Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
More Annotations
![A complete backup of missingpersonsofindia.com](https://www.archivebay.com/archive5/images/db87d68f-f752-46b0-b5e4-bed0526aec0e.png)
A complete backup of missingpersonsofindia.com
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
![A complete backup of crueltyfreeinternational.org](https://www.archivebay.com/archive5/images/e0205a14-5b70-4435-adff-84d3ffdae140.png)
A complete backup of crueltyfreeinternational.org
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
![A complete backup of nationalstationeryshow.com](https://www.archivebay.com/archive5/images/c5dff6c9-9d59-4d00-9c83-9567efd791db.png)
A complete backup of nationalstationeryshow.com
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
![A complete backup of theavantgardediaries.com](https://www.archivebay.com/archive5/images/3ce40970-88ee-4e48-ac26-91728c409fdb.png)
A complete backup of theavantgardediaries.com
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
![A complete backup of fitnesspizza.com](https://www.archivebay.com/archive5/images/6b97026d-43d0-4a01-be29-fb1bfe6640bb.png)
A complete backup of fitnesspizza.com
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
![A complete backup of perfectlyposh.com](https://www.archivebay.com/archive5/images/886397de-4ba8-4021-92bf-cce1b8b5d96c.png)
A complete backup of perfectlyposh.com
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
![A complete backup of mostmuscular.com](https://www.archivebay.com/archive5/images/0286507a-9dbe-4841-8f46-433731ea43c9.png)
A complete backup of mostmuscular.com
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
Favourite Annotations
![A complete backup of themisfitsgame.com](https://www.archivebay.com/archive/45c6d306-e1aa-4972-aa3d-111ff00b3660.png)
A complete backup of themisfitsgame.com
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
![A complete backup of blackbullmarkets.com](https://www.archivebay.com/archive/a7af3707-c10c-401b-867a-3c4349d29d0f.png)
A complete backup of blackbullmarkets.com
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
![A complete backup of muvucapopular.com.br](https://www.archivebay.com/archive/31c21723-1a04-448a-a7f0-bcc96df5ecf9.png)
A complete backup of muvucapopular.com.br
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
![A complete backup of armyproperty.com](https://www.archivebay.com/archive/398a00fb-a6fd-418f-b542-3d1622093e22.png)
A complete backup of armyproperty.com
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
![A complete backup of beyondbabeesh.com](https://www.archivebay.com/archive/e58b9d5b-65a7-49cf-83b1-7be651cbdbc0.png)
A complete backup of beyondbabeesh.com
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
![A complete backup of thelingeriejournal.com](https://www.archivebay.com/archive/b261a757-3342-4a73-91f1-1f56597eef6d.png)
A complete backup of thelingeriejournal.com
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
![A complete backup of downloadelivre.wordpress.com](https://www.archivebay.com/archive/4177e1c8-e80a-452d-aa82-1d79d43c37fb.png)
A complete backup of downloadelivre.wordpress.com
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
![A complete backup of bianchi-industrial.it](https://www.archivebay.com/archive/edfffb02-5778-4f67-b0a1-77dda8e3d3b0.png)
A complete backup of bianchi-industrial.it
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
Text
SEARCH
Leagle is a leading provider of United States Court opinions and decisions. Every opinion and decision handed down by the Courts – Trial Courts, Appellate Courts and Supreme Courts, spanning Civil, Criminal, Family, Tax or Bankruptcy litigations are published here daily. Our library is comprehensive and contains over 5 million published and unpublished cases since 1950.The Leagle Lawyer UNITED STATES V. ABDULAZI 4. In a 28(j) letter filed on May 26, 2021 acknowledging Williams, the government points to the concurrence in that case, which concludes that "McNeill 's approach controls here" and that "the overwhelming trend of appellate decisions all point to applying sentencing enhancements using a time-of-conviction rule." Williams, 2021 WL 1149711, at *9-10 (Cook, J., concurring) (collecting cases). MUSHLAM, INC. V. NAZOR ORDERED that the part of the motion brought by defendants Maria Nazor and Peter Mickle for leave to renew the court order dated October 15, 2018 and entered October 18, 2018 granting plaintiff Mushlam, Inc. judgment on the ejectment claim (motion sequence no. 24) is granted, and upon granting renewal, the court order dated October 15, 2018 and OWENSBY & KRITIKOS, INCOR Owensby's dispute is with application of the second part of the test. It urges rejecting the BRB's ruling because it claims the BRB applied a "but-for" test rejected by the Supreme Court. See Valladolid, 565 U.S. at 221 ("The . . . `but-for' test . . . is also incompatible with1333 (b).").
TRIMBLE INC. V. PERDIEMCO Trimble Inc. and Innovative Software Engineering, LLC ("ISE") appeal a judgment dismissing their declaratory judgment noninfringement action against PerDiemCo LLC for lack of personal jurisdiction. PerDiemCo is the owner of eleven patents that it accused Trimble and ISE of infringing in letters and other communications sent to Trimble, aYOUNG V. CAIN
540 F.3d 303 - GEIGER v. CAIN, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. 686 F.3d 281 - BROWN v. EPPS, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. 793 F.3d 513 - GARCIA v. STEPHENS, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. 815 F.3d 228 - U.S. v. DANHACH, UnitedStates Court of
WILSON V. WELLS FARGO & C Pending before the Court is Defendants Wells Fargo & Co. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s (collectively "Wells Fargo" or "Defendant") motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff Mosanthony Wilson filed an opposition to the motion, and Defendant filed a reply. For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion and stays further proceedings pending DOYLE V. DEPARTMENT OF VE On December 27, 2016, Ms. Doyle filed a complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel ("OSC") alleging whistleblower reprisal. J.A. 93, 115. From that point on, she kept the OSC informed of developments, including her subsequent reassignments to other departments. J.A.90-148, 105, 122.
RUBALCABA V. GARLAND 7. The Third Circuit reached the same result in Desai v.Attorney General, adopting the Second Circuit's analysis from Zhang.See 695 F.3d 267, 270-71 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing Zhang, 617 F.3d at 665). We note that, post-Kisor, the Third Circuit has called this approach into question.See Ovalle v. Att'y Gen., 791 F. App'x 333, 336 (3d Cir. 2019) ("That reasoning . . . does not survive the Supreme DESIREE D. V. COMMISSIONE DAVID G. LARIMER, District Judge. Plaintiff appeals from a denial of disability benefits by the Commissioner of Social Security ("the Commissioner"). The action is one brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §405 (g) to review the Commissioner's final determination. On June 20, 2016, plaintiff filed applications for a period of disability anddisability
THE PLACE TO FIND U. S. LAW, LAWYERS AND OPINIONSFEATURED LAWYERSFEATURED DECISIONSLATEST DECISIONSBROWSE DECISIONSADVANCEDSEARCH
Leagle is a leading provider of United States Court opinions and decisions. Every opinion and decision handed down by the Courts – Trial Courts, Appellate Courts and Supreme Courts, spanning Civil, Criminal, Family, Tax or Bankruptcy litigations are published here daily. Our library is comprehensive and contains over 5 million published and unpublished cases since 1950.The Leagle Lawyer UNITED STATES V. ABDULAZI 4. In a 28(j) letter filed on May 26, 2021 acknowledging Williams, the government points to the concurrence in that case, which concludes that "McNeill 's approach controls here" and that "the overwhelming trend of appellate decisions all point to applying sentencing enhancements using a time-of-conviction rule." Williams, 2021 WL 1149711, at *9-10 (Cook, J., concurring) (collecting cases). MUSHLAM, INC. V. NAZOR ORDERED that the part of the motion brought by defendants Maria Nazor and Peter Mickle for leave to renew the court order dated October 15, 2018 and entered October 18, 2018 granting plaintiff Mushlam, Inc. judgment on the ejectment claim (motion sequence no. 24) is granted, and upon granting renewal, the court order dated October 15, 2018 and OWENSBY & KRITIKOS, INCOR Owensby's dispute is with application of the second part of the test. It urges rejecting the BRB's ruling because it claims the BRB applied a "but-for" test rejected by the Supreme Court. See Valladolid, 565 U.S. at 221 ("The . . . `but-for' test . . . is also incompatible with1333 (b).").
TRIMBLE INC. V. PERDIEMCO Trimble Inc. and Innovative Software Engineering, LLC ("ISE") appeal a judgment dismissing their declaratory judgment noninfringement action against PerDiemCo LLC for lack of personal jurisdiction. PerDiemCo is the owner of eleven patents that it accused Trimble and ISE of infringing in letters and other communications sent to Trimble, aYOUNG V. CAIN
540 F.3d 303 - GEIGER v. CAIN, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. 686 F.3d 281 - BROWN v. EPPS, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. 793 F.3d 513 - GARCIA v. STEPHENS, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. 815 F.3d 228 - U.S. v. DANHACH, UnitedStates Court of
WILSON V. WELLS FARGO & C Pending before the Court is Defendants Wells Fargo & Co. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s (collectively "Wells Fargo" or "Defendant") motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff Mosanthony Wilson filed an opposition to the motion, and Defendant filed a reply. For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion and stays further proceedings pending DOYLE V. DEPARTMENT OF VE On December 27, 2016, Ms. Doyle filed a complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel ("OSC") alleging whistleblower reprisal. J.A. 93, 115. From that point on, she kept the OSC informed of developments, including her subsequent reassignments to other departments. J.A.90-148, 105, 122.
RUBALCABA V. GARLAND 7. The Third Circuit reached the same result in Desai v.Attorney General, adopting the Second Circuit's analysis from Zhang.See 695 F.3d 267, 270-71 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing Zhang, 617 F.3d at 665). We note that, post-Kisor, the Third Circuit has called this approach into question.See Ovalle v. Att'y Gen., 791 F. App'x 333, 336 (3d Cir. 2019) ("That reasoning . . . does not survive the Supreme DESIREE D. V. COMMISSIONE DAVID G. LARIMER, District Judge. Plaintiff appeals from a denial of disability benefits by the Commissioner of Social Security ("the Commissioner"). The action is one brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §405 (g) to review the Commissioner's final determination. On June 20, 2016, plaintiff filed applications for a period of disability anddisability
UNITED STATES V. ABDULAZI 4. In a 28(j) letter filed on May 26, 2021 acknowledging Williams, the government points to the concurrence in that case, which concludes that "McNeill 's approach controls here" and that "the overwhelming trend of appellate decisions all point to applying sentencing enhancements using a time-of-conviction rule." Williams, 2021 WL 1149711, at *9-10 (Cook, J., concurring) (collecting cases).PAULINO V. BRAUN
Order Supreme Court Bronx County Elizabeth A. Taylor J. entered on or about July 29 2020 which granted defendant s motion20210610259 SC JOHNSON & SON INC. V. 1. The Carborundum factors are used to determine whether merchandise is commercially fungible with the particular class or kind of merchandise that falls under a principal use provision.See Aromont USA, Inc. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1310, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing United States v. Carborundum, 536 F.2d 373, 377 (CCPA 1976)).Under Carborundum, courts look to (1) use in the same TAO V. MERIT SYSTEMS PROT Dr. Debra Tao petitions for review of a decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board ("Board") that dismissed an individual right of action appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On review, the Board and the Office of Special Counsel agree that the administrative judge ("AJ") erred in multiple respects. We reverse in part, vacate in part, andremand.
UNITED STATES V. ZHUKOV 2. The Court of Appeals has not held explicitly whose burden it is to establish the existence of a joint venture. E.g., Bary, 978 F. Supp. 2d at 366 (noting that the burden of proof is unsettled in this context). Assuming it is the government's burden, the government need only "show that the United States and foreign law enforcement went no further than providing assistance and sharing RUBALCABA V. GARLAND 7. The Third Circuit reached the same result in Desai v.Attorney General, adopting the Second Circuit's analysis from Zhang.See 695 F.3d 267, 270-71 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing Zhang, 617 F.3d at 665). We note that, post-Kisor, the Third Circuit has called this approach into question.See Ovalle v. Att'y Gen., 791 F. App'x 333, 336 (3d Cir. 2019) ("That reasoning . . . does not survive the Supreme MUSHLAM, INC. V. NAZOR FootNotes 1. Multiple Dwelling Law § 281(5), added by L 2010, ch 135 1 and amended L 2010, ch 147 § 1, expanded the definition of what qualifies as an "interim multiple dwelling" to include buildings located north of West 24th Street, south of West 27th Street, west of Tenth Avenue and east of Eleventh Avenue that were used for residential purposes where three or more families lived UNITED STATES V. SINGH OPINION. PARKER, Circuit Judge.. After a seven-day trial, a jury convicted Harinder Singh ("Singh") of one count of conspiracy to launder money (see 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h)), one count of conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business (see 18 U.S.C. § 371), and one count of operating such a business (see 18 U.S.C. § 1960).The convictions stemmed from Singh's activities as a HERNANDEZ-GALAND V. GARLA Lastly, Ms. Hernandez's opportunity to present her case is not the only consideration at stake here. The IJ also entered an in absentia removal order against Ms. Hernandez's minor child, M.E., who was four years old at the time, and whose presence at the July 12, 2016 hearinghad been waived.
GARCIA V. CASEY
Subsequently, Ms. Garcia and Mr. Revill each filed separate cases against Ms. Casey, Mr. Gilliland, Deputy Ashworth, and. Deputy Ratliff, mainly raising claims under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Ms. Casey and Mr. Gilliland jointly filed motions to dismiss in both cases. 2 The motions are nearly identical,each
THE PLACE TO FIND U. S. LAW, LAWYERS AND OPINIONSFEATURED LAWYERSFEATURED DECISIONSLATEST DECISIONSBROWSE DECISIONSADVANCEDSEARCH
Leagle is a leading provider of United States Court opinions and decisions. Every opinion and decision handed down by the Courts – Trial Courts, Appellate Courts and Supreme Courts, spanning Civil, Criminal, Family, Tax or Bankruptcy litigations are published here daily. Our library is comprehensive and contains over 5 million published and unpublished cases since 1950.The Leagle LawyerBROWSE DECISIONS
Leagle's Browse Published Free Database of all U.S. Court cases by Reporter Series.Leagle's case collection dates back to 1950 for all U.S. State and U.S. Federal Courts. UNITED STATES V. ABDULAZI 4. In a 28(j) letter filed on May 26, 2021 acknowledging Williams, the government points to the concurrence in that case, which concludes that "McNeill 's approach controls here" and that "the overwhelming trend of appellate decisions all point to applying sentencing enhancements using a time-of-conviction rule." Williams, 2021 WL 1149711, at *9-10 (Cook, J., concurring) (collecting cases). TRIMBLE INC. V. PERDIEMCO Trimble Inc. and Innovative Software Engineering, LLC ("ISE") appeal a judgment dismissing their declaratory judgment noninfringement action against PerDiemCo LLC for lack of personal jurisdiction. PerDiemCo is the owner of eleven patents that it accused Trimble and ISE of infringing in letters and other communications sent to Trimble, a HOLLIDAY V. COMMISSIONER PUGH, Judge. In a notice of deficiency dated August 7, 2017, respondent determined the following: 1. Penalty Year Deficiency sec. 6662 (a) 2014 $26,432 1 $5,286 2 1 Respondent increased this deficiency to $44,939 by filing a motion for leave to file amendment to answer pursuant to Rule 41 (a), which we granted on June 3, 2019. 2Respondent
OWENSBY & KRITIKOS, INCOR Owensby's dispute is with application of the second part of the test. It urges rejecting the BRB's ruling because it claims the BRB applied a "but-for" test rejected by the Supreme Court. See Valladolid, 565 U.S. at 221 ("The . . . `but-for' test . . . is also incompatible with1333 (b).").
HUNSTEIN V. PREFERRED COL DOYLE V. DEPARTMENT OF VE On December 27, 2016, Ms. Doyle filed a complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel ("OSC") alleging whistleblower reprisal. J.A. 93, 115. From that point on, she kept the OSC informed of developments, including her subsequent reassignments to other departments. J.A.90-148, 105, 122.
GARCIA V. CASEY
DESIREE D. V. COMMISSIONE DAVID G. LARIMER, District Judge. Plaintiff appeals from a denial of disability benefits by the Commissioner of Social Security ("the Commissioner"). The action is one brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §405 (g) to review the Commissioner's final determination. On June 20, 2016, plaintiff filed applications for a period of disability anddisability
THE PLACE TO FIND U. S. LAW, LAWYERS AND OPINIONSFEATURED LAWYERSFEATURED DECISIONSLATEST DECISIONSBROWSE DECISIONSADVANCEDSEARCH
Leagle is a leading provider of United States Court opinions and decisions. Every opinion and decision handed down by the Courts – Trial Courts, Appellate Courts and Supreme Courts, spanning Civil, Criminal, Family, Tax or Bankruptcy litigations are published here daily. Our library is comprehensive and contains over 5 million published and unpublished cases since 1950.The Leagle LawyerBROWSE DECISIONS
Leagle's Browse Published Free Database of all U.S. Court cases by Reporter Series.Leagle's case collection dates back to 1950 for all U.S. State and U.S. Federal Courts. UNITED STATES V. ABDULAZI 4. In a 28(j) letter filed on May 26, 2021 acknowledging Williams, the government points to the concurrence in that case, which concludes that "McNeill 's approach controls here" and that "the overwhelming trend of appellate decisions all point to applying sentencing enhancements using a time-of-conviction rule." Williams, 2021 WL 1149711, at *9-10 (Cook, J., concurring) (collecting cases). TRIMBLE INC. V. PERDIEMCO Trimble Inc. and Innovative Software Engineering, LLC ("ISE") appeal a judgment dismissing their declaratory judgment noninfringement action against PerDiemCo LLC for lack of personal jurisdiction. PerDiemCo is the owner of eleven patents that it accused Trimble and ISE of infringing in letters and other communications sent to Trimble, a HOLLIDAY V. COMMISSIONER PUGH, Judge. In a notice of deficiency dated August 7, 2017, respondent determined the following: 1. Penalty Year Deficiency sec. 6662 (a) 2014 $26,432 1 $5,286 2 1 Respondent increased this deficiency to $44,939 by filing a motion for leave to file amendment to answer pursuant to Rule 41 (a), which we granted on June 3, 2019. 2Respondent
OWENSBY & KRITIKOS, INCOR Owensby's dispute is with application of the second part of the test. It urges rejecting the BRB's ruling because it claims the BRB applied a "but-for" test rejected by the Supreme Court. See Valladolid, 565 U.S. at 221 ("The . . . `but-for' test . . . is also incompatible with1333 (b).").
HUNSTEIN V. PREFERRED COL DOYLE V. DEPARTMENT OF VE On December 27, 2016, Ms. Doyle filed a complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel ("OSC") alleging whistleblower reprisal. J.A. 93, 115. From that point on, she kept the OSC informed of developments, including her subsequent reassignments to other departments. J.A.90-148, 105, 122.
GARCIA V. CASEY
DESIREE D. V. COMMISSIONE DAVID G. LARIMER, District Judge. Plaintiff appeals from a denial of disability benefits by the Commissioner of Social Security ("the Commissioner"). The action is one brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §405 (g) to review the Commissioner's final determination. On June 20, 2016, plaintiff filed applications for a period of disability anddisability
HOLLIDAY V. COMMISSIONER PUGH, Judge. In a notice of deficiency dated August 7, 2017, respondent determined the following: 1. Penalty Year Deficiency sec. 6662 (a) 2014 $26,432 1 $5,286 2 1 Respondent increased this deficiency to $44,939 by filing a motion for leave to file amendment to answer pursuant to Rule 41 (a), which we granted on June 3, 2019. 2Respondent
TAO V. MERIT SYSTEMS PROT Dr. Debra Tao petitions for review of a decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board ("Board") that dismissed an individual right of action appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On review, the Board and the Office of Special Counsel agree that the administrative judge ("AJ") erred in multiple respects. We reverse in part, vacate in part, andremand.
UNITED STATES V. GATER PER CURIAM.. Jerry L. Gater appeals the district court's 1 order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A). We affirm. Gater was convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine. 2 On March 8, 2016, the district court sentenced Gater, then 59 years old, to a term of imprisonment of 146 months. On March 23, 2020, Gater moved for MUSHLAM, INC. V. NAZOR ORDERED that the part of the motion brought by defendants Maria Nazor and Peter Mickle for leave to renew the court order dated October 15, 2018 and entered October 18, 2018 granting plaintiff Mushlam, Inc. judgment on the ejectment claim (motion sequence no. 24) is granted, and upon granting renewal, the court order dated October 15, 2018 and UNITED STATES V. OWENS United States v. Owens, 426 F.3d 800, 809 (6th Cir. 2005). Following the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), which held that the Sentencing Guidelines were advisory, we remanded Owens's case for resentencing. Owens, 426 F.3d at 809. WILSON V. WELLS FARGO & C Pending before the Court is Defendants Wells Fargo & Co. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s (collectively "Wells Fargo" or "Defendant") motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff Mosanthony Wilson filed an opposition to the motion, and Defendant filed a reply. For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion and stays further proceedings pending SNAPKEYS, LTD. V. GOOGLE On March 19, 2021, Snapkeys filed a motion for a finding of spoliation. ECF No. 99. Specifically, Snapkeys sought a finding that Google had spoliated evidence by discarding Snapkeys' two smartwatches. Id. On March 22, 2021, the Court referred the motion for spoliation to United States Magistrate Judge Virginia DeMarchi. CARTER V. ATRIUM HOSPITAL Joseph Carter, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Atrium Hospitality, Defendant-Appellee. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted: January 12, 2021. Filed May 17, 2021. KELLY, Circuit Judge. Joseph Carter was a Front Desk Clerk at the Sheraton Hotel in West DesMoines, Iowa.
UNITED STATES V. ZHUKOV 2. The Court of Appeals has not held explicitly whose burden it is to establish the existence of a joint venture. E.g., Bary, 978 F. Supp. 2d at 366 (noting that the burden of proof is unsettled in this context). Assuming it is the government's burden, the government need only "show that the United States and foreign law enforcement went no further than providing assistance and sharingGARCIA V. CASEY
Subsequently, Ms. Garcia and Mr. Revill each filed separate cases against Ms. Casey, Mr. Gilliland, Deputy Ashworth, and. Deputy Ratliff, mainly raising claims under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Ms. Casey and Mr. Gilliland jointly filed motions to dismiss in both cases. 2 The motions are nearly identical,each
THE PLACE TO FIND U. S. LAW, LAWYERS AND OPINIONSFEATURED LAWYERSFEATURED DECISIONSLATEST DECISIONSBROWSE DECISIONSADVANCEDSEARCH
Leagle is a leading provider of United States Court opinions and decisions. Every opinion and decision handed down by the Courts – Trial Courts, Appellate Courts and Supreme Courts, spanning Civil, Criminal, Family, Tax or Bankruptcy litigations are published here daily. Our library is comprehensive and contains over 5 million published and unpublished cases since 1950.The Leagle LawyerBROWSE DECISIONS
Leagle's Browse Published Free Database of all U.S. Court cases by Reporter Series.Leagle's case collection dates back to 1950 for all U.S. State and U.S. Federal Courts. UNITED STATES V. ABDULAZI 4. In a 28(j) letter filed on May 26, 2021 acknowledging Williams, the government points to the concurrence in that case, which concludes that "McNeill 's approach controls here" and that "the overwhelming trend of appellate decisions all point to applying sentencing enhancements using a time-of-conviction rule." Williams, 2021 WL 1149711, at *9-10 (Cook, J., concurring) (collecting cases). TRIMBLE INC. V. PERDIEMCO Trimble Inc. and Innovative Software Engineering, LLC ("ISE") appeal a judgment dismissing their declaratory judgment noninfringement action against PerDiemCo LLC for lack of personal jurisdiction. PerDiemCo is the owner of eleven patents that it accused Trimble and ISE of infringing in letters and other communications sent to Trimble, a TAO V. MERIT SYSTEMS PROT Dr. Debra Tao petitions for review of a decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board ("Board") that dismissed an individual right of action appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On review, the Board and the Office of Special Counsel agree that the administrative judge ("AJ") erred in multiple respects. We reverse in part, vacate in part, andremand.
PLAKAS V. DRINSKI
DOYLE V. DEPARTMENT OF VE On December 27, 2016, Ms. Doyle filed a complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel ("OSC") alleging whistleblower reprisal. J.A. 93, 115. From that point on, she kept the OSC informed of developments, including her subsequent reassignments to other departments. J.A.90-148, 105, 122.
OWENSBY & KRITIKOS, INCOR Owensby's dispute is with application of the second part of the test. It urges rejecting the BRB's ruling because it claims the BRB applied a "but-for" test rejected by the Supreme Court. See Valladolid, 565 U.S. at 221 ("The . . . `but-for' test . . . is also incompatible with1333 (b).").
HUNSTEIN V. PREFERRED COL RUBALCABA V. GARLAND Rubalcaba, a native and citizen of Mexico, first came to the United States in 1992 when he was fourteen years old. At some point, Rubalcaba left the United States for Mexico. In 1995, Rubalcaba was apprehended while attempting to re-enter the United States through the San Ysidro Port of Entry. THE PLACE TO FIND U. S. LAW, LAWYERS AND OPINIONSFEATURED LAWYERSFEATURED DECISIONSLATEST DECISIONSBROWSE DECISIONSADVANCEDSEARCH
Leagle is a leading provider of United States Court opinions and decisions. Every opinion and decision handed down by the Courts – Trial Courts, Appellate Courts and Supreme Courts, spanning Civil, Criminal, Family, Tax or Bankruptcy litigations are published here daily. Our library is comprehensive and contains over 5 million published and unpublished cases since 1950.The Leagle LawyerBROWSE DECISIONS
Leagle's Browse Published Free Database of all U.S. Court cases by Reporter Series.Leagle's case collection dates back to 1950 for all U.S. State and U.S. Federal Courts. UNITED STATES V. ABDULAZI 4. In a 28(j) letter filed on May 26, 2021 acknowledging Williams, the government points to the concurrence in that case, which concludes that "McNeill 's approach controls here" and that "the overwhelming trend of appellate decisions all point to applying sentencing enhancements using a time-of-conviction rule." Williams, 2021 WL 1149711, at *9-10 (Cook, J., concurring) (collecting cases). TRIMBLE INC. V. PERDIEMCO Trimble Inc. and Innovative Software Engineering, LLC ("ISE") appeal a judgment dismissing their declaratory judgment noninfringement action against PerDiemCo LLC for lack of personal jurisdiction. PerDiemCo is the owner of eleven patents that it accused Trimble and ISE of infringing in letters and other communications sent to Trimble, a TAO V. MERIT SYSTEMS PROT Dr. Debra Tao petitions for review of a decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board ("Board") that dismissed an individual right of action appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On review, the Board and the Office of Special Counsel agree that the administrative judge ("AJ") erred in multiple respects. We reverse in part, vacate in part, andremand.
PLAKAS V. DRINSKI
DOYLE V. DEPARTMENT OF VE On December 27, 2016, Ms. Doyle filed a complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel ("OSC") alleging whistleblower reprisal. J.A. 93, 115. From that point on, she kept the OSC informed of developments, including her subsequent reassignments to other departments. J.A.90-148, 105, 122.
OWENSBY & KRITIKOS, INCOR Owensby's dispute is with application of the second part of the test. It urges rejecting the BRB's ruling because it claims the BRB applied a "but-for" test rejected by the Supreme Court. See Valladolid, 565 U.S. at 221 ("The . . . `but-for' test . . . is also incompatible with1333 (b).").
HUNSTEIN V. PREFERRED COL RUBALCABA V. GARLAND Rubalcaba, a native and citizen of Mexico, first came to the United States in 1992 when he was fourteen years old. At some point, Rubalcaba left the United States for Mexico. In 1995, Rubalcaba was apprehended while attempting to re-enter the United States through the San Ysidro Port of Entry. DOYLE V. DEPARTMENT OF VE On December 27, 2016, Ms. Doyle filed a complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel ("OSC") alleging whistleblower reprisal. J.A. 93, 115. From that point on, she kept the OSC informed of developments, including her subsequent reassignments to other departments. J.A.90-148, 105, 122.
UNITED STATES V. OWENS United States v. Owens, 426 F.3d 800, 809 (6th Cir. 2005). Following the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), which held that the Sentencing Guidelines were advisory, we remanded Owens's case for resentencing. Owens, 426 F.3d at 809. UNITED STATES V. GATER PER CURIAM.. Jerry L. Gater appeals the district court's 1 order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A). We affirm. Gater was convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine. 2 On March 8, 2016, the district court sentenced Gater, then 59 years old, to a term of imprisonment of 146 months. On March 23, 2020, Gater moved for WILSON V. WELLS FARGO & C Pending before the Court is Defendants Wells Fargo & Co. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s (collectively "Wells Fargo" or "Defendant") motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff Mosanthony Wilson filed an opposition to the motion, and Defendant filed a reply. For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion and stays further proceedings pending SNAPKEYS, LTD. V. GOOGLE On March 19, 2021, Snapkeys filed a motion for a finding of spoliation. ECF No. 99. Specifically, Snapkeys sought a finding that Google had spoliated evidence by discarding Snapkeys' two smartwatches. Id. On March 22, 2021, the Court referred the motion for spoliation to United States Magistrate Judge Virginia DeMarchi. RUBALCABA V. GARLAND Rubalcaba, a native and citizen of Mexico, first came to the United States in 1992 when he was fourteen years old. At some point, Rubalcaba left the United States for Mexico. In 1995, Rubalcaba was apprehended while attempting to re-enter the United States through the San Ysidro Port of Entry.GARCIA V. CASEY
Subsequently, Ms. Garcia and Mr. Revill each filed separate cases against Ms. Casey, Mr. Gilliland, Deputy Ashworth, and. Deputy Ratliff, mainly raising claims under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Ms. Casey and Mr. Gilliland jointly filed motions to dismiss in both cases. 2 The motions are nearly identical,each
CARTER V. ATRIUM HOSPITAL KELLY, Circuit Judge.. Joseph Carter was a Front Desk Clerk at the Sheraton Hotel in West Des Moines, Iowa. In 2017, Atrium Hospitality, which manages the hotel, terminated Carter's employment after an internal investigation found that he allowed a hotel MUSHLAM, INC. V. NAZOR ORDERED that the part of the motion brought by defendants Maria Nazor and Peter Mickle for leave to renew the court order dated October 15, 2018 and entered October 18, 2018 granting plaintiff Mushlam, Inc. judgment on the ejectment claim (motion sequence no. 24) is granted, and upon granting renewal, the court order dated October 15, 2018 and DESIREE D. V. COMMISSIONE DAVID G. LARIMER, District Judge. Plaintiff appeals from a denial of disability benefits by the Commissioner of Social Security ("the Commissioner"). The action is one brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §405 (g) to review the Commissioner's final determination. On June 20, 2016, plaintiff filed applications for a period of disability anddisability
THE PLACE TO FIND U. S. LAW, LAWYERS AND OPINIONSFEATURED LAWYERSFEATURED DECISIONSLATEST DECISIONSBROWSE DECISIONSADVANCEDSEARCH
Leagle is a leading provider of United States Court opinions and decisions. Every opinion and decision handed down by the Courts – Trial Courts, Appellate Courts and Supreme Courts, spanning Civil, Criminal, Family, Tax or Bankruptcy litigations are published here daily. Our library is comprehensive and contains over 5 million published and unpublished cases since 1950.The Leagle Lawyer TRIMBLE INC. V. PERDIEMCO Trimble Inc. and Innovative Software Engineering, LLC ("ISE") appeal a judgment dismissing their declaratory judgment noninfringement action against PerDiemCo LLC for lack of personal jurisdiction. PerDiemCo is the owner of eleven patents that it accused Trimble and ISE of infringing in letters and other communications sent to Trimble, a WILSON V. WELLS FARGO & C Pending before the Court is Defendants Wells Fargo & Co. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s (collectively "Wells Fargo" or "Defendant") motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff Mosanthony Wilson filed an opposition to the motion, and Defendant filed a reply. For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion and stays further proceedings pendingYOUNG V. CAIN
540 F.3d 303 - GEIGER v. CAIN, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. 686 F.3d 281 - BROWN v. EPPS, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. 793 F.3d 513 - GARCIA v. STEPHENS, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. 815 F.3d 228 - U.S. v. DANHACH, UnitedStates Court of
OWENSBY & KRITIKOS, INCOR Owensby's dispute is with application of the second part of the test. It urges rejecting the BRB's ruling because it claims the BRB applied a "but-for" test rejected by the Supreme Court. See Valladolid, 565 U.S. at 221 ("The . . . `but-for' test . . . is also incompatible with1333 (b).").
MUSHLAM, INC. V. NAZOR ORDERED that the part of the motion brought by defendants Maria Nazor and Peter Mickle for leave to renew the court order dated October 15, 2018 and entered October 18, 2018 granting plaintiff Mushlam, Inc. judgment on the ejectment claim (motion sequence no. 24) is granted, and upon granting renewal, the court order dated October 15, 2018 and RUBALCABA V. GARLAND Rubalcaba, a native and citizen of Mexico, first came to the United States in 1992 when he was fourteen years old. At some point, Rubalcaba left the United States for Mexico. In 1995, Rubalcaba was apprehended while attempting to re-enter the United States through the San Ysidro Port of Entry.PLAKAS V. DRINSKI
HUNSTEIN V. PREFERRED COL SLADE V. PROGRESSIVE SECU THE PLACE TO FIND U. S. LAW, LAWYERS AND OPINIONSFEATURED LAWYERSFEATURED DECISIONSLATEST DECISIONSBROWSE DECISIONSADVANCEDSEARCH
Leagle is a leading provider of United States Court opinions and decisions. Every opinion and decision handed down by the Courts – Trial Courts, Appellate Courts and Supreme Courts, spanning Civil, Criminal, Family, Tax or Bankruptcy litigations are published here daily. Our library is comprehensive and contains over 5 million published and unpublished cases since 1950.The Leagle Lawyer TRIMBLE INC. V. PERDIEMCO Trimble Inc. and Innovative Software Engineering, LLC ("ISE") appeal a judgment dismissing their declaratory judgment noninfringement action against PerDiemCo LLC for lack of personal jurisdiction. PerDiemCo is the owner of eleven patents that it accused Trimble and ISE of infringing in letters and other communications sent to Trimble, a WILSON V. WELLS FARGO & C Pending before the Court is Defendants Wells Fargo & Co. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s (collectively "Wells Fargo" or "Defendant") motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff Mosanthony Wilson filed an opposition to the motion, and Defendant filed a reply. For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion and stays further proceedings pendingYOUNG V. CAIN
540 F.3d 303 - GEIGER v. CAIN, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. 686 F.3d 281 - BROWN v. EPPS, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. 793 F.3d 513 - GARCIA v. STEPHENS, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. 815 F.3d 228 - U.S. v. DANHACH, UnitedStates Court of
OWENSBY & KRITIKOS, INCOR Owensby's dispute is with application of the second part of the test. It urges rejecting the BRB's ruling because it claims the BRB applied a "but-for" test rejected by the Supreme Court. See Valladolid, 565 U.S. at 221 ("The . . . `but-for' test . . . is also incompatible with1333 (b).").
MUSHLAM, INC. V. NAZOR ORDERED that the part of the motion brought by defendants Maria Nazor and Peter Mickle for leave to renew the court order dated October 15, 2018 and entered October 18, 2018 granting plaintiff Mushlam, Inc. judgment on the ejectment claim (motion sequence no. 24) is granted, and upon granting renewal, the court order dated October 15, 2018 and RUBALCABA V. GARLAND Rubalcaba, a native and citizen of Mexico, first came to the United States in 1992 when he was fourteen years old. At some point, Rubalcaba left the United States for Mexico. In 1995, Rubalcaba was apprehended while attempting to re-enter the United States through the San Ysidro Port of Entry.PLAKAS V. DRINSKI
HUNSTEIN V. PREFERRED COL SLADE V. PROGRESSIVE SECU THE PLACE TO FIND U. S. LAW, LAWYERS AND OPINIONS Leagle is a leading provider of United States Court opinions and decisions. Every opinion and decision handed down by the Courts – Trial Courts, Appellate Courts and Supreme Courts, spanning Civil, Criminal, Family, Tax or Bankruptcy litigations are published here daily. Our library is comprehensive and contains over 5 million published and unpublished cases since 1950.The Leagle Lawyer UNITED STATES V. CORONA 3 hours ago · NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION. SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judge.. A jury convicted Vicente Corona of narcotics and money laundering conspiracies. He now seeks a sentence reduction under the "compassionate release" statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). UNITED STATES V. WYATT 3 hours ago · NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 ORDER Aaron Wyatt has twice had his supervised20210608099 COOPER V. CITY OF ST. LOU 3 hours ago · LOKEN Circuit Judge. Rodney Cooper appeals the judgment entered after a jury found in favor of the City of St. Louis rejecting his20210608102 TOBIAS-CHAVES V. GARLAND 3 hours ago · OPINION JULIA SMITH GIBBONS Circuit Judge. Alva Tobias Chaves and her daughter Ana Ramos Tobias challenge the jurisdiction ofthe20210608093
UNITED STATES V. MACKETY 3 hours ago · NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION. PER CURIAM.. Alan Andrew Mackety, a federal prisoner proceeding through counsel, appeals the district court's order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). STEWART V. COMMISSIONER O 3 hours ago · STRAS Circuit Judge. Are taxpayers entitled to a new hearing because a revenue officer included notes and correspondenceabout a20210608104
NEWCOMB V. WYNDHAM VACATI 3 hours ago · LOKEN Circuit Judge. Wyndham Vacation Ownership Inc. WVO owns vacation rental properties primarily in Florida and entersinto20210608103
UNITED STATES V. REYNOSO ORDER DENISE COTE District Judge. On May 28 2021 defense counsel informed the Court that the defendant prefers that the June1020210608655
L.C. EX REL. CRUZ V. ALTA 3 hours ago · NOT FOR PUBLICATION MEMORANDUM *. In these companion cases, Alta Loma School District (the District) appeals the district court's decision concluding that the District failed to comply with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., and L.C. (Student) appeals the district court's attorney fees award. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C § 1291, and we THE PLACE TO FIND U. S. LAW, LAWYERS AND OPINIONSFEATURED LAWYERSFEATURED DECISIONSLATEST DECISIONSBROWSE DECISIONSADVANCEDSEARCH
Leagle is a leading provider of United States Court opinions and decisions. Every opinion and decision handed down by the Courts – Trial Courts, Appellate Courts and Supreme Courts, spanning Civil, Criminal, Family, Tax or Bankruptcy litigations are published here daily. Our library is comprehensive and contains over 5 million published and unpublished cases since 1950.The Leagle Lawyer LEAGLE SEARCH DECISIONS Search By Court. Court. -- Select a Court -- US Supreme Court Federal Bankruptcy Court US Tax Court Federal District Court Federal Court of Appeals Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware D.C Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts MichiganBROWSE DECISIONS
Leagle's Browse Published Free Database of all U.S. Court cases by Reporter Series.Leagle's case collection dates back to 1950 for all U.S. State and U.S. Federal Courts. TRIMBLE INC. V. PERDIEMCO Trimble Inc. and Innovative Software Engineering, LLC ("ISE") appeal a judgment dismissing their declaratory judgment noninfringement action against PerDiemCo LLC for lack of personal jurisdiction. PerDiemCo is the owner of eleven patents that it accused Trimble and ISE of infringing in letters and other communications sent to Trimble, aYOUNG V. CAIN
540 F.3d 303 - GEIGER v. CAIN, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. 686 F.3d 281 - BROWN v. EPPS, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. 793 F.3d 513 - GARCIA v. STEPHENS, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. 815 F.3d 228 - U.S. v. DANHACH, UnitedStates Court of
OWENSBY & KRITIKOS, INCOR Owensby's dispute is with application of the second part of the test. It urges rejecting the BRB's ruling because it claims the BRB applied a "but-for" test rejected by the Supreme Court. See Valladolid, 565 U.S. at 221 ("The . . . `but-for' test . . . is also incompatible with1333 (b).").
RUBALCABA V. GARLAND Rubalcaba, a native and citizen of Mexico, first came to the United States in 1992 when he was fourteen years old. At some point, Rubalcaba left the United States for Mexico. In 1995, Rubalcaba was apprehended while attempting to re-enter the United States through the San Ysidro Port of Entry.PLAKAS V. DRINSKI
GARCIA V. CASEY
SLADE V. PROGRESSIVE SECU THE PLACE TO FIND U. S. LAW, LAWYERS AND OPINIONSFEATURED LAWYERSFEATURED DECISIONSLATEST DECISIONSBROWSE DECISIONSADVANCEDSEARCH
Leagle is a leading provider of United States Court opinions and decisions. Every opinion and decision handed down by the Courts – Trial Courts, Appellate Courts and Supreme Courts, spanning Civil, Criminal, Family, Tax or Bankruptcy litigations are published here daily. Our library is comprehensive and contains over 5 million published and unpublished cases since 1950.The Leagle Lawyer LEAGLE SEARCH DECISIONS Search By Court. Court. -- Select a Court -- US Supreme Court Federal Bankruptcy Court US Tax Court Federal District Court Federal Court of Appeals Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware D.C Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts MichiganBROWSE DECISIONS
Leagle's Browse Published Free Database of all U.S. Court cases by Reporter Series.Leagle's case collection dates back to 1950 for all U.S. State and U.S. Federal Courts. TRIMBLE INC. V. PERDIEMCO Trimble Inc. and Innovative Software Engineering, LLC ("ISE") appeal a judgment dismissing their declaratory judgment noninfringement action against PerDiemCo LLC for lack of personal jurisdiction. PerDiemCo is the owner of eleven patents that it accused Trimble and ISE of infringing in letters and other communications sent to Trimble, aYOUNG V. CAIN
540 F.3d 303 - GEIGER v. CAIN, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. 686 F.3d 281 - BROWN v. EPPS, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. 793 F.3d 513 - GARCIA v. STEPHENS, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. 815 F.3d 228 - U.S. v. DANHACH, UnitedStates Court of
OWENSBY & KRITIKOS, INCOR Owensby's dispute is with application of the second part of the test. It urges rejecting the BRB's ruling because it claims the BRB applied a "but-for" test rejected by the Supreme Court. See Valladolid, 565 U.S. at 221 ("The . . . `but-for' test . . . is also incompatible with1333 (b).").
RUBALCABA V. GARLAND Rubalcaba, a native and citizen of Mexico, first came to the United States in 1992 when he was fourteen years old. At some point, Rubalcaba left the United States for Mexico. In 1995, Rubalcaba was apprehended while attempting to re-enter the United States through the San Ysidro Port of Entry.PLAKAS V. DRINSKI
GARCIA V. CASEY
SLADE V. PROGRESSIVE SECUBROWSE DECISIONS
Leagle's Browse Published Free Database of all U.S. Court cases by Reporter Series.Leagle's case collection dates back to 1950 for all U.S. State and U.S. Federal Courts. IN RE PALBOCICLIB ('730) 9 hours ago · ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CENTRALIZE AND TRANSFERRING ONE ACTION TO MDL No. 2912. KAREN K. CALDWELL, Chair.. Before the Panel: Pfizer plaintiffs 1 move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in the District of Delaware. The litigation consists of the eight actions listed on the attached Schedule A, seven in the District of Delaware and one in the Northern District of WestPEOPLE V. ZUZEL
9 hours ago · 2. Though not an accusatory instrument, bills of particulars contain "items of factual information which are not recited in the indictment and which pertain to the offense charged and include the substance of each defendant's conduct encompassed by the charge" (CPL § 200.95).SINGH V. GARLAND
9 hours ago · PER CURIAM.. Gurbhej Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the immigration judge's denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and reliefunder the
IN RE MEDNAX SERVICES, IN 9 hours ago · TRANSFER ORDER. KAREN K. CALDWELL, Chair.. Before the Panel: * Defendants Mednax, Inc.; Mednax Services, Inc.; Pediatrix Medical Group; and Pediatrix Medical Group of Kansas, P.C. (collectively, Mednax) move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in the Southern District of Florida. Alternatively, Mednax does not oppose centralization in the Eastern District of New York,the
JACKSON V. CIRCUIT COURT 1 day ago · † The district court did not consider whether to issue a certificate because it believed, based on Walker v.O'Brien, that one was unnecessary to appeal from the denial of a § 2241 petition.216 F.3d 626, 638 (7th Cir. 2000).But Walker concerns only federal prisoners and inmates who are detained by the state executive branch or subject to § 2253(c)(1)(B).PRIVACY POLICY
Privacy Policy of Leagle.com by Leagle, Inc. a leading provider of copies of primary caselaw from all Federal courts and all State highercourts
THADANI V. 1700 GROUP LLC DECISION ORDER ON MOTION ARTHUR F. ENGORON J.S.C. The following e filed documents listed by NYSCEF document number Motion 00120210602445 TEXAS DEMOCRATIC PARTY V. 1 day ago · 6. Plaintiffs also argue that the Secretary is sufficiently connected to the enforcement of the alleged wet signature rule because the Secretary provides training on election law to certain officials, but they refer only to sections of the Texas Election Code applying to volunteer deputy registrars, rather than the county registrars who actually reject the applications.GARCIA V. CASEY
Subsequently, Ms. Garcia and Mr. Revill each filed separate cases against Ms. Casey, Mr. Gilliland, Deputy Ashworth, and. Deputy Ratliff, mainly raising claims under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Ms. Casey and Mr. Gilliland jointly filed motions to dismiss in both cases. 2 The motions are nearly identical,each
Menu
* Home
* Featured Lawyers
* Featured Decisions* Latest Decisions
* Browse Decisions
* Advanced Search
Welcome to Leagle! Leagle is a leading provider of United States Court opinions and decisions. Every opinion and decision handed down by the Courts – Trial Courts, Appellate Courts and Supreme Courts, spanning Civil, Criminal, Family, Tax or Bankruptcy litigations are published here daily. Our library is comprehensive and contains over 5 million published and unpublished cases since 1950. The Leagle Lawyer directory contains over 150,000 lawyer listings in every area of practise. Many of them are our distinguished “FeaturedLawyers”.
Leagle is _the_ place to find the most appropriate lawyer for any situation, find information on litigations, past and current, or keep you informed on the latest trends in the area of Law, Law Practice orLegal thinking.
RECENT COMMENTS
* AMMARI ELECTRONICS v. PACIFIC BELL DIRECTORY * WESKE v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS, AMERICA, INC. * BROWN v. OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL* U.S. v. GREGORY
* RAMIREZ v. BAXTER CREDIT UNIONMore..
-------------------------FIND A CASE
Advanced Search
FIND A LAWYER
Advanced Search
------------------------- LATEST COURT DECISIONS * CREACH V. COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (March 15, 2020) , United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division. _Case No. 3:18-cv-1253-J-MCR._ * BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS INC. V. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. (March 16, 2020) , United States Court of Appeals, FederalCircuit.
_No. 2019-1172._
* HAFCO FOUNDRY AND MACHINE COMPANY INCORPORATED V. GMS MINE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE, INC. (March 16, 2020) , United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit._No. 2018-1904._
* BERLINER V. GEERS (March 16, 2020) , United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit._No. 19-35057._
* BEMENT V. COX (March 16, 2020) , United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit.
_No. 19-15495._
* IN RE HAMILTON (March 16, 2020) , United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit.
_No. 18-60043._
* BRIGHTON COLLECTIBLES, LLC V. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON (March 16, 2020) , United States Court of Appeals, NinthCircuit.
_No. 18-56403._
* HAMILTON V. BARNES (March 16, 2020) , United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. _Nos. 18-16953, 18-17005._ * UPPER LAKE POMO ASSOCIATION V. UNITED STATES (March 16, 2020) , United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit._No. 18-16764._
* DANIELS V. WALT DISNEY COMPANY (March 16, 2020) , United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit._No. 18-55635._
* BROWN V. STORED VALUE CARDS, INC. (March 16, 2020) , United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit._No. 18-35735._
* RODRIGUEZ V. BARR (March 16, 2020) , United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. _Nos. 18-1531, 18-3164._ * IN RE BRZOWSKI (March 16, 2020) , United States Court of Appeals,Seventh Circuit.
_No. 19-2167._
* MABONEZA V. KINCAID (March 16, 2020) , United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit._No. 19-1925._
* REINAAS V. SAUL (March 16, 2020) , United States Court of Appeals,Seventh Circuit.
_No. 19-1985._
* HAZELTON V. BOARD OF REGENTS FOR UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM (March 16, 2020) , United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit._No. 19-1405._
* HALPERN 2012, LLC V. CITY OF CENTER LINE, MICHIGAN (March 16, 2020) , United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit._No. 19-1921._
* COPE V. LEE (March 16, 2020) , United States Court of Appeals,Sixth Circuit.
_No. 18-5730._
* ARISTONDO-LEMUS V. BARR (March 16, 2020) , United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit._No. 19-3429._
* BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS INC. V. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. (March 16, 2020) , United States Court of Appeals, FederalCircuit.
_No. 2019-1172._
* HAFCO FOUNDRY AND MACHINE COMPANY INCORPORATED V. GMS MINE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE, INC. (March 16, 2020) , United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit._No. 2018-1904._
* CLINE V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE (March 16, 2020) , United States Tax Court. _Docket Nos. 16605-18W, 16947-18W._More..
FEATURED COURT DECISIONS * DANIELS V. WALT DISNEY COMPANY, (March 16, 2020), United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit Whether certain anthropomorphized characters representing human emotions qualify for copyright protection * SELKIRK V. GRASSHOPPER HOUSE, LLC, (March 16, 2020), Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Seven Allegations by former patients of Passages, facilities described as a luxury drug rehab centers, about the efficacy of the treatmentprograms
* DOE S.W. V. LORAIN-ELYRIA MOTEL, INC., (March 16, 2020), United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division A Jane Doe's claims seeking to hold hotels liable under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act and allegations that these hotels knew that sex trafficking occurred frequently on their properties and failed to prevent it * ENVIRONMENTAL LAW & POLICY CENTER V. UNITED STATES COAST GUARD, (March 16, 2020), United States District Court, E.D. Michigan,Northern Division
Whether the U.S. Coast Guard properly developed a plan to deal with worst-case scenario oil spills near the Great Lakes in its Northern Michigan Area Contingency Plan * COAST ACTION GROUP V. CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION, (March 16, 2020), Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Five Challenge of regulations related to timber harvesting operations by nonindustrial landowners * DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, (March 13, 2020), United States District Court, District of Columbia Bid by 19 states, D.C. and New York City to stay a new USDA rule that would limit waivers of work requirements for SNAP food assistance, changes that the federal government estimates will result in nearly 700,000 losing benefits * BRADLEY V. T-MOBILE US, INC., (March 13, 2020), United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division Claim that T-Mobile and Amazon use targeted ads to routinely exclude older individuals from viewing the employment ads they post ontreaty with Belgium
* CHESAPEAKE CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK V. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, (March 13, 2020), United States Court of Appeals, District ofColumbia Circuit
Petition for EPA to reconsider exempting coal- and oil-burning power plant utility boilers' startup periods from limits on hazardous airpollutants
* CASTANON V. UNITED STATES, (March 12, 2020), United States District Court, District of Columbia Suit brought by D.C. registered voters in an effort to secure for themselves the ability to elect voting representatives to the UnitedStates Congress
* ATTORNEY GENERAL V. DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE PLYMOUTH DISTRICT, (March 12, 2020), Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk Dispute over a Boston Globe public records request for information on criminal cases from databases maintained by district attorneys and the Massachusetts attorney general * BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE AT NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW V. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, (March 12, 2020), United States District Court, District of Columbia Dispute over a FOIA seeking all records from a Department of Justice database on public terrorism that distinguishes between types of cases, such as international terrorism, domestic terrorism, hoaxes, terrorist financing, export enforcement and critical infrastructureprotection
* SAS INSTITUTE, INC. V. WORLD PROGRAMMING LIMITED, (March 12, 2020), United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit Issues arising out the enforcement of a $79m judgment reached in an American court under American law, based on damages incurred in America, in favor of U.S.-based SAS against UK-based World ProgrammingLtd.
* LANGE V. MONSTER ENERGY COMPANY, (March 12, 2020), Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division One Monster Energy's appeal of a trial court's conclusion that Monster's arbitration clause within an employment agreement was so permeated with unconscionability that it could not remove the unconscionabilitymerely by severing
* UNITED STATES V. RICKMON, (March 11, 2020), United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit Whether law enforcement may constitutionally stop a vehicle based on an alert from ShotSpotter, a surveillance network of GPS-enabled acoustic sensors that identify gunfire, triangulate its location and then direct officers to it * SIMON V. REPUBLIC OF HUNGARY, (March 11, 2020), United States District Court, District of Columbia Claims against the Republic of Hungary and the Hungarian national railway by 14 Hungarian Jews who were subjected to Holocaustatrocities
* MINNESOTA SANDS, LLC V. COUNTY OF WINONA, (March 11, 2020), Supreme Court of Minnesota Challenge of a zoning ordinance regulating industrial mineraloperations
* DOE V. CITY OF CHICAGO, (March 11, 2020), United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division Claims that the Chicago Fire Department has allowed sexual harassment, sex discrimination and retaliation to be pervasive throughout its firehouses and facilitiesMore..
Copyright © 2020, Leagle, Inc. 2020-03-18T04:00:01-05:00* Disclaimer
* Terms of Use
* Privacy Statement
* Corporate Social Responsibility* About Us
* Contact Us
Details
Copyright © 2024 ArchiveBay.com. All rights reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | DMCA | 2021 | Feedback | Advertising | RSS 2.0