerial capacity. Recently, in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C.,1 <

Opinion of the Court by Chief Justice Minton. In Kirby v. Lexington Theological Seminary,1 a case rendered today in tandem with this case, we explicitly adopted the ministerial exception for employment disputes between religious institutional employers and their ministerial employees. This case presents the question whether the ministerial exception cate

792 F.Supp.2d 1151 (2011) Stephen APILADO, LaRon Charles, and John Russ, Plaintiffs, v. The NORTH AMERICAN GAY AMATEUR ATHLETIC ALLIANCE, Defendant. Case No. C10-0682. United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle. May 31, 2011. *1155 Melanie S. Rowen, Christopher F. Stoll, San Francisco, CA, Suzanne J. Thomas, Peter

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON, Chief Judge. BEFORE THE COURT are Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment, ECF Nos. 47 and 49, and a related Motion to Strike, ECF No. 67. The Court heard oral argument on the motions on January *117012, 2015, in Richland,

Opinion O’LEARY, P. J. Brent Beckwith appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained without leave to amend Susan Dahl’s demurrer to his complaint alleging intentional interference with an expected inheritance (IIEI) and deceit by false promise. Beckwith argues we should join the majority of other states in recognizing the tort of IIEI as a valid cause of action.1

ORDER The panel has voted to deny the petitions for rehearing en banc. The full court was advised of the petitions for rehearing en banc. A judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonre-cused active judges in favor of en banc reconsideration. Fed. R.App. P. 35. The petitions for rehearing en banc are DENIED.

Appellate Case: 22-1445 Document: 187-1 Date Filed: 09/12/2024Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit PUBLISH September 12, 2024 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

[Cite as State ex rel. LetOhioVote.org v. Brunner, 123 Ohio St.3d 322, 2009-Ohio-4900.] THE STATE EX REL. LETOHIOVOTE.ORG ET AL. v. BRUNNER, SECY. OF STATE. [Cite as State ex rel. LetOhioVote.org v. Brunner, 123 Ohio St.3d 322, 2009-Ohio-4900.] The video-lottery-terminal provisions of 2009 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 1 do not fall within any of the exceptions to the right of referendum in that they are not

Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan Syllabus Chief Justice: Justices: Elizabeth T. Clement Brian K. Zahra

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ IN RE: ERIK BRUNETTI, Appellant ______________________ 2015-1109 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in No. 85310960. ______________________ Decided: December 15, 2017 _____

733 So.2d 538 (1999) Anouse THEODORE, By and Through her husband, Christian THEODORE, Emmanuel Theodore, a minor, by and through his father, Christian Theodore, the Theodore children, Chriesnel Theodore, Johnny Theodore, Bronson Theodore, Moise Theodore, Chrisly Theodore, Christianouse Theodore, and Emmanuel Theodore, minors, by and through their father, Christian Theodore, and Christian Theodore, individually, Appellants, v. Annie Dawn-Marie GRA

PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 600 U. S. Part 1 Pages 570–640 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT June 30, 2023 Page Proof Pending Publication REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are requ

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 125,051 HODES & NAUSER, MDS, P.A., and TRACI LYNN NAUSER, M.D., Appellees, v. JANET STANEK, in Her Official Capacity as Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment; STEPHEN M. HOWE, in His Official Capacity as District Attorney for Johnson County, Kansas; a

PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 605 U. S. Part 2 Pages 495–608 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT June 18, 2025 Page Proof Pending Publication REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are

OPINION SMITH, Circuit Judge. A recently enacted statute in New Jersey prohibits licensed counselors from engaging in “sexual orientation change efforts” 1 with a client under the age of 18. Individuals and organizations that seek to provide such counseling filed suit in the United States Distri

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 23a0221p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ L. W., by and through her parents and next friends, │ Samantha Williams a

Jacobs, J., filed a concurring opinion. Cabranes, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Sack, J., filed a concurring opinion. Lohier, J., filed a concurring opinion. Lynch, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which Livingston, J., joined as to Parts I, II, and III. Livingston, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Raggi, J., filed a dissenting

MARTHA CRAIG DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judge, dissenting. “The great tides and currents which engulf the rest of men do not turn aside in their course to pass the judges hy.” Benjamin Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process (1921) The author of the majority opinion has drafted what would make an engrossing TED Talk or, possibly, an introductory lecture in Political Phi