Cases

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _______________________________________ ) BRAD S. FRANCIS, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 19-949 (RBW) ) INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER LORETTA A. PRESEA, Chief Judge. This motion by Defendants United States Marshals Service (“USMS”) and Eben Morales (“Morales”) (collectively, the “Moving Defendants”) to ■ dismiss the claims of Plaintiff Brian Aryai (“Plaintiff’) presents, inter alia, two questions of first impression in this district: (1) whether the amended whistleblower provision of the False Claim

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 14-960C Filed: July 31, 2018 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** LW CONSTRUCTION OF * CHARLESTON, LLC, * Motion for Leave to Amend; * Delay; False Claims Act; Plaintiff, * Common Law Fraud; Unjust

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 14-960C Filed: July 31, 2018 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** LW CONSTRUCTION OF * CHARLESTON, LLC, * Motion for Leave to Amend; * Delay; False Claims Act; Plaintiff, * Common Law Fraud; Unjust

PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 12-4574 ___________ ROY LANGBORD; DAVID LANGBORD; JOAN LANGBORD v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; UNITED STATES BUREAU OF THE MINT; SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE T

OPINION RENDELL, Circuit Judge: Congress passed the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (“CAFRA”), Pub.L. No. 106-185, 114 Stat. 202, as a “reaction] to public outcry over the government’s too-zealous pursuit of civil and criminal forfeiture” and as an “effort to deter government overreaching.” United States v. Khan, 497 F.3d 204, 208 (2d Cir.2007).1 To that end

Appellate Case: 23-4074 Document: 123-1 Date Filed: 07/09/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS July 9, 2025

939 So.2d 966 (2006) In re AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION—REORGANIZATION OF THE RULES. No. SC05-1588. Supreme Court of Florida. September 21, 2006. Gary Devenow Fox, Chair, Rules of Judicial Administration Committee, Miami, FL, Honorable Winifred J. Sharp, Past-Chair, Fifth District Court of Appeal, Daytona Beach, FL, Honorable Claudia R. Isom, P

DUNSTON, Judge MEMORANDUM OPINION (June 19, 2017) Pending before the Court are Defendants TK Holdings, Inc.’s and Takata Corporation’s Motions to Dismiss the Complaint, or in the Alternative, for a Stay. Defendants’ motions will be denied in part because the Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants under the Virgin Islands long-arm statute and the Complaint states a claim f

PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 602 U. S. Part 1 Pages 680–778 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT June 21, 2024 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Criminal No. 19-148-1 (CKK) v. PRAKAZREL MICHEL (1), Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION (August 30, 2024) On April 26, 2023, a jury convicted Defendant Prakazrel Michel (“Michel”

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2023 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Criminal Action No. 23-257 (TSC) DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION The United States has charged former President Donald J. Trump with four counts of criminal conduct that he allegedly

20-1666 Farhane v. United States In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit ________ AUGUST TERM 2021 ARGUED: NOVEMBER 15, 2021 DECIDED: AUGUST 11, 2023 No. 20-1666 ABDERRAHMANE FARHANE, Petitioner-Appellant,

625 F.Supp.2d 949 (2009) In re RETURN OF SEIZED PROPERTY, Terri Jordan, et al., Movants/Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent/Defendant. United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Assorted Firearms, Motorcycles, et al., Defendants. Terri Jordan, et al., Claimants. Nos. 2:09-cv-459-FMC, 2:09-cv-1887-FMC-JCx. United States District Court, C.D. California.

Cite as 2019 Ark. 399 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS Opinion Delivered: December 12, 2019 IN RE ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT COMMITTEE ON CIVIL PRACTICE – RECOMMENDATIONS TO REVISE DISCOVERY RULES PER CURIAM We publish for public comment our Committee on Civil Practice’s recommendations for amendments to Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedu

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, United States District Judge Plaintiff Coal River Mountain Watch (“Coal River”) is a non-profit organization that advocates for Appalachian communities affected by coal mining practices. Just over four years ago, Coal River determined that a particular West Virginia mining permit had not been utilized for more than three years after it had issued, and citin

PER CURIAM. The Florida Bar’s Appellate Court Rules Committee (Committee) has filed its biennial report of regular-cycle proposed rule amendments in accordance with Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.130(c)(4). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const. BACKGROUND The Committee’s regular-cycle report proposes amendments to rules 9.020 (Definitions), 9.030 (Ju

3/8/2022 9:20:39 AM Compare Results Old File: New File: 20-5279.pdf 20-5279_new.pdf versus 43 pages (225 KB) 43 pages (225 KB)

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 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