Cases

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

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NATIONAL FAMILY FARM No. 17-70810 COALITION; FAMILY FARM DEFENDERS; BEYOND PESTICIDES; EPA No. CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY; EPA-HQ-OPP- CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY; 2016-0594 PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK NORTH AMERICA, Petitioners, v. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; ANDREW R. WHEELER, in his official ca

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA 2022-NCSC-17 No. 413PA21 Filed 14 February 2022 REBECCA HARPER; AMY CLARE OSEROFF; DONALD RUMPH; JOHN ANTHONY BALLA; RICHARD R. CREWS; LILY NICOLE QUICK; GETTYS COHEN, JR.; SHAWN RUSH; JACKSON THOMAS DUNN, JR.; MARK S. PETERS; KATHLEEN BARNES; VIRGINIA WALTERS BRIEN; and DAVID DWIGHT BROWN v. REPRESENTATIVE DESTIN HALL, in his official

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA 2022-NCSC-17 No. 413PA21 Filed 14 February 2022 REBECCA HARPER; AMY CLARE OSEROFF; DONALD RUMPH; JOHN ANTHONY BALLA; RICHARD R. CREWS; LILY NICOLE QUICK; GETTYS COHEN, JR.; SHAWN RUSH; JACKSON THOMAS DUNN, JR.; MARK S. PETERS; KATHLEEN BARNES; VIRGINIA WALTERS BRIEN; and DAVID DWIGHT BROWN v. REPRESENTATIVE DESTIN HALL, in his official

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 16a0231p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ NORTHEAST OHIO COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS; ┐ COLUMBUS COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS; OHIO │ DEMOCRATIC PARTY,

12/12/2019 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE August 14, 2019 Session TENNESSEANS FOR SENSIBLE ELECTION LAWS v. TENNESSEE BUREAU OF ETHICS AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE, REGISTRY OF ELECTION FINANCE, AND DAVIDSON COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY GENERAL Appeal from the Chancery Court for D

*185Justice Stevens announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which The Chief Justice and Justice Kennedy join. At issue in these cases is the constitutionality of an Indiana statute requiring citizens voting in person on election day, or casting a ballot in person at the office of th

280 F.Supp.2d 1207 (2003) AIRPORT COMMUNITIES COALITION, Plaintiff, v. Colonel Ralph H. GRAVES, Commander and District Engineer of the Seattle District, United States Army Corps of Engineers; United States Army Corps of Engineers, an agency of the United States government; and Port of Seattle, a municipal corporation, Defendants. No. C02-2483R. United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle.

KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. “To an imagination of any scope the most far-reaching form of power is not money, it is the command of ideas.” —Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Path of the Law, 10 Harv. L. Rev. 457, 478 (1897). I believe the statute before us is unconstitu

Justice Kennedy, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part with respect to BCRA Titles I and II.* The First Amendment guarantees our citizens the right to judge for themselves the most effective means for the expression of political views and to decide for themselves which entities to trust as reliable speakers. Significant portions of Titles I and II of the Bipar

Opinion NORCOTT, J. It is by now well established that, under the constitution of Connecticut, the state must “ ‘provide a substantially equal educational opportunity to its youth in its free public elementary and secondary schools’ Horton v. Meskill, 172 Conn. 615, 649, 376 A.2d 359 (1977) (Horton 1); and that this court ha

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 11a0174p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ X - Nos. 08-1387/1534

SCHROEDER, Circuit Judge, with whom PREGERSON, NORRIS and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges, join, dissenting from denial of rehearing en bane. I respectfully dissent from the court’s decision not to review this case en banc. En banc review was warranted in this case for two reasons. First, the case is extraordinarily important. In upholding the constitutionality of California Prop

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-16-00216-CV LORI DEANGELIS AND LAURIE APPELLANTS AND APPELLEES ROBINSON V. PROTECTIVE PARENTS APPELLEES AND APPELLANTS COALITION, JENNIFER OLSON, DEBORAH LOGSDON, JAYNE PEERY, MARIE HOWARD, AND HOLLY CARLESS

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-16-00216-CV LORI DEANGELIS AND LAURIE APPELLANTS AND APPELLEES ROBINSON V. PROTECTIVE PARENTS APPELLEES AND APPELLANTS COALITION, JENNIFER OLSON, DEBORAH LOGSDON, JAYNE PEERY, MARIE HOWARD, AND HOLLY CARLESS

122 F.3d 692 66 USLW 3171, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6966,97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,270 The COALITION FOR ECONOMIC EQUITY; California NAACP;Northern California NAACP; California Labor Federation;AFL-CIO; Council of Asian American Business Associations,California; Chinese American Citizens' Alliance; WomenConstruction Business Owners and Executives, CaliforniaChapter; United Minority Business

COLE, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which DAUGHTREY, J., joined. GIBBONS, J. (pp. 633-46), delivered a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. OPINION COLE, Circuit Judge. Proposal 2 is a successful voter-initiated amendment to the Michigan Constitution. In relevant part, it prohibits Michigan’s public colleges and universities from granting “preferential t

TACHA, Circuit Judge. Section 441a(d)(3) of the Federal Election Campaign Act, 2 U.S.C. §§ 431-455, limits the amount of money a political party may spend in coordination with its candidates for Congress. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) appeals the district court’s ruling that this limitation violates the First Amendment. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. I.

Wiggins, J. ¶53 (dissenting) — When citizens legislate through the initiative process, they are held to the same standards as our elected lawmakers. When corporations legislate by initiative, we must also hold them to those same standards. ¶54 Article II, section 19 of our state constitution declares: No bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the titl

642 F.Supp. 573 (1986) COALITION ON SENSIBLE TRANSPORTATION INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Elizabeth DOLE, United States Secretary of Transportation, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 85-2759. United States District Court, District of Columbia. July 24, 1986. *574 *575