Cases

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MIOTION TO SUPPRESS WILLIAM J. MARTÍNEZ, District Judge. In this action, Defendant Christian Paetsch is charged in Count 1 of the Indictment with bank robbery, and use of a dangerous weapon in the commission of a bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) & (d), respectively; and in Count 2 with use of a firearm in relation to a crime of

BRISCOE, Chief Judge, concurring. I concur in the result. Although I agree with the majority that the roadblock implemented by the police in this case was constitutional at its inception, I disagree with the majority that the police developed individualized reasonable suspicion of Paetsch within approximately 29 minutes of the beginning of the roadblock. To be sure, it is undisputed tha

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 8, 2020 Christopher M. Wolpert FOR THE TE

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER James A. Parker, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE On October 27, 2015, Defendant Bradley Soza filed a motion to suppress the physical evidence and statements obtained as a result of his June 29, 2014 detention and arrest. See DEFENDANT BRADLEY SOZA’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF (Doc. No. 34). The United States opposes the motion

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ERIC F. MELGREN, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Juan Morales’ Motion to Suppress (Doc. 34). Morales contends that evidence of methamphetamine and cocaine obtained during a traffic stop should be suppressed because the stop was not justified at its inception and his consent to search was invalid because of an unreasonable detention. Specifically, Morales argue

ON REHEARING EN BANC PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-4233 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. BILLY CURRY, JR., Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-4233 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. BILLY CURRY, JR., Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:17-cr-00130-MHL)

KETCHMARK, District Judge. Following a jury trial, Cameron Arnold was convicted of conspiracy to commit bank robberies and three counts of aiding and abetting the robbery of those banks. Arnold now appeals the district court’s 2 denial of his motion to suppress, ruling on his Batson challenges, and i

530 F.Supp.2d 1008 (2008) CENTRAL STATES, SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST AREAS PENSION FUND, and Howard McDougall, trustee, Plaintiffs, v. PHENCORP REINSURANCE COMPANY, INC., a Barbados Corporation, Defendant. No. 04 C 5655. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. January 11, 2008. *1009 Cathy L. Rath, Anthony E.

FLAUM, Chief Judge. This appeal concerns whether the district court had personal jurisdiction over Defendant-Appellee Phencorp Reinsurance Company (“Phencorp”), a Barbados corporation. At all times relevant to this appeal, Phencorp was a wholly owned subsidiary of Philip Services Corporation (“PSC”), a U.S. corporation. Until 2003, PSC was subject to a collective bargaining agreem

440 F.3d 870 CENTRAL STATES, SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST AREAS PENSION FUND and Howard McDougall, Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.PHENCORP REINSURANCE COMPANY, INC. and American Industrial Assurance Company, Defendants-Appellees. No. 05-2058. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Argued January 5, 2006. Decided March 13, 2006.

962 F.Supp. 108 (1997) COMPUTER LEARNING CENTERS, INC. and Computer Learning Center — Chicago, Plaintiffs, v. Richard W. RILEY, Secretary of United States Department of Education, in his official capacity, Defendant. No. 96 C 6560. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. February 10, 1997. Janice Levy Block, Christopher Eric Paetsch, Seyfarth,

¶ 1. BRASH, J. Damien Markeith Divone Scott appeals his conviction for armed robbery with the threat of force as a party to a crime. Scott entered a guilty plea to this charge after the trial court denied his motion to suppress the evidence that was found during a vehicle search. The vehicle, in which Scott was a passenger, was stopped by West Allis police at

626 F.Supp.2d 866 (2009) Fallya PETRAKOPOULOU, Plaintiff/Counterdefendant v. DHR INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant/Counterclaimant. No. 08 C 4989. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. April 30, 2009. *867 Johanna J. Raimond, Sandy L. Morris, Law Offices of Johanna J. Raimond Ltd., Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff

590 F.Supp.2d 1013 (2008) Fallya PETRAKOPOULOU, Plaintiff/Counterdefendant v. DHR INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant/Counterclaimant. No. 08 C 4989. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. December 17, 2008. *1014 Johanna J. Raimond, Law Offices of Johanna J. Raimond Ltd., Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff/Counterdefe

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE VERNON MONTGOMERY, § § No. 242, 2019 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § § v. § Court Below–Superior Court § of the State of Delaware STATE OF DELAWARE, § §

598 F.Supp.2d 1160 (2009) KEY BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff, v. Ronald G. VAN NOY, et al, Defendants. United States of America, Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. Dennis D'Annunzio, Sue Ann D'Annunzio, f/k/a Sue Ann Van Noy, and Barklen, LLC, Third-Party Defendants. Civil Case No. 07-1076-HU. United States District Court, D. Oregon. February 2, 2009.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON MICHAEL KONICKE, individually and as Personal Representative of the DIVISION ONE Estate of Victoria Konicke, deceased, No. 80463-4-I Appellant, PUBLISHED OPINION v. EVERGREEN EMERGENCY SERVICES, P.S., a Washington Professional Service Corporation; KING COUNTY PUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO

NOTICE: SLIP OPINION (not the court’s final written decision) The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the written opinions that are originally filed by the court. A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential pur