Cases

124 F.3d 216 97 CJ C.A.R. 1876 NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE, et al., Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 25-cv-804 (BAH) v. Judge Beryl A. Howell KENNETH JACKSON, in his official capacity, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION The U.S. I

Michael J. Newman, United States Magistrate Judge This Social Security disability benefits appeal is before the undersigned for disposition based upon the parties' consent. Doc. 10. At issue is whether the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") erred in a decision issued on January 19, 2016 by finding Plaintiff not "disabled" and therefore unentitled to Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB"). This case is before the Court on Plaintiff's St

George A. O'Toole, Jr., United States District Judge The magistrate judge to whom this case was referred issued two reports and recommendations ("the R & Rs") (dkt. nos. 188 & 189) addressing the motions to dismiss filed by the Town of Brookline defendants (dkt. no. 110) and the individual defendants (dkt. no. 112), respectively. The R & Rs recommend that paragraphs of the third amended complaint be stricken as surplusag

FILED Jun 30 2023, 9:57 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF : No. 171 MM 2014 ATTORNEY GENERAL, : : Petitioner : : : v. : : : SUPERVISING JUDGE OF THE THIRTY- : FIFTH STATEWIDE INVESTIGATI

83 P.3d 1278 (2004) 2004 MT 17 Hartmut and Inga BAITIS, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. The DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF THE STATE of Montana, Defendant and Respondent. No. 03-189. Supreme Court of Montana. Submitted on Briefs August 28, 2003. Decided January 28, 2004. *1279 For Appellants: Patr

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Sep 28 2016, 5:59 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals the defense of res judicata, c

536 F.Supp.2d 106 (2008) Thomas STEFANIK, Plaintiff v. TOWN OF HUNTINGTON, et al, Defendants. C.A. No. 07-30020-MAP. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. March 13, 2008. *107 Thomas Stefanik, Huntington, MA, pro se. David S. Lawless, Nancy Frankel Pelletier, Robinson Donovan, P.C., Springfeild, MA, Defendants.</

LYNCH, Circuit Judge. This case raises the question of what constitutes public dissemination of allegedly false and defamatory information sufficient to trigger due process hearing protections for public employees. See Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 573, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). The controversy arose from the termination of Fran Burton from h

W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge, dissenting: The question in this case is whether Explosive Safety Quantity Distance (“ESQD”) arc maps are exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). The Navy claims the maps are exempt under FOIA Exemption 2 and Exemption 7(F). Exemption 2 covers information “related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(2). Ex

238 P.3d 293 (2010) ESTATE OF Jeffrey MILLS, by and through its Special Administrator, Larry MILLS; Carrie Lynn Tucker, individually; and Elizabeth Mills, Sadie Mills, and Ross Mills, Heirs at Law, by and through Charles E. Worden, Guardian ad litem, Appellants, v. Edward L. MANGOSING, M.D., Todd Riggs, D.O., and Dominador Perido, M.D., Appellees, and Board of County Commissioners of Morton County, Defendant. No. 101,457

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GLEN SCOTT MILNER,  Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 07-36056 v.  D.C. No. CV-06-01301-JCC UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, OPINION Defendant-Appellee.  Appeal from t

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-2383-13T3 RUTGERS UNIVERSITY STUDENT ASSEMBLY (RUSA), MATTHEW CODEIRO, JOHN CONNELLY, GABRIELA AGATA GRYZBOWSKI, BETH ROSE BRESLAW, EDWARD JAMES VASCONCELOS III, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATI

April 1 2008 05-057 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2008 MT 110 OUR LADY OF THE ROCKIES, INC., a Montana non-profit corporation, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. KENT PETERSON, KATHLEEN A. PETERSON, LISLE WOOD, PAULINE WOOD, n/k/a PAULINE THOMAS, JONATHAN

365 F.Supp.2d 151 (2005) David PUTNAM Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF SAUGUS, MASSACHUSETTS, John Vasapolli, Individually and In His Official Capacity as Town Manager for the Town of Saugus, Massachusetts, Andrew Bisignani, Individually and In His Official Capacity as Town Manager for the Town of Saugus, Massachusetts, Defendants. No. CIV.A.03-12062-WGY. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

228 F.Supp.2d 327 (2002) James DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant. No. 00 CIV. 4309(SAS). United States District Court, S.D. New York. September 23, 2002. *328 *329 Harry Kresky, New York, NY, for Plaintiff. James Lemonedes, Donald C. Sullivan, Assistant Corporation Counse

*670Opinion McINTYRE, J. An association of residents in two standard subdivisions (i.e., those not having any areas of common ownership) sued the developer that retained control over the architectural committees responsible for enforcing the subdivisions’ declarations of restriction (CC&R’s), seeking in part to validate its attempts to wrest that con

McHUGH, Chief Justice: This is an appeal from the judgment order of November 21, 1994 and from the subsequent order of February 24, 1995, denying defendant Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation’s (hereinafter “Kaiser”) motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial.1 Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, Kaiser was ordered to p

Per Curiam. The Board of Education of the Township of Little Egg Harbor appeals from a final decision of the State Board of Education which affirmed a decision of the Commissioner of Education. The basic issue involved here is whether the Board of Education of the Township of Little Egg Harbor, or one of the named respondent school districts, is responsible for the payment of tuition for A. S., a minor enrolled in