Cases

Lawrence H. Cooke, J. Respondents, the members of the Board of Elections of Albany County, unanimously ruled on September 14, 1967 that they could not accept a certain certificate of nomination received by them on September 12, 1967 and' apparently mailed the day before. The certificate stated, in substance and among other things, that at a meeting held on September 11, 1967 the executive committee of the county committee of the

Appeal taken as of right considered as an application for leave to appeal granted and on the appeal order affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Concur: Chief Judge Fold and Judges Van Voorhis, Burice, Scileppi, Bergan, Keating and Breitel,

[J-78-2019] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT JUSTICES DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, AND MUNDY JUDGES KING, KUNSELMAN, AND NICHOLS 1 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 768 CAP : Appellee : Appeal from the Order dated June 29,

Keating, J. A promotional examination for Sergeant of the State Police and article 10 of the Department Rules and Regulations under which the examination was held have been discarded as unconstitutional by the Appellate Division, Third Department. Cross appeals are before us. By an order of May 6, 1965, in an article 78 proceeding, Special Term set aside in its entirety article 10, the examination for Sergeant,

750 F.Supp.2d 1049 (2010) WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, on behalf of itself and the members of its affiliated group filing a consolidated return, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. Case No. 09-CV-2764 PJS AJB. United States District Court, D. Minnesota. October 27, 2010. *1050 B. John Williams, Jr., Julia M. Kazaks,

SAYLOR, C.J., BAER, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, JJ. OPINION JUSTICE WECHT *219In these consolidated cases, we granted allowance of appeal to determine whether and to what extent a hospital and a health care staffing agency have a legal duty to prevent a terminated employe

Louis Gr. Bruhn, J. This is a motion on behalf of the respondent “ for an order returning the above-entitled matter before this Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with the memorandum opinion of the Appellate Division, Third Department, dated December 30, 1964, and the order of the Appellate Division based thereon, together with such other and further relief as to the Court seems just and proper.” Th

[J-1-2022] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT BAER, C.J., TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, BROBSON, JJ. JOSEPH J. O'NEILL, : No. 25 EAP 2021 : Appellant : Appeal from the Order of the : Commonwealth Cou

JUDGMENT Per Curiam This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged: AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

Joseph J. O'Donohue, Petitioner v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, RespondentO'Donohue v. CommissionerDocket No. 68263United States Tax Court

JACOBS, Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs are employees of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) who claim that the FDIC improperly classified their jobs as exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-19 (1982). Upon motion by the FDIC, and after a hearing, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New Yor

Mr. Justice Black, dissenting. I do not believe that either the bénch, the bar or the litigants will know what has been decided in this case— certainly I do not. Two members of the Court, saying *866that “the Constitutional issue is inescapably before us,” vote to affirm the holding of the Wisconsin Supreme Court that a State can, without violating the Fe

ORDER Patrick J. Schütz, United States District Judge • This long-running tax litigation arises out of an extraordinarily complex transaction that plaintiff Wells Fargo & Company (“Wells Fargo”) engaged in with Barclays, a British financial-services company. The transaction — called “Structured Trust Advantaged Repackaged Securities” or “STARS” — included four key elements: (1) Wells Fargo wo

Post-Award Bid Protest; Judgment upon the Administrative Record, RCFC 52.1; Supplementing the Administrative Record; Standing; FAR 62.212-1; Non-Manufacturer Rule; NAICS Code Size Standard. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRIGGSBY, Judge I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff, York Telecom Company (“York-tel”), brought this pos

[J-100-2020] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT BAER, C.J., SAYLOR, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, JJ. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 39 MAP 2020 : Appellee : Appeal from the Order of Superior : Court at No. 3314

[J-118-2016] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT SAYLOR, C.J., BAER, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, JJ. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 45 MAP 2016 : Appellee : Appeal from the Order of the Superior : Court dated September 4, 201

OPINION OF THE COURT Edwin Margolis, J. This claim arises out of a fall sustained by the claimant, Danielle Walter, at John Boyd Thacher State Park (Park), in *353the County of Albany, on April 17, 1985 between 5:30 and 5:45 p.m.1 The trial was bifurcated and this decision deals only with the issue of liability.

OPINION HORN, J. FINDINGS OF FACT This ease involves a post-award bid protest brought by the plaintiff, Glenn Defense Marine (Asia), PTE Ltd. (Glenn Defense Marine), and is before the court on the parties’ cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record. On November 3, 2009, the Department of the Navy, Naval Supply Systems Command, Fleet Logistics Center Yokosuka (Navy) issued a Re

OPINION JUSTICE TODD This is a consolidated appeal from the decision of the Commonwealth Court following our remand to that tribunal to resolve open issues pursuant to our Court’s mandate in Robinson Township v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 623 Pa. 564, 83 A.3d 901 (2013) (“Robinson II”). In that case, our Court struck the entirety of Sections 3215(b), 3215(d), 3303, and 3304 of Act 13 of Feb. 14,2012, P

574 F.Supp. 1263 (1983) UNITED STATES of America v. James J. DONOHUE, III. UNITED STATES of America v. Rev. Fred E. SNOWDEN, John C. Boatwright Sr., and Calvin D. Boatwright. Crim. A. Nos. B-82-00241, K-82-00510. United States District Court, D. Maryland. May 11, 1983. *1264 J. Frederick Motz, U.S. Atty., D. Md., and